Trinity.

[darinhouston]

I have mentioned before that this sort of debate (trinitarianism, etc.) feels irreverent to me, as if God is an exotic species of creature that I'm trying to taxonomize.

Good observation, but I don't think it's symmetrical. I think this is what largely distinguishes most of the non-trinitarians from most of the trinitarians I've come across. From my perspective, it seems that the "agnostics" are rebelling against the existing taxonomy of the stalwarts/dogmatists. The problem is that John does seem to be telling us something here about the nature of God, and so the struggle to understand it seems reasonable in light of its glaring but (to many) opaque purpose. So, we do need to have the dialogue but with much charity and grace and without dogma.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TheEditor]

I find that if you take Trinitarian passages at all seriously you can't just explain away the Spirit as a force or the Son as only a human: a serious student of Scripture simply cannot do that honestly.

You really need to get out more. Surely you don't believe this? I consider myself a serious student, and I know many others that are serious students that honestly question the conclusions trinitarians have come to on these passages.

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

Everything and anything but God is a weak powerless incapable fallible created thing. . . .We are told to trust nothing but God.

Really. On what do you base this notion that everything and anything but God is powerless? Has he not made His angels ministers of fire? Did they not drag Lot out of Sodom? (Maybe Lot didn't want to listen to them). What about that one angel and those 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night? I'm sure you are overstating the point, but I think that is the underlying problem with your exegesis in general; You read passages so woodenly and literaly that you create legalistic issues where there needn't be. Everytime I give you a counter to your presentation, you don't engage in discussion, you merely parrot more of the same verses about "no other" and etc. Your responses remind me of one who's paradigm is being comprimised and you just repeat a mantra so as to stay in the fold. Do you fear that entertaining a non-trinitarian position in a serious way will put you in danger of blasphemy JR?

What and who is your Jesus?

The Christ, the Son of the Living God. Not complicated JR, not one bit.

Regards, Brenden.

[darinhouston]

I was re-reading FF Bruce's introduction to The Gospel of John. I can't recall if it's this thread or another one, but there was some discussion of the purpose and context of John's preamble. I find it interesting that Bruce (perhaps no better biblical scholar) points out particularly the Qumran finds of the Essenes and the purposeful use by the author of those gnostic concepts in "re-purposing" them to convey the gospel. I wonder had scholars prior to the Qumran finds had this insight whether this dogma would have continued with as much vigor. Nicea might still have ocurred, but it might have been tempered and balanced over the millennia by other scholarship and perhaps even seen today as we Protestants now see some of the uniquely Catholic dogmas.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dizerner]

I find that if you take Trinitarian passages at all seriously you can't just explain away the Spirit as a force or the Son as only a human: a serious student of Scripture simply cannot do that honestly.

You really need to get out more. Surely you don't believe this? I consider myself a serious student, and I know many others that are serious students that honestly question the conclusions trinitarians have come to on these passages.

Regards, Brenden.

Be that as it may, I feel like I've made compelling arguments and haven't heard any compelling arguments against them. I don't think getting out more would change that, but I guess I understand how you feel. I hope we can feel as Scripture says:

Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind

I pray God guides us into the truth that matters—God bless and thanks for the discussion.

[TheEditor]

Be that as it may, I feel like I've made compelling arguments and haven't heard any compelling arguments against them. I don't think getting out more would change that, but I guess I understand how you feel. I hope we can feel as Scripture says:

Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind

I pray God guides us into the truth that matters—God bless and thanks for the discussion.

No problem Dizerner. Thank you!

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

I find it interesting that Bruce (perhaps no better biblical scholar) points out particularly the Qumran finds of the Essenes and the purposeful use by the author of those gnostic concepts in "re-purposing" them to convey the gospel.

Hi Darrin,

This comes second-hand, and I will double check my source just to be sure; but I do trust the source, so I feel safe in saying this. An ex-JW had written to Bruce regarding the trinity doctrine, because he had read a great deal of Bruce and respected him as a scholar. He laid out the fact that he just couldn't make peace with the doctrine and wanted to know if Bruce felt it was a deal-breaker in Christianity. The reply he got was essentially that more was made of it than was warranted. Of course, Bruce wasn't about to be vocal and public on such a heterodox opinion, but the fact he didn't reply to the sincere inquiry with Ligonier Ministry bombast is telling.

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

Everytime I give you a counter to your presentation, you don't engage in discussion, you merely parrot more of the same verses about "no other" and etc. Your responses remind me of one who's paradigm is being comprimised and you just repeat a mantra so as to stay in the fold?

Brenden, this is precisely the reason I have ceased to respond to any of his posts.

[darinhouston]

I find it interesting that Bruce (perhaps no better biblical scholar) points out particularly the Qumran finds of the Essenes and the purposeful use by the author of those gnostic concepts in "re-purposing" them to convey the gospel.

Hi Darrin,

This comes second-hand, and I will double check my source just to be sure; but I do trust the source, so I feel safe in saying this. An ex-JW had written to Bruce regarding the trinity doctrine, because he had read a great deal of Bruce and respected him as a scholar. He laid out the fact that he just couldn't make peace with the doctrine and wanted to know if Bruce felt it was a deal-breaker in Christianity. The reply he got was essentially that more was made of it than was warranted. Of course, Bruce wasn't about to be vocal and public on such a heterodox opinion, but the fact he didn't reply to the sincere inquiry with Ligonier Ministry bombast is telling.

Regards, Brenden.

I would like to hear more about this. Also, what are you referring to on the ligonier bombast?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheEditor]

Hi Darrin,

I was being tongue-in-cheek. Ligonier Ministries is RC Sproul's outfit, and everytime I hear him on the radio it reminds me of every bombastic District Overseer I had the misfortune of dealing with when I was a JW.

Regards, Brenden.