Trinity

[Free]

My scholarly Christian friends agree with you to a man. Except one. Some are Catholics. I expect such a response from them. It's according to their Tradition. And they add a very reasonable corollary. There has to be an authoritative interpreter. Otherwise one ends up with chaos. And almost 500 years of Protestantism has proven them right. So why am I not a Catholic? I guess because the one who originally gave me a Bible to read was a Protestant. Who never once indicated he believed in interpretation. He gave me the Bible and said read it. What you need to know is there. He was a Baptist. If he still lived, I would ask his advice on how to deal with this kind of situation. He didn't tell me while he was alive. So I deal with it the best I can. Obviously everyone on this forum agrees with you. At least no one has said otherwise.

The irony of the whole situation is that you have interpreted the Bible, even while denying it. I am quite certain that your Baptist friend would have agreed with me. It is only because you don't understand what interpretation is that you think one can read it without interpreting it at some level. But you have unknowingly proved my point more than once in these forums. I could prove it to you but I guess I expect people to actually put some thought into the matter and figure it out for themselves.

There's a difference?

I suppose not since once the deity of the Holy Spirit is implied once the argument to the deity of Jesus is made.

I really hate it when Christians are so predictable. Especially right after I tell them what they will do. And you did exactly what I said you would do. I take no pleasure in that.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here. I know it's not possible. A couple of billion strong not possible.

But this being one of the two things of importance to me. In relation to Christianity. What you said was just a natural stepping stone.

I really don't know what you are referring to here. No one has said you are trying to change peoples' minds.

How could I pass up such an opportunity? I had to put it out there. How unreasonable it is to follow an interpreted Bible. In the exact way that I did. I know the rest is out of my hands.

If that nonsense was your silly attempt at trying to show "how unreasonable it is to follow an interpreted Bible," then it once again shows that you do not understand what interpretation is, nor how one goes about deeper interpretation.

If I'm wrong and you're right, then I have to acknowledge the Bible isn't what it's claimed to be. The written word of God. Can't be. It's just more writings of men. Deceitful men? Don't know. I doubt that many religious writings are purposefully written with the intention to deceive. Maybe what they wrote seemed real to them at the time. Just like your interpretations seem real to you right now. I don't see any indication that it's your purpose to deceive. Any more than I think you are unsaved simply because you choose to believe in an interpretation or that interpretation is inevitable. I said that for effect. Think about it kind of an effect. Using your kind of argument.

Having to interpret Scripture, or rather being unable to avoid interpreting it, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Bible is the word of God.

You've only made a statement. Impossible to read the Bible without interpreting it. And since I'm the one who says that the Bible can be understood without adding any interpretations, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the additions of interpretations are necessary.

I'm not saying that interpretations of the Bible are necessary, although there are many times when it is, I'm saying that the very act of reading it is to interpret it at a basic level.

You've never tried to prove it. I don't think you can.

I will, right below.

Any more than you can prove a Triune God should or did use personal pronouns to refer to himself.

Voila! Proven by your statement. Such personal pronouns in the OT are statements of monotheism, not necessarily the nature of God. But you have interpreted the OT to say that God isn't triune, despite there actually being nothing in the OT that precludes God from being triune, and despite the NT making it fairly clear that he is.

Because the Bible plus interpretation can't be thought by any rational man to be the Bible alone.

In a sense you are correct. There is absolutely no way for anyone to get the fullness of Scripture without interpreting it in the way you are thinking. There is a need for deep and thorough interpretation but there is no way for it to ever be completely objective. But even at a basic level of interpretation, which we all do, it still is subjective. That's just the nature of reading the Bible and it in no way whatsoever means that the Bible isn't the word of God.


If you have iTunes, I highly recommend listening to these: https://itunes.apple.com/ca/itunes-u/principles-for-biblical-interpretation/id426800662?mt=10

There are also three broadcasts here on biblical interpretation, on the right hand side, which you can listen to online: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/

 

[Free]

Deborah13 #36


Needs no interpretation when understood according to context.

Aha! Here you have just made a claim of the need for interpretation while at the same time saying no interpretation is needed. See, it's inescapable.

 

[Jesse Stone]

"By faith I accept what God has told us; setting aside intellect, reason, common sense, logic; as those things cause a man to define his own god."

unquote Gregg #622 "Proof of Trinity" thread

This has got to be the best definition of Christian thinking that I've ever seen. Christians will believe what they believe in spite of all evidence and reason to the contrary. Even when that belief contradicts the belief of their fellow believers. Which happens a lot if thousands of Christian denominations is any indication. That is where interpretation has led them. So far as I'm concerned (not that it means anything to a Christian), other than the Evolutionists are more united in their belief, there isn't one iota of difference between a Christian and a modern scientist who believes that the "fact" of Evolution proves believing in a creator God is a delusion. The faith is the same. Faith in their own interpretations. The irony is that in order to formulate an interpretation, one has to use in some sense the intellect, reason, logic, and hopefully some iota of common sense. And then they lose it all by believing the interpretation they have created is the objective truth. And if the Bible is really the written word of God, it says in many different ways that God eventually will give them up to believe what they will. Leading to their own destruction. It isn't any more reasonable to believe like a Calvinist. But I think I understand better why they believe it. And why the need for even greater certainty than can be had by interpretation of the Bible alone might drive a Calvinist (like Scott Hahn) to convert to Catholicism.


Free

Aha? heh, heh, heh. Very good Free.

You have proven nothing. Except perhaps to yourself and anyone who thinks like you. And since no one has said any different, and since the only voices other than your own that have spoken on this thread agree with you, I assume that includes most everyone on this forum. Not surprising to me. Since this is after all a Christian forum.

Interpretation is the practice of the natural man. It can't prove anything other than what the natural man can understand. Actually, the Trinitarian idea is quite understandable to the natural man, if he bothers to take the time to understand it. Anyone who can understand an idea conceived by a science fiction writer will easily understand the Trinity.

When I see the opening statement of the Bible, I take it for what it says. I don't try to embellish it, interpreting it to mean something it does not. Do I believe what it says? The fact that I'm an Agnostic, made so by Christian interpretations, answers that question. I want to believe it. But am prevented by Christian interpretations. To me that's the fault of Christians. To you, a Christian, I just want to believe what I want to believe. Really there isn't anything more to say. Unless there's something more you would like to add.

 

[Free]

"By faith I accept what God has told us; setting aside intellect, reason, common sense, logic; as those things cause a man to define his own god."

unquote Gregg #622 "Proof of Trinity" thread

This has got to be the best definition of Christian thinking that I've ever seen. Christians will believe what they believe in spite of all evidence and reason to the contrary.

While I disagree with what was said, to say that "Christians will believe what they believe in spite of all evidence and reason to the contrary," is to not only call the kettle black, it is to make a fallacious generalization regarding Christians. Not to mention that it is simply human nature to do so, regardless of what is being discussed. You have been given some very good reason evidence and reasoning as to the triune nature of God, yet you believe what you want to believe without even addressing the arguments. At least I have given what I believe are reasonable answers to your assertions, yet you do not give the same courtesy to those you disagree with.

Let's try this again:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

1. What does a plain reading of the text tell you?
2. Do you agree that if "all things were made through [the Word, the Son]" and that "without him was not anything made that was made," that the only logical conclusion is that the Word (the Son) could not have been made? If he was made, or in other words did not exist at some point in time, then John just told a lie (as did Paul, twice).

Even when that belief contradicts the belief of their fellow believers. Which happens a lot if thousands of Christian denominations is any indication. That is where interpretation has led them.

Not only are you still wrong about being able to read the Bible without interpreting it, you fail to understand how difficult some passages of the Bible are to understand and which require much more in-depth interpretation, which is probably more along your too narrow view of what interpretation is.

And it must be pointed out that you are far from the first one on these forums which claim we should "just read the Bible and believe it," or "all we need is the Holy Spirit." Yet, yet, all those before who have made that claim couldn't agree on some fairly significant things. It is far too a naive view of the interaction between the reader and the text of the Bible. So very clearly then, there is something wrong with just "read the Bible and believe it." And what is wrong is what is wrong with all else--it is impossible to read the Bible without interpreting it.

Free

Aha? heh, heh, heh. Very good Free.

You have proven nothing. Except perhaps to yourself and anyone who thinks like you.

No, I clearly proved that you interpret Scripture despite your claim that you don't and that we shouldn't. I will reiterate that it is impossible to not interpret the Bible at some level, even just by the fact of reading it. You need to think about that more deeply, rather than rejecting it outright.

And since no one has said any different, and since the only voices other than your own that have spoken on this thread agree with you, I assume that includes most everyone on this forum. Not surprising to me. Since this is after all a Christian forum.

Actually, if you read some of the responses after my first statement on the matter, you will see that some, although not responding directly to me, seemed to disagree.

Interpretation is the practice of the natural man. It can't prove anything other than what the natural man can understand.

Says who? What support do you have for such a claim?

Actually, the Trinitarian idea is quite understandable to the natural man, if he bothers to take the time to understand it. Anyone who can understand an idea conceived by a science fiction writer will easily understand the Trinity.

And your point is what? Do you think that that means the Trinity is of "the natural man"? Do you not think that "the natural man" will also be able to understand a God that isn't triune? Is that not even easier for a "natural man" to understand?

When I see the opening statement of the Bible, I take it for what it says. I don't try to embellish it, interpreting it to mean something it does not. Do I believe what it says? The fact that I'm an Agnostic, made so by Christian interpretations, answers that question. I want to believe it. But am prevented by Christian interpretations. To me that's the fault of Christians. To you, a Christian, I just want to believe what I want to believe. Really there isn't anything more to say. Unless there's something more you would like to add.

Me being a Christian has nothing to do with thinking that you just want to believe what you want to believe. It's your lack of actual engagement with the evidence presented to you and your unwillingness to listen to sound reasoning on the matter. I take it that you haven't listened to any of the material I linked to? Anyone interested in the truth will listen to them, just as anyone interested in the truth of a matter will go all sources and weigh all the evidence so as to make an informed judgement. The ones by Dr. James Voelz in particular will bring a lot of light to the matter of biblical interpretation and some of the issues involved.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Free #44 Part 1

Let's try this again:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

1. What does a plain reading of the text tell you?
2. Do you agree that if "all things were made through [the Word, the Son]" and that "without him was not anything made that was made," that the only logical conclusion is that the Word (the Son) could not have been made? If he was made, or in other words did not exist at some point in time, then John just told a lie (as did Paul, twice)

"At least I have given what I believe are reasonable answers to your assertions, yet you do not give the same courtesy to those you disagree with."

There's that critical ad hominem thinking again. I'm beginning to think you really don't know you're doing it. It's become so much a part of you. Makes me think there's no point.

But if you insist, and since I haven't anything better to do at the moment:

If Jesus is God, then the usual understanding of these verses by Trinitarians is sufficiently reasonable.

I reiterate (because I think I've already said this, maybe on a different forum) my view of that passage if Jesus isn't God. It's not the typical non-Trinitarian view.

1 The Word is a function, not a person or an essence. The word is thus both God as the source of the word and the Son of God to whom the word has been given. The word as a function became flesh in the Son. That is, whereas before the word was given to man through prophets (sometimes angels), the Word came in a different way through the Son. As part of his person. Because all the fullness of God is pleased to dwell within him. That is never said of any Old Testament prophet. That is the difference that is portrayed throughout the letter to the Hebrews. The word came in the flesh. And why the allusion in Hebrews 1:1-2 is so similar to what is said in John 1:1-3.

The son is not "a god". The son is the divine son of God. As partaking of the divine nature by believers does not make the believers God or Gods, so also the divine nature of the Son does not make the son God or a separate God.

2 The Son was not made or created, he was generated at a specific point in eternity. When he was generated is not revealed. There was a point in eternity that he did not exist. A point in eternity that is prior to the beginning of time as we understand it. Otherwise you have a relationship that makes no sense in relation to father and son. You have to consider what the beginning is referring to. It can't be the beginning of eternity, because eternity has no beginning and no end. I think the beginning is the beginning of time. When the universe or the earth was created. I don't remember if I brought this up on the forum. But regarding the issue regarding the Old Earth vs. young earth, I think the earth is young. Around fifteen thousand years. The universe is old. Young earth, old universe. I haven't met anyone who doesn't say either old earth old universe or young earth young universe. Neither of which is persuasive to me.

The son isn't the first created angel (the "to which" passage in Hebrews).

Colossians 1:15 is taken out of context and misunderstood by Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians alike. Jesus isn't the firstborn of all believers. Nor is he the first creation of the universe. Just prior to Paul saying that he is "the firstborn of all creation" (ESV, I think the correct translation), he says "he is the image of the invisible God". In context the two go together. It means exactly what is said in John. Jesus is the only begotten of the Father. God generated the Son, and is the firstborn of all of creation. Particularly that portion of man who are sons of God in Christ. All of mankind are sons of God in Adam.

The Holy Spirit proceeds out of the father. Alone. The West is mistaken on that issue. That he proceeds out of the father and the son. The Spirit is sent by both the father and the son. After the ascension. So there was a time the Holy Spirit didn't exist. When was that? Don't know. We need to be careful not to try to know more than what's revealed. Or we may start contemplating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

This has no bearing on the issue of whether or not angels were at the creation of the earth. What it does suggest is that the son was there as part of the process. Created through the son. In order for that to make sense you have to know my understanding of the Genesis creation account. Which is perhaps more similar to the Gap theory than anything else, But is not the gap theory. For to me Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 follow each other naturally apart from there being some kind of gap between the two. Try to understand what I'm saying before you dismiss it out of hand.

Genesis says God created the heavens and the earth. This could be a statement of the creation of the universe. But the word translated as heavens, is elsewhere translated as "air" (Genesis 1:28 KJV, RSV, NIV) or "sky" (NASB, NCV). ESV and Darby translates this as "heavens" in this verse. ESV translates this word as "air" in Exodus 9:8 & 10. Darby seems to be the only one who translates this word consistently as heaven.

The point is that Genesis 1:1 may not be a reference to the creation of the universe at all. This passage may be in toto just a reference to that which has to do with man, the earth. From Genesis 1:2 on the reference is obviously to the earth and its inhabitants. I think from the view of one standing on the earth so that man can understand it. Science fiction is a recent phenomena. That kind of thinking didn't commonly exist fifty years ago. Star Trek and Star Wars changed all that. Hence, the necessity to describe events in a way that could be understood by generations of man. Genesis 1:16 is hard to understand in English translations because of a Traditional mistranslation. I only say here that it isn't a reference to the creation of the stars.

And I know you didn't accept this when I said it before. But When God creates, it necessarily excludes him from being a part of the creation. So also the Son. Creator and Creation are separate, unless one wishes to think of it like pantheism or whatever ism it is that thinks God and the universe is the same.

Not only are you still wrong about being able to read the Bible without interpreting it, you fail to understand how difficult some passages of the Bible are to understand and which require much more in-depth interpretation, which is probably more along your too narrow view of what interpretation is.

Interpretation--An explanation of something that is not immediately obvious. (WordWeb Dictionary)

This definition I think fits what is generally regarded as interpretation relating to a written document. It's an action of the mind alone. Has nothing to do with the Spirit. Unless the teaching of the Son through the Spirit (Colossians) is interpreted. Then the interpretation just replaces what would have otherwise been learned.

I guess a Biblical exposition would be necessary if one was having a hard time understanding the Bible. And so long as the exposition is a clear explanation of the text, rather than an interpretation of it, it might be helpful. Understanding what the Bible says hasn't really been much of a problem for me. For the most part it's very straightforward. I've had a few problems (rare) where a mistranslation led me to think it said something it didn't. I don't know Hebrew. I understand Greek. Even better with a little help from my friends. I don't even have that much trouble understanding doctrinal issues. I've talked to many people from different denominations. People tend to be pretty good at explaining their own doctrines. And I have Gruden's "Systematic Theology". He's good at giving several points of view before giving his own. Which helps as a quick reference. If you don't have that volume, it would be worth your while to get it. I think Christianbooks.com has it on sale at the moment for twenty bucks. Pretty cheap for a volume that size.

In summary: interpretation is a common way to know most things. Especially understanding documents where the author isn't present. But supposedly, Christians don't have the same situation regarding their Bible. First, the Bible isn't just another writing of man, or so they say. They constantly contradict what they say by constant interpretation. Second, most Christians acknowledge the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But they seem to understand that as if he isn't there for any practical purpose. Interpretation gives that impression.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Free #44 Part 2

And it must be pointed out that you are far from the first one on these forums which claim we should "just read the Bible and believe it," or "all we need is the Holy Spirit." Yet, yet, all those before who have made that claim couldn't agree on some fairly significant things. It is far too a naive view of the interaction between the reader and the text of the Bible. So very clearly then, there is something wrong with just "read the Bible and believe it." And what is wrong is what is wrong with all else--it is impossible to read the Bible without interpreting it.

Naive to believe the Bible may be clear and that the indwelling of the Spirit and his purpose may be true? Wow! Well, I guess if your experience of the Bible has been difficult at best, and you haven't really experienced the guidance of the son through the Spirit, I guess you could think it's naive. And if you are looking to how others have botched the matter, instead of just looking at your self and what you need to do, I guess that would make it seem even more naive. With me it was different. I can't speak from an inside experience like you can. I was not let in to begin with. It's kind of like Catholics saying they need more priests, then making it as hard as possible for one to be one. Christians talk conversion, but only on their own terms. They think it's on the same terms allowed by Christ. But it's just their own terms.

There are several Protestant denominations who think they have the true first century Church. I've experienced a couple. Churches of Christ for one. Yet if you stay around them for a time, it becomes clear that the difference between them and any other Protestant Church amounts to no Instruments allowed in the 'Worship Service'. In every other way they are the same. But they are among those you mentioned. Thinking they don't interpret the Bible. That they're just being guided by the Spirit. So its not like I don't know what you're talking about.

Obviously, you've had a worse reaction to the effect of denominational thinking than I have. And now you think "it is impossible to read the Bible without interpreting it." And I suppose you've given your life over to that idea. I wish I had an answer for you other than what I've already said. Something that would push the right buttons and help you overcome the bias you've built up for yourself. But that's not in my job description. When I speak concerning what I think is true, when it is true, it is objective truth. When my understanding is unclear, it's liable to be my own opinion. Thing is, I can tell the difference and will say I don't know. Rather than stumble someone needlessly. Or flaunt myself in some unnecessary way. Like in the case of those two verses you brought up that seem to be clear references to God and the Son being the same. I think it was you. Teddy Trueblood gave an interesting answer to that problem. Interesting in my opinion at least.

Jesse said:
You have proven nothing. Except perhaps to yourself and anyone who thinks like you.
Free said:
No, I clearly proved that you interpret Scripture despite your claim that you don't and that we shouldn't. I will reiterate that it is impossible to not interpret the Bible at some level, even just by the fact of reading it. You need to think about that more deeply, rather than rejecting it outright.

Rephrase: You have proven nothing to me. You're not alone. I've heard it before. Countless times. I was on Catholic forums, remember? That whole religion is based on interpretations. That they think is the word of God. I've already thought about it. Very deeply. I didn't just reject outright or overnight. It took me some time just to understand what happened, let alone understanding why it's that way and the Bible's alternative position on what happened. I didn't just come up with that as a defense mechanism in reaction to rejection. You have no idea how close I came to thinking the Atheists had it right all along. And thinking that my own conversion experience, such as it was, was all in my head. As it is I doubt the experience, thanks to Christian denial that it has happened yet.

Not to worry. It may still come to that. Then you'll be talking to an Atheist who thinks like Richard Dawkins. Religious people oppose obvious truth and are sick in the head to do so. Evil actually. They should all be killed or neutered. To teach a child religion is true is tantamount to child abuse. Bet you didn't know I knew what Richard Dawkins thinks. One of my favorite Atheists Neil degrasse Tyson had a run in with Dawkins once. Dawkins tried to say what he said in as nice a way as possible. But in the end it wasn't very pretty. And Tyson, who's a big former football player backed down rather than carry it further. I for one respect him for that. And lost what little respect I had for Dawkins. It's on YouTube if you want to see it first hand. A two or three minute segment as I remember.

Actually, if you read some of the responses after my first statement on the matter, you will see that some, although not responding directly to me, seemed to disagree.

If they did, I didn't notice.

Jesse Stone said:
Interpretation is the practice of the natural man. It can't prove anything other than what the natural man can understand.
Free said:
Says who? What support do you have for such a claim?

Should be obvious. Don't know what kind of "support" you'd accept.

Jesse Stone said:

Actually, the Trinitarian idea is quite understandable to the natural man, if he bothers to take the time to understand it. Anyone who can understand an idea conceived by a science fiction writer will easily understand the Trinity.

Free said:

And your point is what? Do you think that that means the Trinity is of "the natural man"? Do you not think that "the natural man" will also be able to understand a God that isn't triune? Is that not even easier for a "natural man" to understand?

My point is only what I said. Either position would be easy to understand. Doesn't suggest either is exclusively out of the mind of man without basis in the Bible. One's own belief in either view might suggest the other view is out of the mind of man instead of the Bible. My point is that the Trinity isn't as hard to understand as some (Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian) make it out to be. Whether hard or easy to understand, that isn't the criteria for truth. To me the Trinitarian view is easy to understand. I understand more than one version of the Trinity. I only question it's veracity.

It's your lack of actual engagement with the evidence presented to you and your unwillingness to listen to sound reasoning on the matter.

I think I've been sufficiently vociferous. What is evidence to you may not be to me. Your answer to my problem with the Trinity I answered. I guess you didn't like the answer. You never did tell me what your updated version of your answer was. Hard to engage when there's nothing on which to engage. And you really need to consider that what you regard as sound reasoning may not be to someone else and just let it go when someone doesn't get or disagrees with your drift. Or try again with different wording.

I take it that you haven't listened to any of the material I linked to? Anyone interested in the truth will listen to them, just as anyone interested in the truth of a matter will go all sources and weigh all the evidence so as to make an informed judgement. The ones by Dr. James Voelz in particular will bring a lot of light to the matter of biblical interpretation and some of the issues involved.

I assume you're referring to the links on #41. Don't have Itunes. Your link to Whitehorseinn took me to what seemed to be "home". Nothing having to do with interpretation readily available, and I didn't feel like searching the site. I have read some pretty decent books on interpretation from a Protestant perspective. Entertaining. One thing I learned was that Protestant writers have their own methods of interpretation that don't always agree with one another. Understandable, considering Protestantism is the epitome example of denominationalism. And evidence that interpretation is of the mind alone. I don't expect you to agree.

I don't think I've read anything by Michael Horton (Whitehorseinn). I have read a couple of books by another popular Reformed writer, James White. On the Trinity and the KJV. I found him to be unpersuasive and at times unreasonable. And some by R. C. Sproul. He says some interesting things, though I don't agree with Calvinism. And John MacArthur who's Reformed in everything except his futurism. Some of the things MacArthur says could almost persuade one to become a Catholic. I have Riddlebarger's book on Amillennialism that I found interesting, though I tend to lean toward something like a premillennial view. Never heard of James Voelz.

 

[Butch5]

Does one have to believe in the trinity to be saved?



I have read through some of the recent responses on different threads and it seems to be implied that some believe, if one does not believe in the trinity, that person is not saved.


What say you?

I think if one understands the Gospel it will lead them to believe in the Trinity. However, that is not the Trinity doctrine that is popular today.