How to defend the trinity!

[SovereignGrace]

If you read the last few vss of Matthew 3 you can see the Trinity.

 

[Walpole]

I agree. The Trinity is truth, and I cannot see that truth needs to be defended. From what could truth ever need to be defended? Like your Rambam quote expresses in essence, truth has always been truth, and is never going to quit being truth, despite what anyone ever says (or omits to say) or does (or omits to do). Truth ought to be meditated upon and proclaimed, but even then, it's still going to be truth whether or not it's meditated upon or proclaimed.

If you are not willing to acknowledge and defend the truth, then you are surrendering to and thus implicitly advocating for subjectively.

 

[stovebolts]

If you are not willing to acknowledge and defend the truth, then you are surrendering to and thus implicitly advocating for subjectively.

I believe Jesus wasn’t shy in expressing the truth. Neither should we. However, I don’t recall Jesus ever debating it let alone spending the bulk of his time railing against those who disagreed with him.

.02

 

[Walpole]

I believe Jesus wasn’t shy in expressing the truth. Neither should we. However, I don’t recall Jesus ever debating it let alone spending the bulk of his time railing against those who disagreed with him.

.02

You don't recall all the debates Jesus had with the Pharisees?

See:
Mt. 19:3-9
Mark 7:1-23
Mark 11:27-12:17
John 8:30-47

I could go on and on.

 

[T. E. Smith]

I agree. The Trinity is truth, and I cannot see that truth needs to be defended. From what could truth ever need to be defended? Like your Rambam quote expresses in essence, truth has always been truth, and is never going to quit being truth, despite what anyone ever says (or omits to say) or does (or omits to do). Truth ought to be meditated upon and proclaimed, but even then, it's still going to be truth whether or not it's meditated upon or proclaimed.

Amen.
When I look at the examples of Jesus, he did not spend the bulk of his time defending himself or proving others wrong. Instead, I see Jesus spending the overwhelming majority of his time with people who had eyes and ears to receive what He had to offer.
I think it’s good decipleship to behave in the way Jesus behaved.

I see no specific scripture citations, but I can cite several to refute you:

It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel. Philippians 1:7 (ESV)

I am put here for the defense of the gospel. Philippians 1:16 (ESV)

In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect. 1 Peter 3:15 (ESV)

Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. Jude 1:3 (ESV)

I am sure you know of 1 Peter and Jude. Philippians 1's verses are not so famous. But how do you reconcile your view with these various verses?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

If you are not willing to acknowledge and defend the truth, then you are surrendering to and thus implicitly advocating for subjectively.

Well, like I said previously: Defend the truth from what?

I clearly stated that the truth should be proclaimed, so I'd hope you're not trying to imply that I am advocating unwillingness to acknowledge the truth, since, obviously, one's proclamation of the truth necessarily entails one's acknowledgement of it. One cannot proclaim the truth without acknowledging the truth.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I see no specific scripture citations, but I can cite several to refute you

I stated that the truth should be proclaimed, and you want to refute that? According to you, then, should the truth not be proclaimed? In not one of the passages you cited do we find any exhortation or recommendation against proclaiming the truth.

 

[stovebolts]

I see no specific scripture citations, but I can cite several to refute you:




I am sure you know of 1 Peter and Jude. Philippians 1's verses are not so famous. But how do you reconcile your view with these various verses?

I think your misunderstanding what I’ve written. The key word is “bulk”, as in majority. There is a difference. Also, I don’t recall Jesus arguing topics ad-nasium either.

 

[Walpole]

Well, like I said previously: Defend the truth from what?

From error.

I clearly stated that the truth should be proclaimed, so I'd hope you're not trying to imply that I am advocating unwillingness to acknowledge the truth, since, obviously, one's proclamation of the truth necessarily entails one's acknowledgement of it. One cannot proclaim the truth without acknowledging the truth.

Then why would you be opposed to defending the truth?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

From error.

By "error," do you mean wrong thinking?

Then why would you be opposed to defending the truth?

What do you mean by "defending the truth"?

Let's consider the proposition, P. Let's say that P is true—that P is truth. Can you give an example of what you would say it is to "defend the truth"—can you describe just what you'd be doing in "defending the truth" of P? What would you need to do to "defend the truth"?

 

[jasonc]

I know this debate

 

[God Is My Judge]

You cannot arrive at orthodox Trinitarian theology using sola Scriptura.

?

 

[T. E. Smith]

By "error," do you mean wrong thinking?

What do you mean by "defending the truth"?

Let's consider the proposition, P. Let's say that P is true—that P is truth. Can you give an example of what you would say it is to "defend the truth"—can you describe just what you'd be doing in "defending the truth" of P? What would you need to do to "defend the truth"?

One can provide experiential evidence or philosophical reasoning to defend the truth of a proposition. It seems that you're being intentionally insufferable.

 

[stovebolts]

You don't recall all the debates Jesus had with the Pharisees?

See:
Mt. 19:3-9
Mark 7:1-23
Mark 11:27-12:17
John 8:30-47

I could go on and on.

Let me rephase my original answer.
The Jews debated in a much different form than early Greeks of their time. let alone how we "debate" today or as some here on this site consider "debate" which for many can the form of divide and conquer as a means to rule over others. The current ideology within the US culture is far from core in Jewish thought or ideology on the matter. And yes, even though Jesus spoke in a manner that most might deem as "divide and conquer" in Matthew 10:34-39, it was more of a division than a conquering based on those who had ears to hear and eyes to see what Jesus both was saying and doing. We know this because Jesus did not conquer the pharisees, let alone the Roman Empire who had the authority and means to crucify Jesus and he certainly never elevated himself above any of them as a means to rule over them.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that within Jewish culture of Jesus day, the main object in debating was not to be "right", but rather the main object was focused on finding and following truth. In other words, being wrong was not considered a bad thing because truth was held above pride, nor did it mean any of the things we currently tag against our theological opponent such as demonizing others with differing views which has rightly been the demise of Christianity within the USA.
I would also say that today, we debate / divide more over high theological views such as the Trinity, OSAS etc than we do actual behavior of others. This can be seen within the verses you posted. The "testing" is based on how one lives their life according to Torah. Ironically, there are even several places where Jesus agrees with his "opponents" and in one instance tells the one testing him, "You are not far from the kingdom of heaven".

As a side note, two days ago I heard to attorneys speaking to one another who were skilled in the art of debate. One was saying how she would read her bible and allowed the Holy Spirit to give her personal revelation. She sounded so spiritual and was full of passion over the matter. However, she then started talking about another topic and not only was she using foul language, but her actions toward her "opponent" were against biblical principals in how to treat others. For me, this verifies that many are seeking the "spiritual and theological high ground" and completely ignoring the commands on how we are to live our lives and treat others.

 

[T. E. Smith]

One was saying how she would read her bible and allowed the Holy Spirit to give her personal revelation. She sounded so spiritual and was full of passion over the matter.

I have always been skeptical of this because it seems like a free pass to get your case in without any evidence. The person is saying something like, "I've received this directly from the Spirit", and who wants to argue with the Spirit?

I have always been a debater and have informally debated numerous topics with many people since I was young, but whenever someone appeals to direct revelation from the Spirit to them to support their case (which has not happened often, but a few times), I shut the argument down.

 

[T. E. Smith]

You cannot arrive at orthodox Trinitarian theology using sola Scriptura.

Very true.

 

[T. E. Smith]

I dont recognize those newer translations. They tend to leave out verses.


For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:7 KJV


For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
1 John 5:7 NKJV


If your study of scripture leads you to conclude that the Eternal Godhead, the Elohim is not Three, then so be it.





JLB

No, they don't "leave out" verses. The later, far less reliable manuscripts, such as are relied upon by the KJV and (sadly) the NKJV, add in verses that are nearly universally conceded to not have been written by the original authors.

What do you mean by how you "don't recognize" the translations? Don't recognize them as legitimate?

 

[Randy]

Is Christ the savior?
Is Christ eternal?

Yes, but why/how is that so?
THE FATHER's WILL
Col 1:19-20
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

 

[Cooper]

What is hard to understand?

The Chief Executive, Head of Government, Diplomat, and Economic Manager are One.

This is the ONE President of America.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Did Jesus say He was not " good ", or did He say He was God ?

Mar 10:18
"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."