The Trinity - Help Me Understand

[DingDing]

...
How does anyone just believe something they don't understand?
...

Do you believe God created the universe? ('Yes' or 'No') Do you understand how He did it? ('Yes' or 'No')
Do you believe Jesus healed the lame and blind, and raised the dead? ('Yes' or 'No') Do you understand how He did these things? ('Yes' or 'No')

Suppose I ask you if you believe in the trinity. You say, "absolutely." I say, "What is the doctrine of the Trinity?" To which you reply, "I have no idea, I can't describe or explain it, I just believe it."

You are arguing with yourself here (and I believe you may have lost).

 

[ViaCrucis]

How, in your opinion, can you believe that being 'faithful preachers of theology matters tremendously' when, at the same time, you think 'not believing the right things are unnecessary for 'initial salvation'? I am adding 'initial (justification) salvation' to your words, to distinguish from the (sanctification) salvation I believe we work on for the rest of our lives (making Him Lord). Something which happens after initially accepting Christ (as our Savior) because he IS Lord.

Getting our theology right isn't a matter that makes us right with God; that is what Christ has done already.

Getting our theology right is a matter of worshiping God in truth, communicating the truth of the Gospel to our neighbor, hearing the Gospel rightly preached, being comforted with the promises of God, and living out our faith here and now in the world in faithfulness to Christ and in love of our neighbor.

I am confident that the Lord can save heretics. But that doesn't mean that we should tolerate heresy in the Church. Heresy promotes falsehood, and inevitably leads to a distortion and perversion of the Gospel; and if we are not preaching the Gospel then we are preaching something else.

For me, correct doctrine simply paints the best picture of Christ's character. And that picture...or character "likeness"...is what we should pursue after, until the day we die. But 'that gospel' is the 'fellowship' gospel we pursue AFTER we receive whatever is minimally essential to have entered into a 'saving relationship'...as born again believers.

Just exactly 'what' is minimally required in the 'relationship gospel' is a subject of great disagreement though. So, while I agree initial salvation isn't a theology exam, I'm curious as to what you might think is minimally required?

I don't know what you mean by "fellowship gospel" and "relationship gospel"; as there's only the Gospel, the good news of what God has done--and is doing--in Christ for the us, for the world.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The issue here is not if there is a "trinity", but what is the definition of the trinity. Many denominations teach the trinity doctrine in one form or another. The trinity is actually a catholic doctrine, which they state that the three are on in body and in spirit. My opinion is that any other form of this would not fit under the definition of the "trinity". For instance if we believe that the three are one only in character, or in spirit, this does not count as "the trinity" and many denominations argue the trinity doctrine falsely.

You said that the bible does not teach the trinity, and I agree 100%. What really opened my eyes to the truth about the trinity is the fact that Jesus prayed to His father in John 17. If they were one mind and body and spirit then Jesus would be praying to Himself, while sitting on the throne in heaven, even though Jesus is seen many times sitting at the right hand of God who is on the throne. To agree that they are one in character and spirit only is not really the "trinity". I refer to the Godhead as tri unity.

It seems to me that all you've done here is demonstrate that you don't really understand the Trinity at all. It does not say "the three are one in body and in spirit".

That Christ prays to the Father is precisely what Trinitarianism emphasizes, because the Son is distinct from the Father. The Son is not the Father.

What you are thinking of as "the Trinity" is the ancient heresy of Sabellianism, also known as Modalism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Uber Genius]

Do you believe God created the universe? ('Yes' or 'No') Do you understand how He did it? ('Yes' or 'No')

Don't remember any writings in scripture about "How God created" ex nihilo (look it up)."

The OT and NT authors write hundreds of verses about the triune nature of God.

Further the church fathers and first ecumenical councils dealt with this topic extensively.

There is no discussion of "How God created," ex nihilo in the church fathers or ecumenical councils.

So the info to STUDY:

On Trinity is hundreds of pages.

On ex nihilo creation ZERO PAGES

THIS IS CLEARLY A FALSE ANALOGY AND IS THEREFORE FALLACIOUS (big surprise)

Do you believe Jesus healed the lame and blind, and raised the dead? ('Yes' or 'No') Do you understand how He did these things? ('Yes' or 'No')

Rinse and repeat! See my response above.
The reason you keep making this mistake is that you were too lazy to go look what level of source material there was to study..

You are arguing with yourself here (and I believe you may have lost).

Two false analogies and a fail attempt at humor. About what I expected from someone too lazy to engage the evidence I teach to hgihschool kids every week.

If you change you ways and decide to finally study to show yourself approved, here is a link to a 6+ hour synopsis of the material on the Trinity.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/s5

It is a podcast and it is an overview in 8 parts. Hope this helps.

 

[masmpg]

It seems to me that all you've done here is demonstrate that you don't really understand the Trinity at all. It does not say "the three are one in body and in spirit".

That Christ prays to the Father is precisely what Trinitarianism emphasizes, because the Son is distinct from the Father. The Son is not the Father.

What you are thinking of as "the Trinity" is the ancient heresy of Sabellianism, also known as Modalism.

-CryptoLutheran

Here is what the RCC states;
"We confess and we believe that the holy and indescribable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one only God in His nature, a single substance, a single nature, a single majesty and power."
and this;
"We firmly believe and profess without qualification that there is only one true God, eternal, immense, unchangeable, incomprehensible, omnipotent, and indescribable, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; three persons but one essence and a substance or nature that is wholly simple."
Sounds to me like they believe that they are physically the same. That is what I was taught while attending catholic school.

 

[DingDing]

... Hope this helps.

No, it just shows you refuse to acknowledge the point of my post, which I actually believe I got across. You can no more explain the nature of God (trinity, for example) than you can explain how He does what He does (miracles, for example). We accept these things by faith because we have no other rational option. We see pieces of God - glimpses - but His full nature is far beyond our understanding. But if you think you are so smart, then please explain these things to the rest of us. We (and probably God) would surely like to hear your wisdom.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Here is what the RCC states;
"We confess and we believe that the holy and indescribable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one only God in His nature, a single substance, a single nature, a single majesty and power."
and this;
"We firmly believe and profess without qualification that there is only one true God, eternal, immense, unchangeable, incomprehensible, omnipotent, and indescribable, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; three persons but one essence and a substance or nature that is wholly simple."
Sounds to me like they believe that they are physically the same. That is what I was taught while attending catholic school.

None of that suggests that the Three are "physically the same". For one, God is invisible and immaterial, God has no "physicality" at all. One exception: the Son, because He became human in the womb of the Virgin Mary, does indeed have physicality because He's human.

They are one in Essence, but distinct in their Hypostases. That is precisely what the quotes above you gave say.

Here is the Quicumque Vult, also known as the Athanasian Creed; it is used throughout the Western Christian world by Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and others:

http://anglicansonline.org/basics/athanasian.html

And here is a rather more obscure confession of the Trinity that comes from a small council in the 7th century (the 11th Council of Toledo):

https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TOLEDO.HTM

Both of these present the Trinity as believed and confessed by Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc.

This is official Catholic teaching, just as it is official Lutheran teaching, official Anglican teaching, etc.

And it's virtually identical with Orthodox teaching as well, but getting into the nuances of difference between Western and Eastern Trinitarianism is beyond the scope of my post here.

The Father and the Son are one in Essence, but remain distinct Hypostases or "Persons" if you prefer. So no, the Son is not praying to Himself, He is praying to His Father, the Father He has known from all eternity because He, as the Son, is eternal God with and of the Father.

To have better clarity on what all Christians believe, both East and West, then here's the Nicene Creed which exists precisely to specify the Son's eternal relationship to the Father:

http://anglicansonline.org/basics/nicene.html

"WE BELIEVE in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son].
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Amen."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[masmpg]

To me one in substance is physically one, or even further "one in nature".

 

[Der Alte]

No, it just shows you refuse to acknowledge the point of my post, which I actually believe I got across. You can no more explain the nature of God (trinity, for example) than you can explain how He does what He does (miracles, for example). We accept these things by faith because we have no other rational option. We see pieces of God - glimpses - but His full nature is far beyond our understanding. But if you think you are so smart, then please explain these things to the rest of us. We (and probably God) would surely like to hear your wisdom.

I agree we as finite, fallible, imperfect human beings cannot explain the perfect, infallible, infinite God with our imperfect etc. language. The doctrine of the Trinity is not intended to explain but to describe. There is one God. The Father is God but He is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is God but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God but He is not the Son or the Father. There is one God.

 

[geiroffenberg]

Not so, eternal father in the Young's Literal Translation is translated better as Father of eternity. Meaning father of time, or creator of eternity or time.

Dude...how many eternal fathers do we have. Pls, we have one father. When the verse calls him "eternal god, everlasting father" its not talking about two gods nor two fathers, lets not confuse it more than nessescary lol!

 

[DingDing]

I agree we as finite, fallible, imperfect human beings cannot explain the perfect, infallible, infinite God with our imperfect etc. language. The doctrine of the Trinity is not intended to explain but to describe. There is one God. The Father is God but He is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is God but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God but He is not the Son or the Father. There is one God.

Yes, I agree. God has revealed information about Himself - about His nature and about how He acts. The best we can do is to accept these pieces of information as truths of His greater whole. What we should not expect, as created, finite beings, is to be able to fit these limited pieces together into a complete understanding. There are going to be gaps in our understanding - probably huge ones. This is where faith comes in. As Paul says, we see in part, and we know in part (1 Cor. 13:12).

 

[ViaCrucis]

To me one in substance is physically one, or even further "one in nature".

With all due respect what it means to you personally isn't relevant. It's about what it means, objectively speaking.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Dude...how many eternal fathers do we have. Pls, we have one father. When the verse calls him "eternal god, everlasting father" its not talking about two gods nor two fathers, lets not confuse it more than nessescary lol!

Well my post is two parts, first YLT translates the messiah as Father of eternity, and the second part is from the graduates of studying De Trinitate, a solid ancient writing on the Holy Trinity in the apostolic succession.

 

[dqhall]

Many arguments about the meanings of words may be found. What are words without action? They are empty promises.

If I pray, I usually think, "God." Once I thought, "The God who sent Jesus." Another time I might give thanks to the Holy Spirit for giving me plans and ideas. I would not spend long in arguing how many names God has. Look for a person's actions as a witness to the goodness of the omnipotent God, not superfluous theses about why it is wrong to say God is one, or why saying God is three to be superior to one who does not always give thanks in triplicate.

 

[SolomonVII]

Many arguments about the meanings of words may be found. What are words without action? They are empty promises.

If I pray, I usually think, "God." Once I thought, "The God who sent Jesus." Another time I might give thanks to the Holy Spirit for giving me plans and ideas. I would not spend long in arguing how many names God has. Look for a person's actions as a witness to the goodness of the omnipotent God, not superfluous theses about why it is wrong to say God is one, or why saying God is three to be superior to one who does not always give thanks in triplicate.

It is not wrong to say that God is One. God is One. This is as true for Trinitarians as it is for any monotheistic religionist.
And while it is certainly true that faith without works(love) is like a clanging gong, works without faith defining them are without proper form. The point of Trinity is not to give thanks to God in triplicate, but to understand who God is in order to enter into a proper relationship with him.
It makes a very big difference to worship God who makes himself fully available to us as a servant, or one who rules arbitrarily over us with an iron fist.
Without the faith giving us a proper understanding of what we mean when we say God, we could all be entering into loving a Being who is not God at all, loving a God who may even be satanic in the nature that our understanding defines him as.
And this is not improbable. This kind of worship does happen when the faith does not give us the proper understanding of who God is. People who murder innnocents believing that this is the path to heaven are in fact worshiping a God who has not been properly defined.
Trinity is the proper definition of who God is. That is the reason for faith in Trinity. It is really who God is. It is a superior definition of the nature that that Being "that which none greater can be conceived of".
Having a proper definition of who God is is not trifling matter for theists.

 

[Uber Genius]

No, it just shows you refuse to acknowledge the point of my post, which I actually believe I got across. You can no more explain the nature of God (trinity, for example) than you can explain how He does what He does (miracles, for example). We accept these things by faith because we have no other rational option. We see pieces of God - glimpses - but His full nature is far beyond our understanding. But if you think you are so smart, then please explain these things to the rest of us. We (and probably God) would surely like to hear your wisdom.

I don't think I am above average intelligence. I think you are intellectually lazy.

That is a common feature in our culture today so it shouldn't hurt your popularity one bit. But it when you encourage others to "just choose to believe," you encourage them to NOT BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO GENUINE QUESTIONS BY GENUINE "Seekers."

And almost weekly I here non-Christians tell me, "you are the first guy in a decade to give me a straight answer instead of appealing to mystery."

I doubted that. I need to include that link to 8 episodes on the concept of the Trinity. As your response did "make it clear," you had no interest in studying to show yourself approved, as Paul encouraged Timothy to do.

Now I could explain to you the Leibnizian and Kalam cosmological arguments that draw from Aristotle's work on ex nihilo creation, but since only one of us is interested in giving non-believers straight answers, I will spare you the boring details.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

DeTrinitate by Augustine bishop of Hippo. In English "On the Trinity" written in English 15 chapters here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1301.htm

 

[Hillsage]

I am confident that the Lord can save heretics. But that doesn't mean that we should tolerate heresy in the Church. Heresy promotes falsehood, and inevitably leads to a distortion and perversion of the Gospel;

On the contrary, I think Paul not only "tolerated heresy" in the church, he even seems to have an understanding that it was to be expected.

1CO 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Even though it, may or may not have been, a "damnable heresy", there was still, at least, a significant disagreement with Paul's 'condemning' judgment of Peter's hypocritical theology.

GAL 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

And in this case, Paul merely goes back to; 'You can practice that (heresy/false doctrine) in your church in Jerusalem, but don't practice it in my church in Antioch'. At least that's what I get out of that passage contextually.

and if we are not preaching the Gospel then we are preaching something else.

Which is why I loved your prior post's closing comment. I just assume I have heresy and false doctrine. I'm not too worried about the heresy, because everyone is someone's heretic, and I don't know which doctrines I have that are truly false. That is, of course, unless I'm supposed to listen to 'the 666 different' church theological positions which all tell someone else; "WE'RE A BIBLE BELIEVING CHURCH and YOUR THEOLOGY IS WRONG!"

I don't know what you mean by "fellowship gospel" and "relationship gospel"; as there's only the Gospel, the good news of what God has done--and is doing--in Christ for the us, for the world.

That's becoming apparent to me. Let me compare 'relationship' to a birth in a family. When did you become the son of your mother and father? That is a relationship that can never be changed IMO. You can renounce them, you can become legally emancipated by law, you can disavow their very existence on the face of this earth. But in the end, your relationship 'has not' and 'can not' change. They will always be your father/mother. But your 'fellowship' as a son can change, within that 'relationship'.

So 'both' 'relationship/fellowship' are 'the gospel, but when I'm talking about your initial salvation experience, I am talking about when your 'relationship' with the Father (which was appropriated through the work of Christ on the cross) was first 'birthed' experientially in your life? That's the 'relationship gospel' I'm talking about which has its own 'requirements' for initiation. That's also the basis for me asking you 'what's minimally' required. After you've entered into that door/Christ, you then have a whole lifetime of 'the rest of the gospel' to be 'worked' out through your 'fellowship' with God. And in 'that salvation' you are being transformed by having your mind 'renewed to the mind of Christ'. A mind which Jesus attained to, as he "grew in stature and favor with God".

LUK 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.

I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from...which may not be where you're coming from, at all. I don't know and that's why I'm asking. Can you now, tell me what's required minimally from the gospel for you to minister life to someone on their deathbed. What theology is absolutely needed...in the five or ten minute window you have?

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's becoming apparent to me. Let me compare 'relationship' to a birth in a family. When did you become the son of your mother and father? That is a relationship that can never be changed IMO. You can renounce them, you can become legally emancipated by law, you can disavow their very existence on the face of this earth. But in the end, your relationship 'has not' and 'can not' change. They will always be your father/mother. But your 'fellowship' as a son can change, within that 'relationship'.

So 'both' 'relationship/fellowship' are 'the gospel, but when I'm talking about your initial salvation experience, I am talking about when your 'relationship' with the Father (which was appropriated through the work of Christ on the cross) was first 'birthed' experientially in your life? That's the 'relationship gospel' I'm talking about which has its own 'requirements' for initiation. That's also the basis for me asking you 'what's minimally' required. After you've entered into that door/Christ, you then have a whole lifetime of 'the rest of the gospel' to be 'worked' out through your 'fellowship' with God. And in 'that salvation' you are being transformed by having your mind 'renewed to the mind of Christ'. A mind which Jesus attained to, as he "grew in stature and favor with God".

LUK 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.

I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from...which may not be where you're coming from, at all. I don't know and that's why I'm asking. Can you now, tell me what's required minimally from the gospel for you to minister life to someone on their deathbed. What theology is absolutely needed...in the five or ten minute window you have?

For Lutherans there is only the Gospel, and it's not about what I do, it's about what God does. Luther's Heidleberg Disputation explains the distinction between Law and Gospel this way: "The Law says 'Do this' and it is never done. Grace says 'Trust this' and it is done already." The Gospel isn't something I do, my efforts, how I live my life, etc is irrelevant to the Gospel--the Gospel is the declaration, the proclamation, the good news (euaggelion) of what God has done (and is doing, and will do) in and through and by Christ. It is therefore a word that is preached to us, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again", "Christ died for you, your sins are forgiven" etc. It is something that we receive passively, and it freely justifies and saves us by imputing the righteousness of Christ to us, creating faith in us, etc. It is what God has done, what God does. The Law, on the other hand, is what we are supposed to do, it is what God commands; and because of sin we remain disobedient sinners even when we try our very best to be obedient; thus the Law commands what is righteous and to be done and in our sinful failing shows us to be sinners, and thus condemned by this same and very Law.

The Gospel exists outside of myself, comes from outside of myself, and is preached to me and delivered to me by the Means of God's grace, and I am in this a passive recipient of God's word and promises--this is what justifies and saves me. As I am, by this, brought into the life of God by His grace I am called to be an obedient servant, though I will continue to fail because of sin.

I must always regard myself, in relation to God, by the Gospel--which is again outside of me, apart from me, from and of God freely and wonderfully and graciously. My relationship to God is not based upon my personal holiness, my works, or whatever righteousness I think I have of myself; my relationship to God exists solely by His gracious act in Christ and by the Spirit--God gives everything, I contribute nothing but my miserable sinful unworthiness. Even still, here there is still the calling to faithful obedience, and I must submit to God's just command, saying "Yes Lord" though I will, without question, fail and falter--but therein exists repentance and the still enduring word of God: "Christ died for you, your sins are forgiven" And so I am forgiven, freely and wonderfully, by His grace.

It is because of this that I have said that believing the right things do not merit salvation. It is not up to me to get things right, it is up to God to be the God He shows Himself to be through Christ Jesus our Lord; the God who so loves the world that He has given His only-begotten Son, and who reconciles the world to Himself, and who saves sinners by His own unfailing kindness toward us.

But we remain still called to faithfully preach the Gospel, and that matters. And that is why getting the Gospel right matters if we are to preach it rightly. Not because God will only save us if we get our t's crossed and i's dotted properly, but because we are called to be the faithful people of God in Christ serving our neighbor and loving them, and preaching what God has done for the whole world in Christ to that world. It is, therefore, for our neighbor's sake that we should be concerned here.

God doesn't need our good works, but our neighbor does. It is our neighbor who is without food, who is without drink, who lacks clothing, and justice in this world (etc) and it is also our neighbor who needs to be shown the kindness of God, to hear about the loving and gracious and kind Father who sends His only-begotten Son and that herein God Himself encounters our sinful, broken, hurting world to heal it and reconcile it and make it whole again.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hillsage]

For Lutherans there is only the Gospel, and it's not about what I do, it's about what God does. Luther's Heidleberg Disputation explains the distinction between Law and Gospel this way: "The Law says 'Do this' and it is never done. Grace says 'Trust this' and it is done already." The Gospel isn't something I do, my efforts, how I live my life, etc is irrelevant to the Gospel--the Gospel is the declaration, the proclamation, the good news (euaggelion) of what God has done (and is doing, and will do) in and through and by Christ. It is therefore a word that is preached to us, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again", "Christ died for you, your sins are forgiven" etc. It is something that we receive passively, and it freely justifies and saves us by imputing the righteousness of Christ to us, creating faith in us, etc. It is what God has done, what God does. The Law, on the other hand, is what we are supposed to do, it is what God commands; and because of sin we remain disobedient sinners even when we try our very best to be obedient; thus the Law commands what is righteous and to be done and in our sinful failing shows us to be sinners, and thus condemned by this same and very Law.

The Gospel exists outside of myself, comes from outside of myself, and is preached to me and delivered to me by the Means of God's grace, and I am in this a passive recipient of God's word and promises--this is what justifies and saves me. As I am, by this, brought into the life of God by His grace I am called to be an obedient servant, though I will continue to fail because of sin.

I must always regard myself, in relation to God, by the Gospel--which is again outside of me, apart from me, from and of God freely and wonderfully and graciously. My relationship to God is not based upon my personal holiness, my works, or whatever righteousness I think I have of myself; my relationship to God exists solely by His gracious act in Christ and by the Spirit--God gives everything, I contribute nothing but my miserable sinful unworthiness. Even still, here there is still the calling to faithful obedience, and I must submit to God's just command, saying "Yes Lord" though I will, without question, fail and falter--but therein exists repentance and the still enduring word of God: "Christ died for you, your sins are forgiven" And so I am forgiven, freely and wonderfully, by His grace.

It is because of this that I have said that believing the right things do not merit salvation. It is not up to me to get things right, it is up to God to be the God He shows Himself to be through Christ Jesus our Lord; the God who so loves the world that He has given His only-begotten Son, and who reconciles the world to Himself, and who saves sinners by His own unfailing kindness toward us.

But we remain still called to faithfully preach the Gospel, and that matters. And that is why getting the Gospel right matters if we are to preach it rightly. Not because God will only save us if we get our t's crossed and i's dotted properly, but because we are called to be the faithful people of God in Christ serving our neighbor and loving them, and preaching what God has done for the whole world in Christ to that world. It is, therefore, for our neighbor's sake that we should be concerned here.

God doesn't need our good works, but our neighbor does. It is our neighbor who is without food, who is without drink, who lacks clothing, and justice in this world (etc) and it is also our neighbor who needs to be shown the kindness of God, to hear about the loving and gracious and kind Father who sends His only-begotten Son and that herein God Himself encounters our sinful, broken, hurting world to heal it and reconcile it and make it whole again.

-CryptoLutheran

I actually had a Lutheran pastor in my office yesterday as I was contemplating my last post response to you. I asked him also for his 'Lutheran take' on my 'minimal requirement' question. Much different than yours, I must admit.

I fully agreed with almost all you just posted, which is truly an exception to the rule here, for me. So, when I finished I was going to just check 'winner' category 'also'. But then I decided to see who had checked 'winner' first. I had to laugh...and then I decided I better read your post a second time, even more slowly. Now I'm simply wondering if it's me whose missing something. But I'm still going to check the 'like' box.