-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
my Trinity concept
- Thread starter Extirpated Wildlife
- Start date
- Status
theend0218
Everything is everything.
First, as they say, all analogies limp, some crawl.
Second, the difficulty in the historical debate over the "trinity" is that we must wrestle with three teachings concerning God in the OT/NT that are somewhat simple to demonstrate Scripturally but impossible to demonstrate rationally:
There is but One God. This cannot be compromised in any way.
Three are described in ways that only "God" can be described: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
These three are never referred to as "three gods" but are distinguished each from the other so that the Father is never called "Son" nor the Son "the Father" nor the Holy Spirit "Jesus" or "the Father" and so on.
Summary: there is but one God; three are identified as being "God"; these three are not separate gods but are yet distinguished each from the other.
In trying to defend these teachings in Scripture the Church attempted to define in order to defend. In doing this the Church created a "technical term" that has from that time to ours separated "believers" into those who are called orthodox and those who are called hereitcs by the orthodox. I am not now using the term orthodox to refer to the Orthodox Church.
An alternate view might say that some Church leaders (with political help) did not attempt to defend by defining, but in fact defined and in so doing preserved its own understanding of what the Scriptures taught and in doing so created "orthodoxy."
My problem with technical terms is that they do in fact separate believers from one another based on what some believe is correct teaching. On the other hand, I do not have an alternate way of preserving the wisdom of those who went before us without using technical terms. I think, though, that the Church must at some point admit that many of our technical terms are one step beyond what Scripture itself says even when we believe they capture and preserve what Scripture teaches. I suspect that this entire issue speaks to the differences that exist between groups that continue to hold to tradition as necessary to provide/correct understanding and those who think they go it alone with Scripture.
Second, the difficulty in the historical debate over the "trinity" is that we must wrestle with three teachings concerning God in the OT/NT that are somewhat simple to demonstrate Scripturally but impossible to demonstrate rationally:
There is but One God. This cannot be compromised in any way.
Three are described in ways that only "God" can be described: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
These three are never referred to as "three gods" but are distinguished each from the other so that the Father is never called "Son" nor the Son "the Father" nor the Holy Spirit "Jesus" or "the Father" and so on.
Summary: there is but one God; three are identified as being "God"; these three are not separate gods but are yet distinguished each from the other.
In trying to defend these teachings in Scripture the Church attempted to define in order to defend. In doing this the Church created a "technical term" that has from that time to ours separated "believers" into those who are called orthodox and those who are called hereitcs by the orthodox. I am not now using the term orthodox to refer to the Orthodox Church.
An alternate view might say that some Church leaders (with political help) did not attempt to defend by defining, but in fact defined and in so doing preserved its own understanding of what the Scriptures taught and in doing so created "orthodoxy."
My problem with technical terms is that they do in fact separate believers from one another based on what some believe is correct teaching. On the other hand, I do not have an alternate way of preserving the wisdom of those who went before us without using technical terms. I think, though, that the Church must at some point admit that many of our technical terms are one step beyond what Scripture itself says even when we believe they capture and preserve what Scripture teaches. I suspect that this entire issue speaks to the differences that exist between groups that continue to hold to tradition as necessary to provide/correct understanding and those who think they go it alone with Scripture.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
