Jesus: Son of God?

Scholar in training · Jan 28, 2006

2ducklow said:
Thanks for the explanations. I had a hard time understanding very much of what Gregg was saying. Felt like my brain was smoking from improper input. But I can't understand how someone can read this kind of stuff that Gregg put out and remain sane. guess its a gift I donn't have.

You would be hard pressed to find a heresy that fits with Wisdom Christology and that matches up with the teaches of the Apostles. Show me an Arianism or a Unitarianism that can be traced back to the Prophets; it cannot be done.

Balthasar · Feb 1, 2006

Hi Der Alter,

Der Alter said:
And the worst part of the deliberate misrpresentation is the conclusion of the article is that the nature of God, the Trinity, can be understood.

Above quotes stolen from this website.
The Trinity By Ronald W. Leigh, Ph.D.

http://theology.home.att.net/trinity/

The conclusion of the article, by the trinitarian Dr. Leigh, is that the nature of God, the Trinity, can be understood but the conclusion of the men he quotes is that the nature of God, the Trtinity cannot be understood.

So the quotes have not been taken out of context.

best wishes,

Der Alte · Feb 2, 2006

Balthasar said:
Hi Der Alter,

The conclusion of the article, by the trinitarian Dr. Leigh, is that the nature of God, the Trinity, can be understood but the conclusion of the men he quotes is that the nature of God, the Trtinity cannot be understood.

So the quotes have not been taken out of context.

best wishes,

Quoting out of context
Definition
Manipulating a quote either from an authority, or from one's opponent, in such a way that the original meaning of the statement is altered.

Explanation

It is possible to change the meaning of every quote by carefully selecting parts of the source. Sometimes, evaluating a quote requires more material so that taking it out is enough to change the meaning. Sometimes some words or parts of the sentence are taken out it order to change the meaning.
Examples

The truncated quote is:

"... general semantics is but one more of a long succession of cults, having its divine master, its disciples, a bible, its own mumbo-jumbo and ceremonial rites."
Russell Meyers MD, Science and Sanity, 4th preface.

The correct quote is:

"This circumstance in itself should abrogate once and for all the feckless charges sometimes made by ill-informed critics that general semantics is but one more of a long succession of cults, having its divine master, its disciples, a bible, its own mumbo-jumbo and ceremonial rites."
Russell Meyers MD, Science and Sanity, 4th preface.

The quote is:

" 'What is good in Korzybski's work,' they say, 'is not new, and what is new is not good."
Anatol Rapoport, "What is Semantics?," American Scientist (1952)

Rapoport quotes critics, but the quoter uses his name (appeal to authority, since Rapoport is not an expert in general semantics) to express the negative views of the critics, even if Rapoport himself does not share these views. Moreover the final quote sign is omitted in order to confuse the reader in believing that the quote is from Rapoport himself.

Counter-examples
None.

Advices
It is considered very dishonest to use such tricks. People using it run the risk of being discarded later by an appeal to spite.

http://www.esgs.org/uk/log08.htm

You deliberately plagiarized, i.e. stole, material from a website, without giving proper credit, pretending you had actually read the primary sources.

By selectively quoting, only certain parts, from a secondary source, you deliberately, and dishonestly, tried to give the impression that Trinitarian writers are hopelessly despaired, and desperately confused about, and blindly accept the Trinity, without any thought or reason.

For example, your out-of-context Berkhoff quote, from Leigh, tries to make it appear the only thing Berkhoff said about Gods nature, and the Trinity, was, The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man. Lets read a little further.

A) There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia). B) In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. C) The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. D) The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order. E) There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished. F) The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man. [3]

3. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1941) pgs. 87-89.

So Berkhoff is not confused and does not blindly accept and teach the Trinity, he said quite a bit more than you tried to make it appear. But before you start trying to blow this off with some irrelevant argument, lets read some more.

The infinity of God must be conceived as intensive rather than extensive, and should not be confused with boundless extension, as if God were spread out through the entire universe, one part here, and another there, for God has no body and therefore no extension. Neither should it be regarded as a merely negative concept, though it is perfectly true that we cannot form a positive idea of it. It is a reality in God fully comprehended only by Him.

Systematic Theology L. Berkhoff, (revised version 1941, reprinted 1979 by Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids), pp. 59-60

Note Berkhoff says, [The infinity of God] is a reality in God fully comprehended only by[God] Him[self]. Would you like to use your lock step, copy/paste, argument on this paragraph?

Is Berkhoff hopelessly confused, blindly following, according to you, a false, incomprehensible, doctrine, etc., etc., when he states that only the perfect and infinite God, and not imperfect, finite, man, can fully comprehend his nature? In context, how is this statement any different than what he said about the Trinity?

Therefore As I said, deliberately and dishonestly out-of-context, and it doesnt matter how many ducks you have quacking at your heels, Quack, quack, youre right.

More of Berkhoffs teaching on the nature of God.

Every person is a distinct and separate individual, in whom human nature is individualized. But in God there are no three individuals alongside of, and separate from, one another, but only personal self-distinctions within the Divine essence, which is not only generically, but also numerically, one. (Systematic Theology, Louis Berkhoff, p. 87)

Simplicity  The unity of God, the fact that God is One, and the only One. The Israelites were to recite the Great Shema everyday, Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one! (Deut. 6:4), affirming the existence of the one true God YHWH as opposed to all the false gods and idols of the nations. This does not deny the doctrine of the Trinity, for although there is only one God, that one God manifests Himself in three Persons. These 3 Persons are fully God, distinct from each other and yet one. There is only one God but that one God has revealed Himself to be the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Berkhoff, pp. 61-62). cf. I Kings 8:60; Is. 44:6; I Cor. 8:6.

From Systematic Theology by L. Berkhoff, (revised version 1941, reprinted 1979 by Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids), pp. 59-60"

"C. The Infinity of God. The infinity of God is that perfection of God by which He is free from all limitations. In ascribing it to God we deny that there are or can be any limitations to the divine Being or attributes. It implies that He is in no way limited by the universe, by this space-time world, or confined to the universe. It does not involve His identity with the sum-total of existing things, nor does it exclude the co-existence of derived and finite things, to which He bears relation. The infinity of God must be conceived as intensive rather than extensive, and should not be confused with boundless extension, as if God were spread out through the entire universe, one part here, and another there, for God has not body and therefore no extension. Neither should it be regarded as a merely negative concept, though it is perfectly true that we cannot form a positive idea of it. It is a reality in God fully comprehended only by Him. We distinguish various aspects of God's Infinity. 1. His Absolute Perfection. This is the infinity of the Divine Being considered in itself. It should not be understood in a quantitative, but in a qualitative sense: it qualifies all the communicable attributes of God. Infinite power is not an absolute quantum, but an exhaustless potency of power;..."

"In that sense we can speak of the potentia absoluta, or absolute power, of God. This position must be maintained over against those who, like Schleiermacher and Strauss, hold that God's power is limited to that which He actually accomplishes. But in our assertion of the absolute power of God it is necessary to guard against misconceptions. The Bible teaches us on the one hand that the power of God extends beyond that which is actually realized, Gen. 18:14; Jer. 32:27; Zech. 8:6; Matt. 3:9; 26:53. We cannot say, therefore, that what God does not bring to realization, is not possible for Him. But on the other hand it also indicates that there are many things which God cannot do. He can neither lie, sin, change, nor deny Himself, Num. 23:19; I Sam. 15:29; II Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:18; Jas. 1:13,17. There is no absolute power in Him that is divorced from His perfections, and in virtue of which He can do all kinds of things which are inherently contradictory." Berkhoff, p. 80:

When we speak of "no limitations" we are talking about rational categories or limitations within a rational category. Within the realm of power, we mean that God can do anything that it is logically possible for power to do. I.e., There is no limit on which powers in the category of "powers" that God can exercise. The category of powers, however, is itself restricted to the realm of things that are logically possible. This is why we are justified in using the "omni" prefix while maintaining that God cannot do anything whatsoever.

That is why even Berkhoff, while maintaining a "no limits" definition of infinite says, "There is no absolute power in Him that is divorced from His perfections". I.e., he supports the idea that there are rational restrictions on the category of "powers" when he says that there is no power of a certain kind.

Summary of Christian Doctrine
Part II: The Doctrine of God and Creation
Chapter VII: The Trinity

1. Statement of the Doctrine. The Bible teaches that, while He exists in three Persons, called Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These are not three persons in the ordinary sense of the word; they are not three individuals, but rather three modes or forms in which the Divine Being exists. At the same time they are of such a nature that they can enter into personal relations. The Father can speak to the Son and vice versa, and both can send forth the Spirit. The real mystery of the Trinity consists in this that each one of the Persons possesses the whole of the divine essence, and that this has no existence outside of and apart from the Persons. The three are not subordinate in being the one to the other, though it may be said that in order of existence the Father is first, the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third, an order which is also reflected in their work.

2. Scripture Proof for the Trinity. The Old Testament contains some indications of more than one Person in God. God speaks of Himself in the plural, Gen. 1:26; 11:7; the Angel of Jehovah is represented as a divine Person, Gen. 16:7-13; 18:1-21; 19:1-22; and the Spirit is spoken of as a distinct Person, Isa. 48:16; 63:10. Moreover, there are some passages in which the Messiah is speaking and mentions two other Persons, Isa. 48:16; 61:6; 63:9, 10.

Due to the progress of revelation, the New Testament contains clearer proofs. The strongest proof is found in the facts of redemption. The Father sends the Son into the world, and the Son sends the Holy Spirit. Moreover, there are several passages in which the three Persons are expressly mentioned, such as the great commission, Matt. 28:19, and the apostolic blessing, II Cor. 13:13. Cf. also Luke 3:21, 22; 1:35; I Cor. 12:4-6; I Pet. 1:2.

This doctrine was denied by the Socinians in the days of the Reformation, and is rejected also by the Unitarians and the Modernists of our own day. If they speak of the Trinity at all, they represent it as consisting of the Father, the man Jesus, and a divine influence which is called the Spirit of God.

3. The Father. The name 'Father' is frequently applied in Scripture to the triune God, as the creator of all things, I Cor. 8:6; Heb. 12:9; Jas. 1:17; as the Father of Israel, Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16; and as the Father of believers, Matt. 5:45; 6:6, 9, 14; Rom. 8:15. In a deeper sense, however, it is applied to the First Person of the Trinity, to express His relation to the Second Person, John 1:14, 18; 8:54; 14:12, 13. This is the original Fatherhood, of which all earthly fatherhood is but a faint reflection. The distinctive characteristic of the Father is that He generates the Son from all eternity. The works particularly ascribed to Him are those of planning the work of redemption, creation and providence, and representing the Trinity in the Counsel of Redemption.

4. The Son. The second person in the Trinity is called 'Son' or 'Son of God.' He bears this name, however, not only as the only begotten of the Father, John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Gal. 4:4, but also as the Messiah chosen of God, Matt. 8:29; 26:63; John 1:49; 11:27, and in virtue of His special birth through the operation of the Holy Spirit, Luke 1:32, 35. His special characteristic as the Second Person of the Trinity is that He is eternally begotten of the Father, Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5. By means of eternal generation the Father is the cause of the personal existence of the Son within the Divine Being. The works more particularly ascribed to Him are works of mediation. He mediated the work of creation, John 1:3, 10; Heb. 1:2, 3, and mediates the work of redemption, Eph. 1:3-14.

http://www.mbrem.com/shorttakes/berk7.htm

A) There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia). B) In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. C) The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. D) The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order. E) There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished. F) The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man. [3]

3. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1941) pgs. 87-89.

"The term "nature" denotes the sum-total of all the essential qualities of a thing, that which makes it what it is. A nature is a substance possessed in common, with all the essential qualities of such a substance. The term "person" denotes a complete substance endowed with reasons, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions. Personality is not an essential and integral part of a nature, but is, as it were, the terminus to which it tends. A person is a nature with something added, namely, independent subsistence, individuality."[18]

18. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company) 1941, pp. 321-330.

2ducklow · Feb 2, 2006

Scholar in training said:
You would be hard pressed to find a heresy that fits with Wisdom Christology and that matches up with the teaches of the Apostles. Show me an Arianism or a Unitarianism that can be traced back to the Prophets; it cannot be done.

An invalid point for I believe the church has lost, beginning immediately after Paul's departure, the faith that was once delievered to the church. That is what I believe the reformation, which I believe is still on going, is all about. Namely, returning the church to the faith once delievered to the saints.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

We will know that we have arrived at the faith once delievered unto the saints when we the church are a perfect man, like Christ. We aren't there yet because our doctrine is poluted with false teachings, but God is working tobring his church into that faith which will result in unity of the brethern. That's what Ezekiel's temple is all about. the deepening river of God, it starts out small and shallow. But this miracle river, without any tributaries (i.e. any input from man) gets deeper and wider until finally it is so deep you have to swim in it.

Ezekiel 47:3-5 When the man went forth eastward with the line in his hand, he measured a thousand cubits, and he caused me to pass through the waters, waters that were to the ankles. Again he measured a thousand, and caused me to pass through the waters, waters that were to the knees. Again he measured a thousand, and caused me to pass through the waters, waters that were to the loins. Afterward he measured a thousand; and it was a river that I could not pass through; for the waters were risen, waters to swim in, a river that could not be passed through.

The deepening river of god is bringing more revelation, and returning us to the faith once delivered unto the saints. For those who enter in. Enter in my friend.

2ducklow · Feb 2, 2006

deralter said:
If I were you I would not boast about not being able to read the early church fathers and understand them, thousands of 18-19 year old college students do it every year, all over the world.

I am not stupid, I have a normal IQ level. I am being honest in saying that they are not easy reading for me. And I'm sure the same is true for everyone else. When I was in the army, they gave everyone an IQ test, my score was 127, which was good enough for officer material. I think anyone who says that they are always easy reading isn't being honest. I am somewhat reluctant also to expose my brain to such illogical thinking as is employed in proving several gods are one g od for fear of damaging my thinking processes.
They imploy a number of techniques in their attempts to explain how jesus is god, god the father is god and god the holy spirit is god. Vague terminology, such as person of god, hypostasis, god of true god, etc. convolution, such as 3 gods yet not 3 gods but one god yet not one god but 3 gods. and stating bold face contradicitons.
Many times they make about as much sense as Dr. James Whites explanation you quoted once about the trinity. which as I demonstrated is no sense. You never explained what dr. White meant. I did. I showed it was contradictory and nonsensical. you just said you understand it but you never eplained what he meant. I could painstakingly weed through all the contradictory ideas they put forth and come up with some understanding. But I consider it a waste of time , for I know that 3 beings can never be explained to be one being. it is a contradiction as Dr. James White rightly pointed out. INcidently Dr. white stated that it was a contradiciton then he proved that trinity is 3 beings are one being. Although I don't think he was too cognizant of what he whas saying. Not that he is stupid, of course he isn't stupid, but when you try and explain a contradiciton, no matter how smart you are, you are doomed to failure.

Der Alte · Feb 3, 2006

2ducklow said:
[size=-1]I am not stupid, I have a normal IQ level. I am being honest in saying that they are not easy reading for me. And I'm sure the same is true for everyone else. When I was in the army, they gave everyone an IQ test, my score was 127, which was good enough for officer material. I think anyone who says that they are always easy reading isn't being honest. I am somewhat reluctant also to expose my brain to such illogical thinking as is employed in proving several gods are one g od for fear of damaging my thinking processes.[/size]

Translation, I am not going to read anything that will prove me wrong. That is an absolutely pathetic excuse if I ever heard one. First, you tell us how intelligent you are, then claim that your thinking processes could be damaged by reading something. If you are that mentally ambivalent and so poorly grounded Biblically, you quite evidently have never heard of the Holy Spirit.

As I said, if you are all that smart, you should have no problem reading the early church fathers, thousands of 18-19 year old college students do it all over the world, every year.

[size=-1]They imploy a number of techniques in their attempts to explain how jesus is god, god the father is god and god the holy spirit is god. Vague terminology, such as person of god, hypostasis, god of true god, etc. convolution, such as 3 gods yet not 3 gods but one god yet not one god but 3 gods. and stating bold face contradicitons.[/size]

Same old, same old, same old, knee jerk, blow off. In your previous argument you demonstrated that you dont know, and make no effort to know, the meaning of simple words like, person,being, personal, hypostasis., etc.

And obviously you are totally unaware that the word hypostasis, occurs in Heb 1:3. It is translated person.

g5287 [size=+1]υποστασεως[/size] hupostasis {hoop-os'-tas-is}
from a compound of 5259 and 2476; TDNT - 8:572,1237; n f
AV - confidence 2, confident 1, person 1, substance 1; 5
1) a setting or placing under
1a) thing put under, substructure, foundation
2) that which has foundation, is firm
2a) that which has actual existence
2a1) a substance, real being
2b) the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing
2c) the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution
2c1) confidence, firm trust, assurance

Vague terminology, yeah right! Would you like to argue about how vague, nonsensical, and contradictory, Hebrews 1:3, is? Maybe, Jesus is not the exact, actual existence, of God as Hebrews says? Or perhaps, Jesus did not actually, literally, have the exact, substance or real being of the father? Or could it be that the writer of Hebrews, was vague, nonsensical, and contradictory, Jesus did not actually, literally, have the exact substantial quality, nature, of the father?

Many times they make about as much sense as Dr. James Whites explanation you quoted once about the trinity. which as I demonstrated is no sense. You never explained what dr. White meant. I did. I showed it was contradictory and nonsensical. you just said you understand it but you never eplained what he meant. I could painstakingly weed through all the contradictory ideas they put forth and come up with some understanding. But I consider it a waste of time , for I know that 3 beings can never be explained to be one being. it is a contradiction as Dr. James White rightly pointed out. INcidently Dr. white stated that it was a contradiciton then he proved that trinity is 3 beings are one being. Although I don't think he was too cognizant of what he whas saying. Not that he is stupid, of course he isn't stupid, but when you try and explain a contradiciton, no matter how smart you are, you are doomed to failure.

You demonstrated absolutely nothing about Dr. White. You categorically rejected his explanation of how he was using words and twisted his meaning. What you demonstrated was that you do not know what the words, person,being, personal being, mean. Even when shown repeatedly, from a dictionary, you refused to acknowledge the meaning.

We come back to that claim about how intelligent you are. I do not have to explain what Dr. White said, his article was an explanation, in and of itself, which you could not understand, even after I posted several dictionary definitions. And because you refuse to acknowledge the meaning of certain words, nothing can ever be explained to your satisfaction.

Not only that, I also linked to a several pages long scriptural exegesis and commentary, on the Trinity, by Dr. White. Those two articles should have been enough. The only option you reasonably have is to reject outright what White said. You have not, and cannot, refute or disprove any part of it.

The only contradiction is in your mind. The only nonsense is in your mind. Typical cop-out answer, anything that proves you wrong is, a waste of time.

Nobody but you ever said three beings is one being. And, any statement involving the word being would be a contradiction, to you, since you refuse to understand the meaning of the word. A being can be, but is not necessarily, an individual human being. A person can be, but is not necessarily, an individual human being.

This is laughable, you accuse Dr. White, who holds a PhD, of not being cognizant of what he is saying and you admittedly cant read, and understand, the writings of the early church fathers, without someone leading you by the hand and putting their spin on them, and you reject the meaning of several simple words.

There was no contradiction for Dr. White to explain. The only contradiction was in your mind when you refused to acknowledge how Dr. White was using certain words and twisted them around giving your own contradictory meaning to them.

The only thing doomed to failure is a lock step, tunnel vision, attitude which has only one answer to everything, Its nonsensical. It doesnt make sense. Its contradictory. An attitude that is, either, unable, or unwilling, to read and comprehend anything that proves them wrong, because it might, damage their thinking processes and it is a waste of time.

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Main Entry: [sup]1[/sup]be·ing
Pronunciation: 'bE(-i)[ng]
Function: noun
1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : LIFE
2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : ESSENCE; especially : PERSONALITY
3 : a living thing; especially : PERSON

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Main Entry: per·son[/
Pronunciation: 'p&r-s&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, mask -- more at PROSOPOPOEIA
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures.
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality of a human being : SELF
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties.
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
- per·son·hood /-"hud/ noun
- in person : in one's bodily presence.

Der Alte · Feb 3, 2006

2ducklow said:
[SIZE=-1]An invalid point for I believe the church has lost, beginning immediately after Paul's departure, the faith that was once delievered to the church. That is what I believe the reformation, which I believe is still on going, is all about. Namely, returning the church to the faith once delievered to the saints.[/SIZE][...]

Note, "I believe," "I believe," "I believe." No evidence! No proof! No doumentation! Just your own unsupported opinion. David Koresh believed that he was the messiah.

The problem with what you believe, is that it contradicts the very words of Jesus. Can you explain how, according to you, the gates of hell have prevailed against the church for about 2000 years?

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Scholar in training · Feb 3, 2006

2ducklow said:
An invalid point for I believe the church has lost, beginning immediately after Paul's departure, the faith that was once delievered to the church.

How could the faith lose Truth so quickly? Surely the Apostolic foundation of the Church was not so shaky.

That is what I believe the reformation, which I believe is still on going, is all about. Namely, returning the church to the faith once delievered to the saints.

Do you mean the Protestant Reformation or "reform" in general? If you mean the former, than do you know that the Reformation had no disagreements with the understanding of Christ layed out in the Creeds and in the decisions of the Councils?

2ducklow · Feb 3, 2006

Scholar in training said:
How could the faith lose Truth so quickly? Surely the Apostolic foundation of the Church was not so shaky.

It wasn't an immediate and complete descent into total apostasy. It was gradual culminating in the dark ages when the church all but lost the light of God. Neo platonism and logos christology were two major factors in this decline.

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
they didn't spare the flock they brought in dirt that they mixed with the pure word of God, the pure faith that was delivered unto the saints.

Do you mean the Protestant Reformation or "reform" in general? If you mean the former, than do you know that the Reformation had no disagreements with the understanding of Christ layed out in the Creeds and in the decisions of the Councils?

I beleive the prostestant reformation was a part of the general reformation of the church that began with people like JOhn Huss and william Tyndale, and early movements like the ones in the middle ages in southern france. can't remember the name of that one off hand. it'll come to me. anyway they spoke in tongues.
not everything that early church writers said is inccorect. I even beleive they are christians for the most part. What I am saying is that they brought a lot of nonbiblical concepts into christianity and thereby poluted it. I believe trinity is once of those nonbiblical concepts they brought into christianiity. Obvioulsy trinity predates christianity, in hinduism, egyptian religon, budhism. and neoplatonism. a lot of heathen religons have trinitys.

2ducklow · Feb 3, 2006

deralter said:
Main Entry: 1be·ing
Pronunciation: 'bE(-i)[ng]
Function: noun
1 a : the quality or state of having existence

Does a person of God have the state or quality of having existence?
Does God have the state or quality of having existence?
If you answer yes to both these questions then you have a contradiction, as Dr. White rightly pointed out.
If you say a person of God does'nt exist then you have desended into nosensce for it would mean that God the father, the only true god doesn't even exist. This is what Dr. white proved unbeknownst to him.

deralter said:
Nobody but you ever said “three beings is one being.”

Dr. White said it is a contradiction, and it is a contradiction. I believe his exact words were 'three beings are into one being is obviously a contradiction." He attempted to prove that trinity doesn't teach this by showing the different meanings for being. which only proved that they were different kinds of beings. he had god the father a being like a rock, which is really dumb, and the god that the three person of god make up, a god like a person i.e. with personality. So in this he proved that 3 beings are one being is the teaching of trinity. he just says they are different types of being. but that doesn't solve the problem for it still results in 3 being are one being.

Der Alte · Feb 3, 2006

2ducklow said:
[SIZE=-1]Does a person of God have the state or quality of having existence?

Does God have the state or quality of having existence?

If you answer yes to both these questions then you have a contradiction, as Dr. White rightly pointed out.

If you say a person of God does'nt exist then you have desended into nosensce for it would mean that God the father, the only true god doesn't even exist. This is what Dr. white proved unbeknownst to him[/SIZE].

This is the logical fallacy of false dilemma. It is not a choice between one or the other. A different example of your argument.

Does the President of the United States exist?

Does the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces exist?

Does the husband of Barbara Bush exist?

Does the father of Jenna and Barbara Bush exist? Etc., etc., etc.

Your only choice, per your example, is yes or no. How many beings? So you have proved absolutely nothing about Dr. White's article.

[SIZE=-1]Dr. White said it is a contradiction, and it is a contradiction. I believe his exact words were 'three beings are into one being is obviously a contradiction.[/SIZE]"

Rather than you saying what you think White might have said or meant, here is the article again, with some definitions. Read them all very carefully, exactly as White wrote, don't redefine or twist his words. And pay particular attention to a large diagram in the middle of the article, White included to illustrate his argument. If you have trouble seeing it, which you evidently do based on your misrepresentation above, 1 being into 3 beings, etc., I will make it larger so you can see it clearly.

[c]A Brief Definition of the Trinity
by James White[/c]

It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

NOTE: We are not saying that the Father is the Son, or the Son the Spirit, or the Spirit the Father. It is very common for people to misunderstand the doctrine as to mean that we are saying Jesus is the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity does not in any way say this!

The three Biblical doctrines that flow directly into the river that is the

Trinity are as follows:

1) There is one and only one God, eternal, immutable.

2) There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another - that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons.

3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are identified as being fully deity---that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit.

One could possibly represent this as follows:

[c]

[/c]

The three sides of the triangle represent the three Biblical doctrines, as labeled. When one denies any of these three teachings, the other two sides point to the result. Hence, if one denies that there are Three Persons, one is left with the two sides of Full Equality and One God, resulting in the "Oneness" teaching of the United Pentecostal Church and others. If one denies Fully Equality, one is left with Three Persons and One God, resulting in "subordinationism" as seen in Jehovah's Witnesses, the Way International, etc. (though to be perfectly accurate the Witnesses deny all three of the sides in some way---they deny Full Equality (i.e., Jesus is Michael the Archangel), Three Persons (the Holy Spirit is an impersonal, active "force" like electricity) and One God (they say Jesus is "a god"---a lesser divinity than Yahweh; hence they are in reality not monotheists but henotheists). And, if one denies One God, one is left with polytheism, the belief in many gods, as seen clearly in the Mormon Church, the most polytheistic religion I have encountered.

Hopefully these brief thoughts will be of help to you as you "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."

http://www.aomin.org/trinitydef.html

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Main Entry: 1be·ing
Pronunciation: 'bE(-i)[ng]
Function: noun
1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : LIFE
2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : ESSENCE; especially : PERSONALITY
3 : a living thing; especially : PERSON

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: 'p&r-s&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, mask -- more at PROSOPOPOEIA
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality of a human being : SELF
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
- per·son·hood /-"hud/ noun
- in person : in one's bodily presence

2ducklow · Feb 4, 2006

Herr der Alter; howdy from the state of bliss I occupy.

DRWhite said:
It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference?

Ok Dr. is going to show us the difference between a person and a being. which he doesn't do. In order to show that trinity doesn't teach that there are 3 beings within one being he would have to show either that a person of god is not a being or god is not a being, which he doesn't do. IN fact he goes on to prove that a person of god is a person and god is a person thereby proving trinity teaches what he claims here is a contradiciton. 3 beings within one being.

DrWhite said:
We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification.

Here he states the difference between a being and a person is 'what something is' and 'individuals within a classification'. A nonsensical explanation but obviously what he was trying to say is that there is the being classification and within that classification there are different types of beings, personal and nonpersonal beings, people and rocks for example.

drwhite said:
For example, we speak of the "being" of man---human being. A rock has "being"---the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

Here he attempts to explain his explanation of the difference between a person and a being. He also fails to distinguish between a person and a being in this explanation. What he does is show that a person is a being with personal attributes where as a rock is a being without personal attributes. So all he has done so far is to show that a person and a rock are both beings, just different kinds of beings.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels

Here he is saying that God is a personal being i.e. a person.

What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

now he contradicts himself and says god is a rock like being. Here he is saying that God is a being like a rock , where as God the father, god the son and god the holy spirit are person beings like like man god and angels. which contradicts himself earlier when he said god is a personal type being. sometimes he says god is a personal being other times a being like a rock. one what = rock being, 3 whos = 3 personal beings or persons. this isn't even 1st grade material.. but on the other hand it is always helpfull to explain contradictions with contradictions.

Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

he has only shown here that trinity does teach that 3 beings are one being because he shows us that a person is a personal being, and God is a personal being, (see bold above.);therefore, his statement "It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being" would also apply to 3 personal beings within one personal being. It doesn't matter what the adjective before being is, it is still 3 beings within one being.
so we see trinity explained here to be a contradiction. you seem to have difficulty with 3 beings are one being as applicable to trinity, but the spurious 1john 5:7 you have defended repeatedly in this forum states "these three are one''. which means 3 personal beings are one personal being.

DerAlter said:
.

Does the President of the United States exist?

Does the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces exist?

Does the husband of Barbara Bush exist?

Does the father of Jenna and Barbara Bush exist? Etc., etc., etc.

Your only choice, per your example, is yes or no. How many beings? So you have proved absolutely nothing about Dr. White's article.

That's a negatory good buddy.
And the only two choices are still yes or no which you have deftly evaded. If the father is taken as a role or title then it does not have existence, and the answer would be no. If the father is taken as the being we call God the Father, then he has existence and the answer would be yes.
you are equating commander in chief , husband father etc with persons of god. which would be modalism. If Barbara Bush being a mother, sister, and wife is analgous to god being god the father god the son and god the holy spirit, then you have one being god with different titles and functions. which is pretty much modalism. Basically you have to decide whether you believe God the Father the only true God exists or not. which you failed to answer directly either way, yes , no . which is it Der alter?
Dr. white's triangle diagram shows 3 beings having the same nature and all 3 having the same god classification. 3 men all have 3 human natures and all have the same human classification but because they share the same classification does not mean they are one man. all Dr. white has shown with his diagram is that trinity teaches that there are 3 individuals each of which is god and therefore in the god classification. this is really poor stuff dr. white.

deralter said:
Rather than you saying what you think White might have said or meant, here is the article again, with some definitions. Read them all very carefully, exactly as White wrote, don't redefine or twist his words. And pay particular attention to a large diagram in the middle of the article, White included to illustrate his argument. If you have trouble seeing it, which you evidently do based on your misrepresentation above, 1 being into 3 beings, etc., I will make it larger so you can see it clearly.

First of all you misquoted me. I said dr. white said something like "3 beings are into one being." there is not a big difference between saying "3 beings are within one being"and what Dr. White said. "3 beings within one being". you are straining at a gnat der alter. My offhand recollection was a very good paraphrase of what he actually said.
You havent offered any explanation for what Dr. White means except to say his triangle diagram explains it. that's like me saying "balthasar explains it.". Rather than cuting and pasting and saying his paper explains it, you should actually try and figure out for yourself what he means. I did, and showed how it is nonsense. I don't think you have the foggiest idea what he is talking about as evidenced by your nonexplanation of what he is saying. quoting long definitions of person and being does not explain his paper. saying his diagram explains it doesn't explain his paper. Your lack of explanation only demonstrates to me that you have no idea what he is saying.

Balthasar · Feb 4, 2006

Hi Der Alter,

Der Alter said:
Quoting out of context
Definition
Manipulating a quote either from an authority, or from one's opponent, in such a way that the original meaning of the statement is altered.

Explanation

It is possible to change the meaning of every quote by carefully selecting parts of the source. Sometimes, evaluating a quote requires more material so that taking it out is enough to change the meaning. Sometimes some words or parts of the sentence are taken out it order to change the meaning.
Examples

The truncated quote is:

"... general semantics is but one more of a long succession of cults, having its divine master, its disciples, a bible, its own mumbo-jumbo and ceremonial rites."
Russell Meyers MD, Science and Sanity, 4th preface.

The correct quote is:

"This circumstance in itself should abrogate once and for all the feckless charges sometimes made by ill-informed critics that general semantics is but one more of a long succession of cults, having its divine master, its disciples, a bible, its own mumbo-jumbo and ceremonial rites."
Russell Meyers MD, Science and Sanity, 4th preface.

The quote is:

" 'What is good in Korzybski's work,' they say, 'is not new, and what is new is not good."
Anatol Rapoport, "What is Semantics?," American Scientist (1952)

Rapoport quotes critics, but the quoter uses his name (appeal to authority, since Rapoport is not an expert in general semantics) to express the negative views of the critics, even if Rapoport himself does not share these views. Moreover the final quote sign is omitted in order to confuse the reader in believing that the quote is from Rapoport himself.

Counter-examples
None.

Advices
It is considered very dishonest to use such tricks. People using it run the risk of being discarded later by an appeal to spite.

http://www.esgs.org/uk/log08.htm

You deliberately plagiarized, i.e. stole, material from a website, without giving proper credit, pretending you had actually read the primary sources.

By selectively quoting, only certain parts, from a secondary source, you deliberately, and dishonestly, tried to give the impression that Trinitarian writers are hopelessly despaired, and desperately confused about, and blindly accept the Trinity, without any thought or reason.

For example, your out-of-context Berkhoff quote, from Leigh, tries to make it appear the only thing Berkhoff said about Gods nature, and the Trinity, was, The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man. Lets read a little further.
A) There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia). B) In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. C) The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. D) The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order. E) There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished. F) The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man. [3]

3. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1941) pgs. 87-89.

So Berkhoff is not confused and does not blindly accept and teach the Trinity, he said quite a bit more than you tried to make it appear. But before you start trying to blow this off with some irrelevant argument, lets read some more.
The infinity of God must be conceived as intensive rather than extensive, and should not be confused with boundless extension, as if God were spread out through the entire universe, one part here, and another there, for God has no body and therefore no extension. Neither should it be regarded as a merely negative concept, though it is perfectly true that we cannot form a positive idea of it. It is a reality in God fully comprehended only by Him.

Systematic Theology L. Berkhoff, (revised version 1941, reprinted 1979 by Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids), pp. 59-60

Note Berkhoff says, [The infinity of God] is a reality in God fully comprehended only by[God] Him[self]. Would you like to use your lock step, copy/paste, argument on this paragraph?

Is Berkhoff hopelessly confused, blindly following, according to you, a false, incomprehensible, doctrine, etc., etc., when he states that only the perfect and infinite God, and not imperfect, finite, man, can fully comprehend his nature? In context, how is this statement any different than what he said about the Trinity?

Therefore As I said, deliberately and dishonestly out-of-context, and it doesnt matter how many ducks you have quacking at your heels, Quack, quack, youre right.

More of Berkhoffs teaching on the nature of God.
Every person is a distinct and separate individual, in whom human nature is individualized. But in God there are no three individuals alongside of, and separate from, one another, but only personal self-distinctions within the Divine essence, which is not only generically, but also numerically, one. (Systematic Theology, Louis Berkhoff, p. 87)

Simplicity  The unity of God, the fact that God is One, and the only One. The Israelites were to recite the Great Shema everyday, Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one! (Deut. 6:4), affirming the existence of the one true God YHWH as opposed to all the false gods and idols of the nations. This does not deny the doctrine of the Trinity, for although there is only one God, that one God manifests Himself in three Persons. These 3 Persons are fully God, distinct from each other and yet one. There is only one God but that one God has revealed Himself to be the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Berkhoff, pp. 61-62). cf. I Kings 8:60; Is. 44:6; I Cor. 8:6.

From Systematic Theology by L. Berkhoff, (revised version 1941, reprinted 1979 by Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids), pp. 59-60"

"C. The Infinity of God. The infinity of God is that perfection of God by which He is free from all limitations. In ascribing it to God we deny that there are or can be any limitations to the divine Being or attributes. It implies that He is in no way limited by the universe, by this space-time world, or confined to the universe. It does not involve His identity with the sum-total of existing things, nor does it exclude the co-existence of derived and finite things, to which He bears relation. The infinity of God must be conceived as intensive rather than extensive, and should not be confused with boundless extension, as if God were spread out through the entire universe, one part here, and another there, for God has not body and therefore no extension. Neither should it be regarded as a merely negative concept, though it is perfectly true that we cannot form a positive idea of it. It is a reality in God fully comprehended only by Him. We distinguish various aspects of God's Infinity. 1. His Absolute Perfection. This is the infinity of the Divine Being considered in itself. It should not be understood in a quantitative, but in a qualitative sense: it qualifies all the communicable attributes of God. Infinite power is not an absolute quantum, but an exhaustless potency of power;..."

"In that sense we can speak of the potentia absoluta, or absolute power, of God. This position must be maintained over against those who, like Schleiermacher and Strauss, hold that God's power is limited to that which He actually accomplishes. But in our assertion of the absolute power of God it is necessary to guard against misconceptions. The Bible teaches us on the one hand that the power of God extends beyond that which is actually realized, Gen. 18:14; Jer. 32:27; Zech. 8:6; Matt. 3:9; 26:53. We cannot say, therefore, that what God does not bring to realization, is not possible for Him. But on the other hand it also indicates that there are many things which God cannot do. He can neither lie, sin, change, nor deny Himself, Num. 23:19; I Sam. 15:29; II Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6:18; Jas. 1:13,17. There is no absolute power in Him that is divorced from His perfections, and in virtue of which He can do all kinds of things which are inherently contradictory." Berkhoff, p. 80:

When we speak of "no limitations" we are talking about rational categories or limitations within a rational category. Within the realm of power, we mean that God can do anything that it is logically possible for power to do. I.e., There is no limit on which powers in the category of "powers" that God can exercise. The category of powers, however, is itself restricted to the realm of things that are logically possible. This is why we are justified in using the "omni" prefix while maintaining that God cannot do anything whatsoever.

That is why even Berkhoff, while maintaining a "no limits" definition of infinite says, "There is no absolute power in Him that is divorced from His perfections". I.e., he supports the idea that there are rational restrictions on the category of "powers" when he says that there is no power of a certain kind.

Summary of Christian Doctrine
Part II: The Doctrine of God and Creation
Chapter VII: The Trinity

1. Statement of the Doctrine. The Bible teaches that, while He exists in three Persons, called Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These are not three persons in the ordinary sense of the word; they are not three individuals, but rather three modes or forms in which the Divine Being exists. At the same time they are of such a nature that they can enter into personal relations. The Father can speak to the Son and vice versa, and both can send forth the Spirit. The real mystery of the Trinity consists in this that each one of the Persons possesses the whole of the divine essence, and that this has no existence outside of and apart from the Persons. The three are not subordinate in being the one to the other, though it may be said that in order of existence the Father is first, the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third, an order which is also reflected in their work.

2. Scripture Proof for the Trinity. The Old Testament contains some indications of more than one Person in God. God speaks of Himself in the plural, Gen. 1:26; 11:7; the Angel of Jehovah is represented as a divine Person, Gen. 16:7-13; 18:1-21; 19:1-22; and the Spirit is spoken of as a distinct Person, Isa. 48:16; 63:10. Moreover, there are some passages in which the Messiah is speaking and mentions two other Persons, Isa. 48:16; 61:6; 63:9, 10.

Due to the progress of revelation, the New Testament contains clearer proofs. The strongest proof is found in the facts of redemption. The Father sends the Son into the world, and the Son sends the Holy Spirit. Moreover, there are several passages in which the three Persons are expressly mentioned, such as the great commission, Matt. 28:19, and the apostolic blessing, II Cor. 13:13. Cf. also Luke 3:21, 22; 1:35; I Cor. 12:4-6; I Pet. 1:2.

This doctrine was denied by the Socinians in the days of the Reformation, and is rejected also by the Unitarians and the Modernists of our own day. If they speak of the Trinity at all, they represent it as consisting of the Father, the man Jesus, and a divine influence which is called the Spirit of God.

3. The Father. The name 'Father' is frequently applied in Scripture to the triune God, as the creator of all things, I Cor. 8:6; Heb. 12:9; Jas. 1:17; as the Father of Israel, Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16; and as the Father of believers, Matt. 5:45; 6:6, 9, 14; Rom. 8:15. In a deeper sense, however, it is applied to the First Person of the Trinity, to express His relation to the Second Person, John 1:14, 18; 8:54; 14:12, 13. This is the original Fatherhood, of which all earthly fatherhood is but a faint reflection. The distinctive characteristic of the Father is that He generates the Son from all eternity. The works particularly ascribed to Him are those of planning the work of redemption, creation and providence, and representing the Trinity in the Counsel of Redemption.

4. The Son. The second person in the Trinity is called 'Son' or 'Son of God.' He bears this name, however, not only as the only begotten of the Father, John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Gal. 4:4, but also as the Messiah chosen of God, Matt. 8:29; 26:63; John 1:49; 11:27, and in virtue of His special birth through the operation of the Holy Spirit, Luke 1:32, 35. His special characteristic as the Second Person of the Trinity is that He is eternally begotten of the Father, Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5. By means of eternal generation the Father is the cause of the personal existence of the Son within the Divine Being. The works more particularly ascribed to Him are works of mediation. He mediated the work of creation, John 1:3, 10; Heb. 1:2, 3, and mediates the work of redemption, Eph. 1:3-14.

http://www.mbrem.com/shorttakes/berk7.htm

A) There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia). B) In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. C) The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. D) The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order. E) There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished. F) The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man. [3]

3. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1941) pgs. 87-89.

"The term "nature" denotes the sum-total of all the essential qualities of a thing, that which makes it what it is. A nature is a substance possessed in common, with all the essential qualities of such a substance. The term "person" denotes a complete substance endowed with reasons, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions. Personality is not an essential and integral part of a nature, but is, as it were, the terminus to which it tends. A person is a nature with something added, namely, independent subsistence, individuality."[18]

18. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company) 1941, pp. 321-330.

Do you agree the trinitarian authorities Dr. Leigh refers to (Montgomery,Berkhof,Martin,Olsen and Thomas Aquinas) all acknowledge that the nature of the trinitarian God cannot be logically understood? Yes or No?

best wishes,

Scholar in training · Feb 4, 2006

2ducklow said:
It wasn't an immediate and complete descent into total apostasy. It was gradual culminating in the dark ages when the church all but lost the light of God.

Do you even know what the term "Dark Ages" refers to? Some historians use it in reference to the literature, but not theological development, as you are using it to mean.

Neo platonism and logos christology were two major factors in this decline.

Wisdom Christology and Neoplatonism are incompatable. In truth, Wisdom Christology is very Jewish; the Divine is not mixed or intermingled with the material, but exists with it side by side. The Divine is uncreated, the material is not. If Christianity borrowed from Greek philosophy, we would expect a rejection of matter; but this is the exact opposite of what we find from a religion that affirms that the Second Person of the Trinity became flesh, and that Christians themselves will one day be resurrected in glorified bodies.

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

And as we know, many heresies did "threaten" the Church (among them Arianism, Gnosticism, Monarchianism and others), but they never prevaled, and you would have to show that Paul is thinking of Wisdom Christology in this verse. Since Paul spoke against the Gnostics and the followers of Hymenaeus, it is not likely that he was speaking against Wisdom Christology. You still have to address the verse Der Alter brought up.

Der Alter said:
The problem with what you believe, is that it contradicts the very words of Jesus. Can you explain how, according to you, the gates of hell have prevailed against the church for about 2000 years?

Der Alter said:
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

2ducklow said:
not everything that early church writers said is inccorect. I even beleive they are christians for the most part. What I am saying is that they brought a lot of nonbiblical concepts into christianity and thereby poluted it. I believe trinity is once of those nonbiblical concepts they brought into christianiity. Obvioulsy trinity predates christianity, in hinduism, egyptian religon, budhism. and neoplatonism. a lot of heathen religons have trinitys.

A lot of heathen religions are also monotheistic. So? Does this ALONE mean that your religion is also a borrowing from others? Of course not. You would have to show a specific belief between the two to even begin to say that borrowing occured. Taking your suggestion in regards to Hinduism, only some Hindus are monotheists, and even then they define their "Trinity" differently than Christians do. I really don't know where you got the idea that Neoplatonism has a Trinity.

Der Alte · Feb 5, 2006

Balthasar said:
[SIZE=-1]Hi Der Alter,
Do you agree the trinitarian authorities Dr. Leigh refers to (Montgomery,Berkhof,Martin,Olsen and Thomas Aquinas) all acknowledge that the nature of the trinitarian God cannot be logically understood? Yes or No?
best wishes,[/SIZE]

Have you stopped lying, stealing, drinking, taking drugs, and spending all your time with women of questionable morals? Yes or no?

The concept of context is totally foreign to you. As I have just proved from Berkhoff, when shown context you don't even understand what I am talking about, we don't need to read anything else. You have clearly shown your only interest is in pushing whatever false religion you acscribe to. You will misquote, quote out-of-context, steal from sources, anything at all to try to prop up your false religion.

Der Alte · Feb 5, 2006

duck said:
[size=-1]What he does is show that a person is a being with personal attributes where as a rock is a being without personal attributes. So all he has done so far is to show that a person and a rock are both beings, just different kinds of beings.[/size]

So far so good. A rock and a person are different kinds of beings.

White said:
The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels

duck said:
[size=-1]Here he is saying that God is a personal being i.e. a person.

[/size]

Here you are starting to stray, inserting your own meaning into the article, trying to twist it to make it say what you want it to say. White did not say God was a person,, he said God is, a personal being.

White said:
What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is [size=+1]one eternal, infinite being of God[/size], shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

duck said:
[size=-1]now he contradicts himself and says god is a rock like being. Here he is saying that God is a being like a rock[/size]

Here you went completely off into your own little world. You already acknowledged you understand White said there are only three (3) classifications of personal being, God, man, and angels, and that a rock is not a personal being. Here Whites only reference to rocks, he says, Rocks cannot speak. White then says, [T]here is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. And there is no mention of rocks.

So you either cannot or will not read anything that proves you wrong. You deliberately misquote, misconstrue, misrepresent, twist the meaning words, any underhanded and dishonest thing that can be done, to change the truth.

Three quotes from White and your responses. Two of the three replies are rubbish. There is no need to read anything else or reply to anything.

If you ever want to deal with this topic with truth, honesty, and integrity, let me know. If I want to hear this kind of stuff I will play a Lenny Bruce or Richard Pryor tape.

Balthasar · Feb 6, 2006

Hi Der Alter,

Der Alter said:
Have you stopped lying, stealing, drinking, taking drugs, and spending all your time with women of questionable morals? Yes or no?

The concept of context is totally foreign to you. As I have just proved from Berkhoff, when shown context you don't even understand what I am talking about, we don't need to read anything else. You have clearly shown your only interest is in pushing whatever false religion you acscribe to. You will misquote, quote out-of-context, steal from sources, anything at all to try to prop up your false religion.

The fact of the matter is that Montgomery, Berkhof, Martin,Olsen and Thomas Aquinas do not believe the trinity makes logical sense, unless ofcourse Dr. Leigh was quoting them out of context.

If anyone's having a hard time understanding context, it's you unfortunately.

best wishes,

Der Alte · Feb 6, 2006

Balthasar said:
[SIZE=-1]Hi Der Alter,

The fact of the matter is that Montgomery, Berkhof, Martin,Olsen and Thomas Aquinas do not believe the trinity makes logical sense, unless ofcourse Dr. Leigh was quoting them out of context.

If anyone's having a hard time understanding context, it's you unfortunately.

best wishes,[/SIZE]

...

Let us see how truthful you are, and who does or does not who understand context. Your plagiarized and never admitted quote from Berkhoff.

[SIZE=-1]The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man.[/SIZE]

My in-context quote of Berkhoff.

A) There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia). B) In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. C) The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. D) The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order. E) There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished. F) The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man. [3]

3. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1941) pgs. 87-89.

Your subsequent allegegation what Berkhoff said,

[SIZE=-1]The fact of the matter is that ... Berkhof ... do not believe the trinity makes logical sense.[/size]

Berkhoff said the Trinity is beyond the "comprehension" of man, in the same way he said that only God can fully comprehend his infinity. He said absolutely nothing about making sense, logical or otherwise.

You admittedly do not know the difference between "comprehend" and "makes logical sense." I am sure that nuclear physics makes logical sense to a Nuclear Physicist, but I can't comprehend it and I doubt you can either since you can't even undertand "context."

Go ahead Balthy impress me some more with your stealing from, and deliberate twisting of, accredited sources. Deception, dishonesty, misrepresentation. I want truth, you don't have it. End of conversation.

2ducklow · Feb 6, 2006

deralter said:
Here you are starting to stray, inserting your own meaning into the article, trying to twist it to make it say what you want it to say. White did not say God was “a person,,” he said God is, “a personal being

A personal being is a person. a personal being is not an impersonal being such as a rock.

der said:
You already acknowledged you understand White said there are only three (3) classifications of personal being, God, man, and angels, and that a rock is not a personal being. Here White’s only reference to rocks, he says, “Rocks cannot speak.” White then says, “[T]here is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit.” And there is no mention of rocks.

Either way it is a contadiction. if the eternal infinite god is not a rock like being then he is a personal being or a person being. he calls Father son and holy ghost persons. persons are beings so he has 1 being shared by 3 beings which he stated at the outset is a contradistion. I assumed that since he did not specify the eternal god as a personal being that he must intend for us to believe it is a nonpersonal being. Especially since his whole argument for 3 beings with one being being a contradiction , and not applicable to trinity , depends on him showin the different kinds of beings there are. which is illogic supremo. you have demonstrated once again that you have no idea what dr. white is talking about.

der said:
There is no need to read anything else or reply to anything.

[
with the analysis like the above of yours I can see why you would duck and run. Also,. you have totally avoided explaining the meaning of dr. whites nonsensical work here. How did Dr. white show that trinity does not teach 3 beings are within one being, which he stated at the outset was a contradiction? He did it by showing the different kinds of beings. some beings are persons some beings are nonpersonal beings. So since this is his reasoning it only follows that one side of the equation has to be a non personal being. and since he states that father son and holy ghost are persons, that results in the other side ofthe equation having to be a rock like being or non personal being. Of course I may have erred in assuming white employed a modicum of logic in this work.

alt said:
So you either cannot or will not read anything that proves you wrong. You deliberately misquote, misconstrue, misrepresent, twist the meaning words, any underhanded and dishonest thing that can be done, to change the truth. .............

If you ever want to deal with this topic with truth, honesty, and integrity, let me know. If I want to hear this kind of stuff I will play a Lenny Bruce or Richard Pryor tape.

switch the you's for the I's and the I's for the you's and your statements above will be correct. as you have amply demonstrated.

newyorksaint · Feb 6, 2006

ShaggyFlasko said:
Christ isn't the Father. The understanding is that there are three coequal and coeternal persons that make up the one being, God, which are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

A good evidence would be...
John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2He was in the beginning with God.
3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

God bless.
-Bill

(I'm not picking on you ShaggyFlasko!)

You know, I find this interesting. We, as LDS, claim this, yet we get told we are non-Christian. What gives?!!?

Jesus: Son of God?

sine ira et studio

Balthasar

Guest

This is me about 1 yr. old.

angel duck

angel duck

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

sine ira et studio

angel duck

angel duck

This is me about 1 yr. old.

angel duck

Balthasar

Guest

sine ira et studio

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Balthasar

Guest

This is me about 1 yr. old.

angel duck

Well-Known Member

Similar threads