trinity idea

[razeontherock]

If they are a sect of Christianity by name,

Nope. The no true Scotsman fallacy doesn't hold within Christianity either. Lots of Scripture to this effect. It was also the purpose for the Creeds.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Nope. The no true Scotsman fallacy doesn't hold within Christianity either. Lots of Scripture to this effect. It was also the purpose for the Creeds.

Seems to me then the person who stated what I called out as that fallacy needs to qualify that those who say they are Christians not always are, albeit this is a whole issue that goes beyond creedal conformity, orthodoxy, traditional authority or scriptural authority. It's the spirit of the faith that seems to determine whether it can be called Christian in the sense of the study of it as something neutral to its truth value: in other words, in studying Christianity as a religion in religious studies in contrast to studying Christianity as a religion in either theology or ministry.

 

[razeontherock]

You put forth a concept that intrigues me, but you lost me with this:

studying Christianity as a religion in religious studies in contrast to studying Christianity as a religion in either theology or ministry.

I see only one point to "studying" Christianity, which is to put it into practice. Not sure which of these 3 categories that might fall into?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

You put forth a concept that intrigues me, but you lost me with this:



I see only one point to "studying" Christianity, which is to put it into practice. Not sure which of these 3 categories that might fall into?

There are a number of reasons one can study anything. Understanding the principles behind it can fall under either theology or religious studies, whereas applying it seems to fall primarily, if not solely, under ministry. Part of it depends on what you mean by putting it into practice. Apologetics as a form of converting people to Christianity would fall somewhat under theology, whereas evangelism for conversion falls under ministry. One can study Christianity as a general religious tradition in terms of its historical development, though one could argue that can fall under theology in some sense, but a professor somewhat summed it up in the sense that religious studies is for studying faith and religion as something to understand in the general sense as it applies to everyone in one way or another. Theology, on the other hand, is for studying religion for teaching others about that religion. Theology, to put it bluntly, already presumes the truth and validity of one particular religious, theistic overall, and then proceeds to study it deeper. Fides quaerens intellectum, faith seeking understanding. Religious studies would be something of an inversion or alteration of the phrase, instead of "faith seeking understanding", I would term it "seeking understanding about faith"

 

[GeorgeTwo]

"Sects of Christianity not considered Christians" is a contradiction of expression. If they are a sect of Christianity by name, they are Christians by a general definition, even if they aren't considered orthodox or catholic in the sense of being correct or doctrinally sound

Not so. There are certain beliefs that all Christians are to believe and are common to orthodox beliefs. Those who are outside of those basic beliefs are not Christians as defined by orthodox beliefs.

The same is true of Islam. There are sects of Islam that are not orthodox -- they are outside of orthodox Islam.

 

[Booko]

"Sects of Christianity not considered Christians" is a contradiction of expression. If they are a sect of Christianity by name, they are Christians by a general definition, even if they aren't considered orthodox or catholic in the sense of being correct or doctrinally sound

Yes, the better term would be "sects of Christianity not considered normative." Even "heretical sects" might be more accurate.

I've always been confused by statements that Mormons and JWs are somehow not at all Christians. Are they Hindus or animists then? A floor wax or dessert topping perhaps?

 

[Booko]

Not so. There are certain beliefs that all Christians are to believe and are common to orthodox beliefs. Those who are outside of those basic beliefs are not Christians as defined by orthodox beliefs.

OK, so they are "not orthodox."

That would at least be accurate.

 

[razeontherock]

And here I liked floor wax / dessert topping better

applying it seems to fall primarily, if not solely, under ministry.

Well now this is an interesting thing. RC and EO seem to hold that "laity" are not called to minister at all, while the rest of Christianity seems to make no such distinction. In any event, Jesus clearly taught to put it into practice before you go running around worrying about others.

Does all of that qualify as "ministry?"

Part of it depends on what you mean by putting it into practice. Apologetics as a form of converting people to Christianity would fall somewhat under theology, whereas evangelism for conversion falls under ministry.

I'd call that a false dichotomy, and point out the 2 are inseparable, unless you find yourself ministering to a sheeple. Everybody has questions, as these boards attest!

This point you raise here brings up another way of differentiating Christian flavors, IMHO far more relevant than normal denom lines. Some emphasize evangelism by all at any cost, while most take what I find to be a much more pragmatic approach, like don't minister to anyone you aren't prepared to have a life-long relationship with.

Even across such widely divergent approaches, ALL hold to the Trinity.

 

[Booko]

And here I liked floor wax / dessert topping better

Sorry, I just can't get that ancient SNL skit out of my head sometimes.

Well now this is an interesting thing. RC and EO seem to hold that "laity" are not called to minister at all, while the rest of Christianity seems to make no such distinction.

Huh?

Vocations Online

Even across such widely divergent approaches, ALL hold to the Trinity.

That may be the case now, Raze, but it wasn't in early Christianity. Otherwise Bishop Arius wouldn't have bothered to say anything and wouldn't have had followers, eh?

Not that I would be inclined to take Arius' side in this debate anyway, even if it were my business, which it isn't. It might interest you to know that in Baha'i texts Arius is not looked on so warmly, because he caused a lot of dissension in nascent Christianity, and we'd look on that as not a very good thing. That doesn't mean there can't be diverse opinions, but at a point where violence and hatred ensue, well...

As for the general topic, I'll just comment that while I'm not confused why a Muslim might question why Christians believe in the Trinity, it doesn't seem to be a great way to start off a dialogue by essentially telling the other person they're completely full of beans about their own religion either.

 

[Islam_mulia]

Your problem is always going to be one of objectivity. Your religious teachings are preventing you from seeing a simple observation that can be made by reading through the NT. Step away from your overly bias position and try to see things from the Biblical perspective. Then, you can better understand our logic.

1) We see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate entities. We call these entities persons because this is the closest thing that we can compare them to in terms of language. If there was a better word, we could use it. Moreover, person is not used in the same way as we would use it to describe you or me. I have explained this elsewhere.

If they are three separate entities, a normal person would like to understand them as three different entities... and not being one.

2) We see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being divine. Their divine attributes are illustrated in various verses.

What Christians do is rather innovative. You pick three separate verses referring to three separate entities (according to you) which you think they meant they were gods, then you say they are not three but all referring to one god.
There is NO one particular verse in the entire NT that explains how the three entities became one.

3) We see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being indivisible. Consequently, there are no three gods--just one.

So, they are separate and different entities but are not divisible. I dont get you.

4) God is one. This is explicitly stated in both the OT and NT.

I agree. I note also that all Christians believe God is one.

5) All three persons are one because of the first 4 observations--especially 3 and 4. They are of the same substance. The have the same will and purpose.

I thought you believe Jesus is human, he ate and drink. He was not a spirit when he was walking on earth.

6) We see references to God's oneness and plurality in the OT.

The OT clearly says God is One. Jesus never preached the trinity and I wonder why if god is three-in-one, Jesus never made an effort to preach that???

7) We see manifestations of God in the OT as three individuals, as men, or as a man in a few places in the OT. We believe that these instances point to prophetic unveiling of the Trinity, though not explicit.

Maybe the verses were referring to other things and you made the interpretation differently. There is no trinity in the OT and the NT.

 

[razeontherock]

There is no trinity in the OT and the NT.

TRANSLATION: lalala, I can't hear you.


*yawn*

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by ToHoldNothing

"Sects of Christianity not considered Christians" is a contradiction of expression.

Not at all. You suggest that everyone who claims to be a Christian or who is seen as a Christian is actually a Christian.

If they are a sect of Christianity by name, they are Christians by a general definition, even if they aren't considered orthodox or catholic in the sense of being correct or doctrinally sound

I see what you are saying, but then we need to distinguish when we speak. The general acceptance of the term, especially by non Christians, is any group that affiliates with Christianity. That means that if a group that practices cannibalism affiliates with Christianity, they are Christian. Obviously, we should see the error in this thinking and conclude that there must be some minimal standard to distinguish such a group and reject their presumed affiliation. What do you propose?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The words coming to mind are heterodox and heretical. Heterodox is not the same as heretical, but is related. Heterodox is more just different, but accepted, whereas heretical is less accepted, if not outright persecuted.

Something is heterodox if it's differing from a general majority of sorts, but isn't different enough to warrant the criticism of the majority, say, the difference between Catholics and Protestants on the difference of scripture and tradition and many Protestants going solely on scripture, that kind of difference.

Whereas, we have Nontrinitarians and such that are viewed as heretics.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Not at all. You suggest that everyone who claims to be a Christian or who is seen as a Christian is actually a Christian.

I wasn't going with a demographic, I was going with a general set of characteristics of Christianity through history, particularly focus on Jesus and the God of Abraham with a new covenant to replace the old and such.

I see what you are saying, but then we need to distinguish when we speak. The general acceptance of the term, especially by non Christians, is any group that affiliates with Christianity. That means that if a group that practices cannibalism affiliates with Christianity, they are Christian. Obviously, we should see the error in this thinking and conclude that there must be some minimal standard to distinguish such a group and reject their presumed affiliation. What do you propose?

Affiliation doesn't equal association with the characteristics. It follows that Christians in the most general and scholarly sense are those that follow the teachings of one called Jesus Christ in relation to a belief in a creator God, whatever description they may give of it, without explicitly saying they are polytheistic in any sense of Greek or Roman religion for obvious examples. A group practicing cannibalism calling themselves Christians doesn't suggest that we should automatically recognize them as such. The reason scholarship tends to consider Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians by a general standard is because they're not considering the truth value of their statements,but the shared qualities with themselves and Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox for example.

For another example, just because Tibetan and Mahayana Buddhism differ in many ways from Theravada doesn't mean they're not Buddhist in nature and essence. Similarly, there are different forms of Christianity, but the essence is virtually identical in the centering on Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ or Messiah.

Of course this does make a confusion with regards to Messianic Jews, but I suppose that's a distinction of cultural and religious Jewish identity

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Not so. There are certain beliefs that all Christians are to believe and are common to orthodox beliefs. Those who are outside of those basic beliefs are not Christians as defined by orthodox beliefs.

The same is true of Islam. There are sects of Islam that are not orthodox -- they are outside of orthodox Islam.

Something being unorthodox by some group's standard within a religious institution and tradition doesn't change the fact that the group themselves holds very similar ideals and identity in relation to Jesus and his teachings, in their varied forms.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Well now this is an interesting thing. RC and EO seem to hold that "laity" are not called to minister at all, while the rest of Christianity seems to make no such distinction. In any event, Jesus clearly taught to put it into practice before you go running around worrying about others.

Does all of that qualify as "ministry?"

THat's part of the distinctions between types of Christianity. Some allow women to be priests or ministers, many don't. Some allow gay people to be ordained with stipulations even, so honestly, the distinctions of laity and clergy are complicated enough. Let alone monastics. Ministry would be done after you purify yourself, similar to MLK Jr. purifying himself before he started the protests in the 50s or so.

I'd call that a false dichotomy, and point out the 2 are inseparable, unless you find yourself ministering to a sheeple. Everybody has questions, as these boards attest!

Not all apologetics requires confronting people in real life. Many apologeticists just speak through their philosophical argumentations. THey are usually theologians or philosophers by career, so they're not evangelists in the sense of say the apostles in the Gospels.

This point you raise here brings up another way of differentiating Christian flavors, IMHO far more relevant than normal denom lines. Some emphasize evangelism by all at any cost, while most take what I find to be a much more pragmatic approach, like don't minister to anyone you aren't prepared to have a life-long relationship with.

There's the difficulty many find with evangelism in the genuine outreach sense as opposed to just pedagogy and speaking from the pulpit to your congregation

Even across such widely divergent approaches, ALL hold to the Trinity.

Clearly not. Jefferson did not hold to a Trinitarian view, and honestly, many of the founding fathers could be argued to value Jesus greatly, but either didn't hold to Trinitarian doctrines in the Unitarian sense or the Binitarian sense. Just because you don't happen to believe Jesus is God in either a Binitarian or Trinitarian sense doesn't mean you cannot still follow his teachings in the theistic light they are preached very strongly.

 

[razeontherock]

Ah, now you've gone to looking at acceptance of Trinity over a significant period of history, with huge cultural changes as well. I was trying to limit the discussion to here and now, in which case all these distinction we've made have members that embrace the same understanding of Trinity.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Just because you understand how people believe in and accept the Trinity doesn't mean you beleive that it is reflected in the Bible or is absolutely key to understanding Jesus' position. The varied positions on how Jesus' passion served as a way to cleanse one of their sins or impute righteousness upon them don't all involve Trinitarianism necessarily, particularly Unitarianism

 

[dlamberth]

Just because you understand how people believe in and accept the Trinity doesn't mean you beleive that it is reflected in the Bible or is absolutely key to understanding Jesus' position. The varied positions on how Jesus' passion served as a way to cleanse one of their sins or impute righteousness upon them don't all involve Trinitarianism necessarily, particularly Unitarianism

So very true. One need not accept any images of the Trinity in order to know God.

.

 

[razeontherock]

positions on how Jesus' passion served as a way to cleanse one of their sins or impute righteousness

This is where the diamond with all it's facets comes in. I won't say it's impossible to conceive of a wrong way that His sacrifice cleanses sin, but I will say there's a lot more to it than any of us can fathom! And certainly Trinity is not necessary to receive forgiveness, nor to gain some understanding of how Jesus can impact us. Neither is Trinity any ultimate revelation of who G-d is.