Doctrine of the Trinity

[That'sWhatItSays]

Ricardo, what is the "gospel"? You can have fellowship with anyone so long as they have received the gospel. The Society of Friends, Mormons, JW's, Shepherd of Hermas, etc....all these things that you claim shine the light of God do not, because they preach another gospel. I will proof-text the epistles of Galatians and Romans.

Yes, our beliefs about things change over time. I won't believe next year in something that I believe now. That's fine. That's growth. I don't believe the gospel can be changed. As it relates to the current topic, we can certainly see something about the Trinity in a passage that we've never seen before, because we don't fully understand it. That doesn't change the gospel.

I will affirm the gospel of the grace of God in contrast with proclaimers of false gospels. I stand with the message of Paul as the gospel for today, Romans 16:25-27.

[oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest]

(06-16-2012 07:02 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  Ricardo, what is the "gospel"? You can have fellowship with anyone so long as they have received the gospel. The Society of Friends, Mormons, JW's, Shepherd of Hermas, etc....all these things that you claim shine the light of God do not, because they preach another gospel. I will proof-text the epistles of Galatians and Romans.

Yes, our beliefs about things change over time. I won't believe next year in something that I believe now. That's fine. That's growth. I don't believe the gospel can be changed. As it relates to the current topic, we can certainly see something about the Trinity in a passage that we've never seen before, because we don't fully understand it. That doesn't change the gospel.

I will affirm the gospel of the grace of God in contrast with proclaimers of false gospels. I stand with the message of Paul as the gospel for today, Romans 16:25-27.

Do you stand with the message of Jesus? Jesus is not very Pauline. Unless it is the Jesus of John's gospel - that is about as close to Paul as it gets. Do you stand with the message of James? Most evangelicals migrate towards Paul and John as their canon within in a canon. Everyone picks and chooses. Only some admit to it and some do not.

[That'sWhatItSays]

Well, considering James was written "to the twelve tribes" and Hebrews was written to the "Hebrews", I don't think it's so outlandish that we give preeminence to more church related writings in the NT.

The resurrected Jesus most certainly is "Pauline", as he apparently chose Paul to be his vessel to take the gospel to the gentiles, or else Paul is a false witness of himself. Again, in light of Romans 16:25-27, I Corinthians 9:16-17, Galatians 2:6-8, Ephesians 3:1-4, and others, it is clear that we get our doctrinal marching orders from Paul (the canon within a canon), while getting all of our spiritual wisdom, insight, instruction, and example from Jesus and his servants. This is in no way meant to assert that Paul is in any way greater than Jesus, but only that God's message to us today is a post-resurrection message that takes place in light of the work on the cross.

[Ricardo]

“At what point are you worshipping a different God than the one presented?”

You never answered my question from several days ago. Here they are again with a few more:

Gen3: I can understand a human preferring roasted lamb rather than roasted turnips. But God?
Gen 6: Do you worship a god who changes his mind? Repents of having created us?
Gen 18-19: Do you worship a god who has no clue what is happening in S&G and is ready to burn two cities to the ground based on hear-say? Do you worship a god who shows less compassion than Abraham? Do you worship a god who would convert a woman into a pillar of salt for one look? A god who considers Lot a just man, when he did not risk a finger to defend the angels and instead risked his daughter’s lives?
Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Nahum and more: God is portrayed as an angry husband abusing of his wife. (A Domestic Violence God who exposes, rapes and humiliates his wife when angry?)
Psalms: Do you worship a god who loves us if we bash babies against rocks?

At what point we worship a different God than the one presented?”

None of us approve of those acts. None of us worship a god who does those things.

So then, if we want to insist on the inerrancy of the bible, we have no choice but to try to justify those actions any way possible, including convincing ourselves that the passage does not mean what it clearly says. OR by stating that the OT, which we still say is inerrant is hereby de-authorized when it comes to description of the GOD we worship.

[myotch]

Genesis 3, I believe, speaks more to God's appreciation for those searching for Him than His appreciation for being invited to the BBQ.

Genesis 6. I don't think God so much changed His mind as He was grieved by man's nature to be wicked. Perhaps we can find some of the wisdom in this by considering what the parents of rapists, murderers, and thieves must go through emotionally as they reflect on their progeny. They love their kids, yes. In some ways, there can be regret at ever having them.

Genesis 18-19. All it took was one righteous man from the cities to be presented.

I thought Hosea was presented as a man with near-infinite patience with his pagan prostitute of a wife. I think these and the other Prophets you mentioned merely shows patience and love has its limits.

Perhaps those acts simply aren't for us to approve. I worship the God of Abraham. I also understand that the same God in the New Testament ushered in an age of mercy and grace to any that believe.

[That'sWhatItSays]

You are reading those passages through the prism of a twenty-first century American. Does Jesus Christ want to dash babies against rocks? Certainly not, but God revealed Himself to the people in the ways that they were revealing themselves to each other. An eye for an eye. Does your nation proudly pillage, rape, and commit infanticide? God shall return unto you the fruit of your doings. Did everyone in that day know what a shame it was to have a pagan prostitute for a wife? It was laughable, and we have jokes even to this day about people's mothers or wives which are much more explicit than what is written in scripture. We know what a shame it is. Yet God made prophets actually marry women like that just so God could have an illustration for His nation.

Yes, there are some strong illustrations in the OT of God's judgment, but delayed judgment is the only way to make sense of the world. Jesus affirms this nature of God during his ministry in Luke 13:1-5.

[greg]

(06-16-2012 07:02 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  Ricardo, what is the "gospel"? You can have fellowship with anyone so long as they have received the gospel. The Society of Friends, Mormons, JW's, Shepherd of Hermas, etc....all these things that you claim shine the light of God do not, because they preach another gospel. I will proof-text the epistles of Galatians and Romans.

Yes, our beliefs about things change over time. I won't believe next year in something that I believe now. That's fine. That's growth. I don't believe the gospel can be changed. As it relates to the current topic, we can certainly see something about the Trinity in a passage that we've never seen before, because we don't fully understand it. That doesn't change the gospel.

I will affirm the gospel of the grace of God in contrast with proclaimers of false gospels. I stand with the message of Paul as the gospel for today, Romans 16:25-27.

Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, "us." The rest of the Apostles were by and large concerning themselves with Jews, and explaining the "New" message of the gospel to them, in terms they could understand, as did Paul on occasion (think Romans,) it is this book that is so misunderstood by many, because it is where Paul contrasts the differences between Jews and Greeks, if one understands that, then folks don't start whole new doctrines when Paul says things like "He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy" (letting Jews know there are others coming/us Gentiles) or "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" Same thing.

Paul is the Apostle that speaks to us today about the "gospel message" and I think is the most clear, because he is in fact, the Apostle to the Gentiles!

[Ricardo]

You know, time and distance are everything!

We have no problem doubting Joseph Smith's assertions that the Angel Moroni revealed to him messages from god.

But we continue to turn a blind eye to the history of how the various biblical canons were hammered together. Who was invited, who's invitation got lost in the mail, who's death were they waiting for before the council was assembled. Those council meetings were as full of internal politics as any meeting today of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Bottom line: There is no way to claim inerrancy for the book I have in my hand.

ThatisWhatItSays is correct. The god described in the OT was a perfectly fine definition for god for that time.

Today the mere idea that god's mercy can be bought by killing two doves, spraying their blood around the altar seven times (better be BIG doves,) then smearing blood on your right earlobe, right thumb and right toe, is, well, quaint.

So. Not that long after, the idea that god's forgiveness could be bought, this time with a perfect human sacrifice, made perfect sense.

It doesn't any more.

We are aware that all our attempts at defining God will necessarily be anthropocentric and anthropomorphic. And anchored in our current understanding of reality.

But, if we are to share our testimony, of our personal relationship with a living God, we are going to have to update our definition of god, to give up all those culturally obsolete views of god. And that includes a new understanding about what Jesus was all about.

For those who think it is not possible, think again. The church has already changed the way we interpret scripture on a myriad of issues. And I don't mean just the ones Liberals trot out every time: slavery, status of women, flat earth.

We also have the reasons for the various Schisms, the Filioque, the definition of communion, of baptism, sure enough the concept of the Trinity, Predestination, millenialism. and on and on. In American protestant circles, since the 1920s there has been disagreements as to the definition of "wine."

Patience has it's limits? Maybe for your god. Certainly not for mine.

[myotch]

Ricardo, yours is a case for atheism, or at least against Christianity.

Without the sacrifice of animals for the forgiveness of sin, Jesus' sacrifice for our sins would make no sense.

So, I guess the natural question to ask is: what aspects of your theology do you claim as particularly Christian, as opposed to, say, mere unitarianism (albeit a unitarianism with some Christian traditions)? More to the point, what makes you Christian?

[oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest]

(06-16-2012 11:34 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  Well, considering James was written "to the twelve tribes" and Hebrews was written to the "Hebrews", I don't think it's so outlandish that we give preeminence to more church related writings in the NT.

The resurrected Jesus most certainly is "Pauline", as he apparently chose Paul to be his vessel to take the gospel to the gentiles, or else Paul is a false witness of himself. Again, in light of Romans 16:25-27, I Corinthians 9:16-17, Galatians 2:6-8, Ephesians 3:1-4, and others, it is clear that we get our doctrinal marching orders from Paul (the canon within a canon), while getting all of our spiritual wisdom, insight, instruction, and example from Jesus and his servants. This is in no way meant to assert that Paul is in any way greater than Jesus, but only that God's message to us today is a post-resurrection message that takes place in light of the work on the cross.

It sounds like you are identifying Paul's writings with church related writings. All of the NT books were written for the church. Some may have a more Hellenistic Jewish audience in mind while others a more Gentile audience - but it was still the church.

My point about Jesus not being Pauline is that the Jesus of the synoptic gospels, which were written after Paul's letters, does not sound like Paul. There were different and competing theologies in the era of the early Christians. That is why Paul and James sound so different from each other, why James sent "spies" to check on Paul, and why Paul basically said that James could go pound salt.

There is both unity and diversity in the NT, just as there is in the church today.