Are These Mainstream Doctrines In Need of Reform?

[JAL]

Irrelevant. You have the answers, or so you claim, so prove them.

That was your response when I said,

"Here we again we see the double standard. You're fine with mainstream Christians extrapolating as much as they want, even if they assert ridiculous conclusions, but the moment that I express an opinion, you're suddenly up in arms."

You respond by reaffirming the double standard. Lovely. You act if I'm the only one on planet earth claiming to have answers. What do you think the whole church has been doing for the last 2,000 years?

In point of fact, I often feel like I'm the only one on planet earth who claims NOT to know the answers (see my signature). One of my biggest complaints with mainstream theologians, historically, is their pretense of knowing answers. Not only were they willing to burn you at the stake if you rejected their doctrines, but they suppress reform even today by rendering pastors and seminary students afraid to jeopardize their careers.

Calvary has meaning because God has made it a propitiation for our sins. It has meaning because through it, God has created a path of fellowship, restoration and forgiveness. While the suffering endured shows the depth of the sacrifice, it isn’t the exclusive reason for the act having merit. Again, you are making huge assumptions.

This is evasive rambling. For starters, don't try to morph the subject into a topic about 'meaning' as opposed to merit. Secondly you adduce propitiation as if it were an objection to my position when in fact it proves suffering to be thematic to Calvary. What an absurd, evasive response.

Again, that's why I'm confident in my position - everyone seems to resort to evasion when attempting to contend with it.

 

[Der Alte]

This is actually a misuse of language. I don't claim that matter precedes God. Rather, God is material.

Who should I believe God or JAL?

John 4:24
(24) God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."​

 

[JAL]

Who should I believe God or JAL?

John 4:24
(24) God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."​

You should definitely believe God (not English mistranslations featuring 'spirit'). I already discussed this at posts 3 and 5.

 

[JAL]

What would concern me about the distinction between material and immaterial? I really don't get such a long trip to a less then substantive point.

This is Part 3 of my response. In Part 1 (#186-7) and Part 2 (post #192), I argued that:
(1) Fellowship (e.g. with God) is an exchange of physical sensations.
(2) Revelatory visions are physical sensations, and a mark of spiritual maturity.
(3) Physically seeing God face is necessary to avoid conceptual idolatry.

Each gospel writer had his own set of emphases, and for John this included revelatory visions. His Book of Revelation is a series of visions (e.g. "His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance."), and his gospel recorded several of Christ's statements alluding to visions. Here are two examples cited earlier:

"You have never heard His voice, nor seen His shape" (Jn 5:37).
"[Isaiah said] 'He has blinded their eyes'..Isaiah said this because he SAW Jesus’ glory and spoke about him" (Jn 12:40-41).

Several evangelical scholars tie the following verses to revelatory visions.
"Unless a man is born again, he cannot SEE the kingdom of God" (Jn 3:3).
"That every one who SEES the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life” (Jn 6:40)
Jesus planned to make prophets out of the Twelve. Naturally, then, John 1:50-51 forecasted for them a lifestyle of seeing visions, “Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”

Chapter 16 of John’s gospel refers to praying in Christ’s name, usually misunderstood to mean prayer ending with, “I pray all these things to you Father in the name of Jesus Christ.” Even the disciples likely misunderstood until later, because Jesus was speaking in riddles at that time (vs. 25). As John Gill noted, however, John 16 parallels Num 12:6-8 as follows:
(1) Num 12:6-8 has a CONTRAST:
......God speaks to ordinary prophets in riddles hard to understand
......God speaks to Moses in plain language, and face to face.
(2) Whereas John 16 is a TRANSITION:
......Jesus is CURRENTLY speaking to the Twelve in riddles hard to understand (vs. 25)
......On Pentecost the Father will begin speaking to the Twelve in plain language, and face to face.

Any petitions inspired during face-to-face visions of the Father are according to His will and thus CANNOT BE DENIED.

Let's see how the text bears this out. Verse 25:

"These things have I spoken unto you in riddles but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in riddles, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father [in visions!]".

Verses 12:-13:

"He will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear [from me], that shall he speak: and he will shew you [visually] things to come" (16:12-13).

Verses 23 to 27 bring the crucial thesis into focus. The intimation is that when we are standing face to face with the Father, it suddenly becomes awkward, even inappropriate, to route our petitions through the Son. It’s like standing in a room with a man and his son, but instead of addressing the man directly, we speak only to his son, waiting
for him to relay the message to his father. No one would ever do something that silly, not even for a moment, right? Which is precisely thewhole point of the passage:

"And in that day [of Pentecost] ye shall ask me NOTHING [!!!!]. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. These things have I spoken unto you in riddles: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in riddles, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. At that day [of Pentecost] ye shall ask in my name: and I say NOT unto you, that I will pray the Father for you. For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me"
(16:23-27).

It's little wonder that Andrew Murray regarded Pentecost as an outpouring several orders of magnitude greater than the Reformation.

If anyone still has doubts about this face-to-face intrpretation, verse 16 should assuage their concerns:

"Ye shall see me, BECAUSE I go to the Father”.

Did everyone catch that? If not, allow me to explain. Suppose you see a vision of the Father on His throne, up close and personal, as though you were standing right in front of Him. In such proximity, WHO or WHAT would you see seated at His right hand, in your peripheral vision? The Son! Stephen’s experience drives the nail into the coffin, because it is a clear example of peripheral vision. He “looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55). (The OT sometimes used “glory of God” in reference to the human-like Figure who spoke to prophets face to face). Also take a look at 14:19 of John:


"Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye [Twelve will] see me."

A few noted evangelical scholars (including John Calvin) admit that both 14:19 and 16:16 refer to an ongoing vision of Christ for the Twelve. A few of them also read verses 14:21-23 in the same way. Verses 14:11-14 further confirm that petitions offered in Christ’s name are always granted.

"Verily, verily, I say to you, he who is believing in me, the [miraculous] works that I do - that one also shall do, and greater than these he shall do, because I go on to my Father; and whatever ye may ask in my name, I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if ye ask anything in my name I will do it (Jn 14:3 -14, KJV; cf. 15:7, 16)

To summarize. "Prayer in Christ's name" is a code name for petitions granted in virtue of being inspired during a face-to-face vision of the Father.

I think I'll do a brief Part 4 discussing Luke on visions.

 

[Der Alte]

You should definitely believe God (not English mistranslations featuring 'spirit'). I already discussed this at posts 3 and 5.

Unlike a lot of folks, evidently including you, I don't rely on translations or versions. I started learning to speak Greek the year of Sputnik one and formally studied both Biblical languages about 2 decades after that.
.....I addressed your mistranslations/misrepresentations in my [post #117] above. In my response I cited 92 verses of scripture, where I list 72 personal attributes of the Holy Spirit. In post #19 you blew off my post as "a lengthy reiteration of orthodox opinions on the Third Person". Once again my reply to your dismissal, "you evidently do not know the difference between scripture and so called 'orthodox opinion' I listed 92 verses of scripture, not one sentence of opinion" orthodox or otherwise which you have not addressed. "A breath" does not have personal characteristics such as Access to God, Anoints for Service, Assures, Authors Scripture, Baptizes, Believers Born of, Calls and Commissions, Cleanses, Comforts, Communion with believers, Convicts of sin, Counsels, Creates, Empowers, Empowers Believers, Fellowship with believers, Fills, Forbids action, Gives gifts, Glorifies Christ, Guides in truth, Helps our weakness, Indwells believers, Inspires prayer, Intercedes, Interprets Scripture, Leads, Liberates, Molds Character, Produces fruit, Raises from the dead, Regenerates, Reveals, Sanctifies, Seals, Sends, Sent, Strengthens, Testifies of Jesus, Victory over flesh, Warns, Worship helper. The Holy Spirit does have all these attributes.

 

[JAL]

Unlike a lot of folks, evidently including you, I don't rely on translations or versions. I started learning to speak Greek the year of Sputnik one and formally studied both Biblical languages about 2 decades after that.
.....I addressed your mistranslations/misrepresentations in my [post #117] above. In my response I cited 92 verses of scripture, where I list 72 personal attributes of the Holy Spirit. In post #19 you blew off my post as "a lengthy reiteration of orthodox opinions on the Third Person". Once again my reply to your dismissal, "you evidently do not know the difference between scripture and so called 'orthodox opinion' I listed 92 verses of scripture, not one sentence of opinion" orthodox or otherwise which you have not addressed. "A breath" does not have personal characteristics such as Access to God, Anoints for Service, Assures, Authors Scripture, Baptizes, Believers Born of, Calls and Commissions, Cleanses, Comforts, Communion with believers, Convicts of sin, Counsels, Creates, Empowers, Empowers Believers, Fellowship with believers, Fills, Forbids action, Gives gifts, Glorifies Christ, Guides in truth, Helps our weakness, Indwells believers, Inspires prayer, Intercedes, Interprets Scripture, Leads, Liberates, Molds Character, Produces fruit, Raises from the dead, Regenerates, Reveals, Sanctifies, Seals, Sends, Sent, Strengthens, Testifies of Jesus, Victory over flesh, Warns, Worship helper. The Holy Spirit does have all these attributes.

The words in bold say it all. You have what Pentecostal theologian Howard Ervin refers to as an antisacramental bias - meaning that you PRESUME that a person cannot be a material substance.

Yes, if you presume the very mainstream assumptions being debated/contested, that doesn't count as an argument even if you copy and paste a million verses. It's just a regurgitation of orthodox opinion, as I stated.

Look we both agree that God is a person. As I've shown on this thread, there is plenty of biblical data suggesting that His substance is material. As a consequence, any notion of an immaterial spirit flies in the face of the preponderance of biblical data. Antisacramentalism in particular, argued Ervin, 'has much more to do with Plato than with Paul.'

The church needs to be more forthcoming about the Platonic influences. If a doctrine came from Plato, don't pretend it came from a careful analysis of Scripture.

And as pointed out repeatedly, the church father Tertullian (200 A.D.) - the man who invented the word Trinity - was a staunch materialist. So I am not entirely alone in all this.

 

[Der Alte]

The words in bold say it all. You have what Pentecostal theologian Howard Ervin refers to as an antisacramental bias - meaning that you PRESUME that a person cannot be a material substance.

I don't know and don't care who this Ervin guy is and certainly am not interested what he has to say about anything. I don't presume anything. Where have I said or implied that I don't believe that a person cannot be a material substance

Yes, if you presume the very mainstream assumptions being debated/contested, that doesn't count as an argument even if you copy and paste a million verses. It's just a regurgitation of orthodox opinion, as I stated.

In other words you have no interest in what scripture says if it appears to disprove your assumptions/presuppositions. Only the scripture you choose to support your assumptions//presuppositions count. The only regurgitation going on around here is you. You keep referring to this Ervin character. Is he your guru?

Look we both agree that God is a person. As I've shown on this thread, there is plenty of biblical data suggesting that His substance is material. As a consequence, any notion of an immaterial spirit flies in the face of the preponderance of biblical data. Antisacramentalism in particular, argued Ervin, 'has much more to do with Plato than with Paul.

I don't care what Ervin said, it will take more than a reference to prove the assumptions.

The church needs to be more forthcoming about the Platonic influences. If a doctrine came from Plato, don't pretend it came from a careful analysis of Scripture.

Just because a bunch of your favorite sources say all this nonsense about Plato does not make it so. Also just because something seems to be similar to Plato does not make it wrong

And as pointed out repeatedly, the church father Tertullian (200 A.D.) - the man who invented the word Trinity - was a staunch materialist. So I am not entirely alone in all this..

Tertullian did not invent anything. If Tertullian "invented" a word then he would have to explain to his readers what it meant. Where does Tertullian explain what "Trinity." He uses the word "Trinity" as if he expected his audience to understand what he meant. Theophilus and Clement used the word "Trinity" before Tertullian.
• Theophilus [a.d. 115-168-181.] to Autolycus. Book II. Chap. XIII
• Clement [a.d. 153-193-217.] The Stromata, Or Miscellanies. Book V. Chap. XIV.

 

[DennisTate]

It seems that Staff deleted my earlier thread for being too hostile. Hopefully everyone will find this new thread less offensive.

"You foolish Galatians!" (Gal 3:1). As human beings of very limited knowledge, all of us are potentially susceptible to doctrinal error. In fact, I will argue that a few mainstream doctrines seem needy of reform. Indeed the motto of the Reformation was, "Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda," (Reformed, AND ALWAYS REFORMING).

The mainstream teachings in question here are problematical for various reasons. Seemingly, at least:
- They do not appear to always cast Yahweh in the best possible light, potentially leaving an uninformed reader with doubts about the supreme excellency of His character and His unqualified desert of praise.
- They seem unaware of Yahweh's most costly, unselfish, altruistic sacrifice, mistaking it for the cross. Sadly, Yahweh doesn't seem to be getting any credit/praise for His most self-sacrificial work.
- They seem unaware of why Yahweh created us.
- They seem unaware of the Third Person's true name and nature. Surprisingly, after 2,000 years the church still refers to Him as "The Holy Spirit" or "The Holy Ghost". As a result of such apparent mistakes, mainstream theologians are still mystified even by a verse as lucid as John 3:5.
- They seem unaware of what an intimate relationship with the Father entails and thereby potentially steer our prayer lives in inappropriate directions.
- They seem to favor the same erroneous approaches to sanctification, evangelism, and missions that triggered the writing of the Galatian epistle.

The most important point of all, however, is that church leaders should abstain from any pretense of infallibility in their teachings. When a pastor preaches a sermon with the aura or disposition of, "I've studied my Bible and therefore KNOW exactly what I'm talking about", he's actually hindering revival by building on a platform of intellectual dishonesty. The truth is that he merely has OPINIONS (see my signature), just like the rest of us.

You may find this to be an intriguing question that I am sure is related to your dilemma.

The being of light of NDE fame, G-d or Satan?

 

[klutedavid]

Suppose I bring three people to your home for you to meet them. I introduce the three like this: "This is the father, this is son, and this is The Human Being." If all three are human beings, that third title seems inappropriate, right? Because:
(1) It doesn't shed any light on who that third person is. Is it the mother? A sibling? Uncle? Cousin? Friend of the family? Caretaker? Who is it? While the first two titles (father and son) are legitimate in virtue of making an ENLIGHTENING DISTINCTION between two of the members, serving to identify/distinguish them, the third title fails of that goal.
(2) It's self-defeating, because it raises doubts as to whether the FIRST TWO members are human beings.

As a result, no one would ever propose such a title for the third person of a trio. Again, the problem here is that if all three are OF THE SAME TYPE (human beings), it doesn't make sense to 'distinguish' the third one BY TYPE.


Let's apply this reasoning to the Trinity. Are all the Three of the same type, that is to say, Is the Father a spirit? Is the Son a spirit? Is the third person a spirit? Orthodoxy asserts, 'Yes!' On this assumption, the third title 'The Holy Spirit' doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

The one who was revealed to us was Jesus Christ.
That is all that really matters in the end, because it is through believing in the person of Jesus that we are saved.

Salvation is what matters, and salvation is delivered through Jesus the messiah. Looking at Jesus; tells us exactly who the Father is, we see Jesus and we have seen the Father.

The doctrine of the trinity is a sidetrack, the mainline is Jesus.

 

[JAL]

I don't know and don't care who this Ervin guy is and certainly am not interested what he has to say about anything. I don't presume anything. Where have I said or implied that I don't believe that a person cannot be a material substance

Well one thing is for sure. I can't currently classify you as being evasive because you honestly believe the words that you just wrote. (Or maybe I'm missing something here).

Again, here's what you said:

A "breath" does not have personal characteristics

So you don't allow for the possibility of a material mind. Which is one of the main bones of contention on this thread.

In other words you have no interest in what scripture says if it appears to disprove your assumptions/presuppositions. Only the scripture you choose to support your assumptions//presuppositions count. The only regurgitation going on around here is you.

But that was precisely my evaluation of you. Here's what I see going on, regarding my posts #3 and #5.

Two competing translations.
(1) The Holy Spirit/Ghost (immaterial)
(2) The Holy Wind/Breath (Physical).
For several verses, I documented clear evidence for #2 by pointing out clear allusions to physical wind/breath in the immediate context, with John 20:22 being the principal example, supported by a consensus in classical scholarship that Holy Wind/Breath was the most literal translation of the verse.

More than that - in post #3, I argued that the title "The Holy Spirit" is a ridiculous reading because it is an unacceptable use of language (it's a misuse of language) and thus does not qualify as a valid interpretation of Scripture.

That's two exegetical, Scripture-based arguments for my conclusion (followed up with a number of similar posts on MORE biblical evidence).

But you deny this conclusion. Based on what? Scripture? Biblical evidence? Nope. Based on the following Platonic ASSUMPTION (well I suppose we could credit Descartes as much as Plato but I think you get my point).

A "breath" does not have personal characteristics

Again, you don't allow for the possibility of a material mind. Fine. Prove it - because I've provided several arguments to the effect that a material mind is the ONLY viable kind.

But you can't just ASSUME what is to be proven. That doesn't work for me.

You keep referring to this Ervin character. Is he your guru?

Sorry bad memory on my part. I thought I only mentioned him once (I do have memory issues). Was it really more than once?

I like to adduce eminent mainstream theologians where they support my view, because some Christians don't want to listen anyone except mainstream theologians. Even if that's not you, there are others reading this thread who might benefit

I don't care what Ervin said, it will take more than a reference to prove the assumptions.

Of course. You'll find plenty of that over the last 200 posts.

Just because a bunch of your favorite sources say all this nonsense about Plato does not make it so. Also just because something seems to be similar to Plato does not make it wrong

Tertullian did not invent anything. If Tertullian "invented" a word then he would have to explain to his readers what it meant. Where does Tertullian explain what "Trinity." He uses the word "Trinity" as if he expected his audience to understand what he meant. Theophilus and Clement used the word "Trinity" before Tertullian.
• Theophilus [a.d. 115-168-181.] to Autolycus. Book II. Chap. XIII
• Clement [a.d. 153-193-217.] The Stromata, Or Miscellanies. Book V. Chap. XIV.

I seem to recall a source that says otherwise, but I'll have to check on that. Maybe I misunderstood the source, or maybe it was incorrect. Fair enough.

 

[JAL]

Tertullian did not invent anything. If Tertullian "invented" a word then he would have to explain to his readers what it meant.

Not really true. Scholars coin words all the time without explanation, if they feel the context clarifies their meaning.

Where does Tertullian explain what "Trinity." He uses the word "Trinity" as if he expected his audience to understand what he meant. Theophilus and Clement used the word "Trinity" before Tertullian.
• Theophilus [a.d. 115-168-181.] to Autolycus. Book II. Chap. XIII
• Clement [a.d. 153-193-217.] The Stromata, Or Miscellanies. Book V. Chap. XIV.

Well even if he didn't invent the word, he was apparently the first Trinitarian to use that word in the Tirinitarian sense. From Wikipedia.

Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early 3rd century, is credited as being the first to use the Latin words "Trinity",[26] "person" and "substance"[27] to explain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "tres personae, una substantia".[28] While "personae" is often translated as "persons," the Latin word personae is better understood as referring to roles as opposed to individual centers of consciousness.

Trinity - Wikipedia

 

[JAL]

You keep referring to this Ervin character. Is he your guru?

Still not sure what you mean. A quick search on this thread seems to confirm that I mentioned him only once.

Just because a bunch of your favorite sources say all this nonsense about Plato does not make it so.

What nonsense? Here again, you make a pretense of an argument - without substance, nothing specific.

Also just because something seems to be similar to Plato does not make it wrong

Strawman. That wasn't the nature of my objection about Plato. My objection was, CALL IT WHAT IT IS. If you got a doctrine from Plato (or from any other extra-biblical source, or even from your own head), don't pretend it to have derived from a careful interpretation of Scripture, or some abundance of biblical evidence. BE HONEST ABOUT WHERE IT CAME FROM.

 

[JAL]

Just because a bunch of your favorite sources say all this nonsense about Plato does not make it so.

My references to Plato refer to his INFLUENCE. At minimum his material-immaterial distinctions were an impetus for the material-immaterial dualism of body and soul appearing among the church fathers. In Tertullian's Treatise on the Soul, chapter six is entitled "The Arguments of the Platonists for the Soul's Incorporeality, Opposed, Perhaps Frivolously", he blames Platonists for the doctrine of immaterial soul.

And regardless of whether you yourself find any value in the church fathers, others here might.

Here's an article that likewise credits to Plato the kind of soul accepted by the Christian church.
EarlyChurch.org.uk: W.S. Tyler on Platonism and Christianity

Moreover, considerable scholarship understands the Forms of Plato to mean immaterial subsistent realities distinct from matter.

 

[Der Alte]

Still not sure what you mean. A quick search on this thread seems to confirm that I mentioned him only once.

You referred to Ervin twice in the post I quoted.

What nonsense? Here again, you make a pretense of an argument - without substance, nothing specific.

As do your accusations of my supposed Platonism with no, zero, none evidence.

Strawman. That wasn't the nature of my objection about Plato. My objection was, CALL IT WHAT IT IS. If you got a doctrine from Plato (or from any other extra-biblical source, or even from your own head), don't pretend it to have derived from a careful interpretation of Scripture, or some abundance of biblical evidence. BE HONEST ABOUT WHERE IT CAME FROM.

If you think I have a a doctrine from a source other than my own study, please prove it. The bulk of my reading of Plato has been in the past year or two. Decades after I became a Christian

My references to Plato refer to his INFLUENCE. At minimum his material-immaterial distinctions were an impetus for the material-immaterial dualism of body and soul appearing among the church fathers.

Or it may have come from John 3:8.

In Tertullian's Treatise on the Soul, chapter six is entitled "The Arguments of the Platonists for the Soul's Incorporeality, Opposed, Perhaps Frivolously", he blames Platonists for the doctrine of immaterial soul.

And of course Tertullian is the end all, be all authority on the nature of the soul?

And regardless of whether you yourself find any value in the church fathers, others here might.

I do find value in the ECF especially Polycarp and Ignatius and Irenaeus, direct students of John, but I do not hold one to be more authoritative than all the others.

Here's an article that likewise credits to Plato the kind of soul accepted by the Christian church.

I don't do links. If someone says something relevant, quote a little bit here, then I might look for more information..

Moreover, considerable scholarship understands the Forms of Plato to mean immaterial subsistent realities distinct from matter.

"Considerable scholarship" Logical fallacy appeal to authority. Similar to "everybody knows""it's a known fact" etc.

 

[JAL]

You referred to Ervin twice in the post I quoted.

That was one joint reference, first I mentioned him then I cited a quote, all in the same post. So one mention in 225 posts - makes him my guru according to you?

As do your accusations of my supposed Platonism with no, zero, none evidence.

Moot point. The essence of the argument is that immaterialism is an extra-biblical position and, as such, can be chalked up to philosophy, not biblical exegesis. That in itself doesn't invalidate it, but we at least need to be honest about its origins.

Also your phraseology is kinda silly. I 'm not insisting you got it DIRECTLY from Plato. Even if you learned it from a pastor, or from seminary, the ORIGIN of the doctrine, historically, is Plato (and/or his followers known as Platonists)

If you think I have a a doctrine from a source other than my own study, please prove it. The bulk of my reading of Plato has been in the past year or two. Decades after I became a Christian

See above.

Or it may have come from John 3:8.

A verse that refers to physical blowing wind! Thanks so much for citing that verse (although I myself mentioned it earlier). Again, two competing translations for the title of the Third Person throughout the NT (90 times).
(1) The Holy Spirit/Ghost (immaterial)
(2) The Holy Wind/Breath (physical).

You opt for #1 whereas I opt for #2. So as for the physical blowing wind at John 3:8, is it more on my side? Or your side? Boy - that's a tough one!

And of course Tertullian is the end all, be all authority on the nature of the soul?

Again, it's for the benefit of those who will ONLY listen to mainstream scholars such as the church fathers.

"Considerable scholarship" Logical fallacy appeal to authority. Similar to "everybody knows""it's a known fact" etc.

"Considerable scholarship" is good enough when it's generally well known that a good number of scholars concur. But if you insist on specific example, take a look at Frederick Copleston's History of Philosophy, or the (Platonic) Theory of Forms topic on Wikipedia, for starters.

Let's sum it up. In this last post you've cited only one verse - that supports my position! In the OTHER post, I think you said that you made 92 scriptural references about divine personality - which was not even in debate!

By all means please continue posting. You're doing a fantastic job of proving my case.

 

[JAL]

"A breath" does not have personal characteristics

Regardless of THAT debate,biblical dynamics clearly connote materiality. Here I'm going to make yet another argument that sanctification is the volumetric filling of the human body with the Holy Breath, from head to toe.

"The tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory...Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle ( Ex 29:43;40:34).

The word 'sanctified' means to make holy. For example the Darby version puts it like this, "hallowed by my glory". Three other versions could be cited here, but they are merely popular versions.

What kind of holiness is this? Had a sinful tabernacle now become morally upright? ANY of three key doctrines would have put the church on the correct path to sanctification but, like the Galatians, she has overlooked all three (as Andrew Murray saw so clearly). ONE of those three doctrines (the one discussed here) is the true definition of holiness.

Andrew Murray wrote, "The mistake of the Galatian church is repeated to this day, even in the churches mostly confidently assured that they are free from the Galatian error." You wondered who my guru was? It's Andrew Murray - hands down - and I make no bones about it. To put it colloquially, "That's my boy!"

Oddly enough there have been a few individuals who, despite horrible doctrine, DID end up taking a fairly solid approach to both sanctification and ecclesiology. Charles Finney was one of them, as was Paul Yonggi Cho. But I digress.

Again, what is holiness? God alone is holy (Rev 15:4) in the strict sense, because He alone has supreme merit, virtue, and accomplishment. Human holiness can only be DERIVED holiness. And in fact this is by and large the mainstream view but it's not born out consistently in their actual PRACTICE of sanctification, as we'll see.

So what is derived holiness? It's like derived strength. Two possible ways to strengthen Samson:
(1) The Incredible Hulk approach - build up his muscle mass at the moment of need, and then tear it down again. His own (newfound) muscle does the heavy lifting.
(2) The Iron Man Suit - here the Holy Breath descends upon his body at the moment of need, and does all the heavy lifting Himself. Since it's not Samson's own strength/muscles at work, it is properly called DERIVED strength. How strong is it? As strong as God is.

I suspect it was #2, but the topic here is derived HOLINESS. God wants us to be holy EVEN AS HE IS HOLY. That degree of holiness is possible for us ONLY in a derived sense (unless we expect to labor 13 billion years like He did, to achieve it).

IN a nutshell, derived holiness exists wherever the divine Presence has descended upon an object to assume control. As Andrew Murray put it, "Obedience is not holiness" but rather "where God is, there is holiness."

I already provided one example - the tabernacle was 'made holy' when filled (volumetrically) with the pillar of cloud. Had the tabernacle become obedient? Of course not.

Second example. "Put off they shoes [Moses], for ye stand on holy ground" (Ex 3:5). Why was the ground holy? Was it obeying God? Here too, Andrew Murray was on point, recognizing that the Fire in the burning bush was radiating material Light-quanta even into the ground at Moses' feet. This too, is volumetric.

Third example. Radiance/radiation is most intense at its SOURCE. Hence the tablernacle's innner room where God spoke face to face with Moses was known as the MOST holy place, or the holy of holies. Even so, some Radiation must have reached the outer court, because its elements(utensils, accouterments, and structures) were ALSO described as holy. Examples include the priestly garments (Ex 28:2), the crown (29:6), the altar (29:37), the anointing oil (30:25), the gifts offered (28:38), and the consecrated foods (Lev 22:10) - even the priests themselves became holy, because “All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat [consecrated food]…every one that toucheth [the consecrated food] shall be holy” (6:18, KJV)." If you eat the material divine Word, you will be holy (see the Last Supper).

Now for the million dollar question. In the sense of derived Holiness, exactly how much of the human body does God want holy? ALL OF IT, wherefore the process of sanctification can ONLY be defined as a gradual, volumetric filling of the human body from head to toe. Of course 'filled' is a relative term because not all fillings are of the same density (viz. smoke) - but I think you get my point.

Which means we are utterly helpless to sanctify ourselves. All we can do is wait upon the Lord in prayer for outpourings (precisely as they did at Pentecost), for "How much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Breath to those that ask him?" (Lk 11:13).

What role does obedience play? When we disobey conscience, we grieve the Holy Breath in ways potentially disqualifying us for any number of outpourings.

Reflection upon the new birth will further confirm the volumetric schema. The Greek word for 'holy' in the title 'The Holy Breath' (90 times) is applied 60 times to the churches ('the holy ones') precisely because the new birth imparts holiness (a fact acknolwedged by almost all mainstream scholars). Did the ENTIRE heart become holy? Was the ENTIRE heart saturated with the Holy Breath? No, because a sinful nature remains. Note the implications:
(1) The new birth is instant - this is instantaneous holiness that has NOTHING to do with obedience.
(2) The remainder of the heart needs the same kind of outpourings, until it is quantitatively FILLED with holiness.

This concept of instant-holines was demonstrated in historic revivals (in case anyone here has read up on revival history). When God visits a city with a mighty outpouring, entire communities become devout overnight. Revival and sanctification, therefore, are one and the same concept/process. But the mainstream church still hasn't accepted this fact - they still take the Galatian approach to sanctification, namely: read your bible, learn the laws of God, and then obey them. I sometimes call it active sanctification, versus passive sanctification.

Also it's very frustrating, to put it mildly, that mainstream treatments of the new birth and sanctification do not acknowledge the logical problem facing them. In the mainstream definition of an immaterial soul, it is indivisible into parts. Hence there is no room to sustain both a sinful nature and a holy nature. Yet they all pretend to have addressed the persistence of sin without issue. After a while, it begins to look like intellectual dishonesty.

Almost equally bad is a frequent resort to trichotomy (although at most only a mere handful of professional theologians, as far as I know, take this route). The trichomist's 'solution' might go something like this: the soul is the sinful nature, and the spirit is the newborn nature.

But trichotomy is complete gibberish.

 

[InterestedApologist]

Again, that's why I'm confident in my position - everyone seems to resort to evasion when attempting to contend with it.

Ironic. Every question concerning the realities of materialism as it relates to science has been completely dodged by you as pointed out earlier in this thread. Furthermore, any scripture that would indicate a contrary view to your own is dodged by referring to it as mis-interpreted or translated incorrectly.

In short, you are confident in your position, not because it is true, verifiable, observable or even logical, but rather, because it is yours. You cannot be objective, because hubris demands your view be correct.

 

[InterestedApologist]

But trichotomy is complete gibberish.

Please explain away Hebrews 4:12. Yet another verse improperly translated, I suspect?

 

[JAL]

Ironic. Every question concerning the realities of materialism as it relates to science has been completely dodged by you as pointed out earlier in this thread.

What have I dodged? You asked about the origin of eternal preexisting matter. It's a logically incoherent question.

Furthermore, any scripture that would indicate a contrary view to your own is dodged by referring to it as mis-interpreted or translated incorrectly.

That's funny. The last poster to challenge me on this thread only produced one verse - and it supported my position! But hey, at least that's one more verse than you've been able to produce.

In short, you are confident in your position, not because it is true, verifiable, observable or even logical, but rather, because it is yours. You cannot be objective, because hubris demands your view be correct.

Not observable? Not logical? Not verifiable? That's a perfectly accurate description - of immaterial substance.

 

[JAL]

Please explain away Hebrews 4:12. Yet another verse improperly translated, I suspect?

Well if you're asking if I would vote for the translation 'spirit', it should be pretty evident by now that I wouldn't.

But regardless of how one translates it, it seems beset with ambiguities. It's not the best possible ground to build a major doctrine on, in my opinion.

As stated earlier, I tend to cite verses differently than some Christians do. With me, there's often a logical rigor, for example when I argue that the divine Light had to be material particles for Moses' facial veil to successfully restrain it. In other words I usually argue that an alternative interpretation would be a logical impossibility.

But often I see Christians adducing verses without any logical rigor (and calling it 'proof'). And then I get a big show of indignation from them if I don't accept THEIR interpretation. I suppose that's what's going to happen here too?