Thursday, October 7, 2010

Back to the Bible


In the combox of our previous thread (Salvation before the birth of Jesus), Ken Temple and GV19 have been carrying on an extended dialogue that is covering numerous issues pertaining to certain distinctions between Christianity (as represented from the Reformed Baptist perspective) and Islam (as represented from the Sunni position). Lvka and myself have also made a few contributions in the combox, some of which Ken has directly responded to apart from his ongoing discussion with GV19. Due to the fact that there are now over 70 comments, I thought it best to create a new thread to address some of the Biblical issues that have been raised by Ken.

I am quite pleased that Ken has raised some very important Biblical issues pertaining to theology proper (i.e. the doctrine of God) and Christology, for I love the Bible, and have been deeply studying the content within its pages for over 40 years now. The above picture represents 4 of my personal Bibles that I have pretty much 'worn out' through extensive use, and in this opening post, will draw heavily upon the 'fruit' that came via their use.

I shall begin by addressing the following that Ken posted back on October 1, 2010 (4:34 AM):

Declare ye, and bring it forth; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath showed this from ancient time? who hath declared it of old? have not I, Jehovah? and there is no God else besides me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none besides me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:21, 22 - ASV)

The Father is Jehovah;
the Son is Jehovah;
The Holy Spirit is Jehovah;

3 persons within the One God is not ascribing partners to God, because that would be "two or three gods", which is not what Christians believe.

The details of the revelation of this are not explicitly said in the Isaiah 45 passage, but when Christ came in the flesh ( John 1:1-5; 14-18) - He revealed, manifested, exegeted God. John 1:18

Ken asserts that 3 separate persons are the Jehovah, "the One God", of the Old Testament. In a previous thread (LINK) I demonstrated that the Hebrew and Greek terms used for "God" had a much broader use than today. However, the phrase "the one God", is reserved for the Father alone. The use of God's personal name Jehovah/Yahweh (יְהוָ֨ה), is much more restrictive; apart from a half dozen uses of representation (i.e. where the referent represents Jehovah, but clearly is not the one Jehovah), Jehovah refers to "the One God", the Father—more simply put, Jehovah is the personal name of one person. The overall theology of the OT flows from the Shema:

Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah (Deut. 6:4 - ASV)

To state the obvious, the person Jehovah, is one person, not three.

When we turn to the NT, the same clarity is taught; note the following:

Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD"...

And the scribe said to Him, "Right, Teacher, You have truly stated that HE IS ONE; AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM..." (Mark 12:29, 32 - NASB)

"And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." (John 17:3 - NASB)

"The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus, the one whom you delivered up, and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him." (Acts 3:13- NASB)

...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him...(1 Cor. 8:6 - NASB)

... one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. (Eph. 4:6- NASB)

Particularly revealing is the quotation of Psalm 110:1 in the NT (5 times, more than any other OT verse):

This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:32-36 – KJV: also Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; Heb. 1:13)

When one references the Hebrew text, a clear distinction between the two "Lords" is made, for the first LORD is the person Jehovah/Yahweh (יְהוָ֨ה) while the second is the generic "lord" (לַֽאדֹנִ֗י):

Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Psalm 110:1 - ASV)

It sure seems to me that the NT is quite clear on WHO the “one God”, “the only true God”, the Jehovah/Yahweh of the OT, “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” is—the Father. So I ask: why is it the case that so many Christians attempt to identify Jesus (and the Spirit) as the “one God”, “the only true God”, the Jehovah/Yahweh of the OT, “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”? IMO, the answer is not as complex as one might think, and ultimately boils down to a failure to recognize that the terms “God” and “Lord”, and the name Jehovah/Yahweh, are used in a representational sense when applied to persons (and in some cases, places) other than the the “one God”, “the only true God”, the Jehovah/Yahweh of the OT, “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”.

For instance, Jerusalem is called Jehovah:

In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name whereby she shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness. (Jer. 33:16 - ASV)

The promised Messiah, the “Branch” is called Jehovah:

In his [the “Branch”] the days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness. (Jer. 23:6 - ASV)

And the angel of Jehovah is called Jehovah:

And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand to be his adversary. And Jehovah said unto Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan; yea, Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? (Zech. 3:1, 2 – ASV)

Now, I know of no one who believes that Jerusalem is actually the Jehovah, “the one God”; with this in mind, read the following from the pen of the prophet Zechariah, and try to discern the very important interpretive principle presented:

Jehovah also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem be not magnified above Judah. In that day shall Jehovah defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem: and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of Jehovah before them. (Zech. 12:7, 8 – ASV)

So much more to cover, but it will have to wait for another post (probably posts).


Grace and peace,

David

194 comments:

Ken said...

David,
So, you don't believe in the Trinity, do you?

The NT clearly shows that Jesus is Yahweh by calling Him "Lord"; and the "I Am" claims; and the quotes of Psalm 110:1 ff in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, and Hebrews show that Jesus is Jehovah.

the Holy Spirit is called Lord also in 2 Cor. 3:16.

Ken said...

David W. wrote:
To state the obvious, the person Jehovah, is one person, not three.

No, it just says there is only one God; the Hebrew text does not reveal the "3 persons of the Trinity"; the incarnation of Christ reveals what the nature of God from all eternity was.

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Thanks for responding to my opening post; you penned:

>>So, you don't believe in the Trinity, do you?>>

Me: I believe what the Bible says, so I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I also believe that the Father is the “one God”; “the only true God”;“the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”; and the God of Jesus. However, as for the precise ontological relationship concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, I have not, at this time, formed any dogmatic position.

>> The NT clearly shows that Jesus is Yahweh by calling Him "Lord">>

Me: Kurios and adon/adoni are not personal names. The NT never calls Jesus Yahweh.

>> and the "I Am" claims>>

Me: ἐγὼ εἰμί is not ὁ ὢν . (See Ex. 3:14 LXX.)

For some great debates on John 8:58, see the links provided at the following site:

http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/JB-RB.Jn8_58.Index.htm

>>and the quotes of Psalm 110:1 ff in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, and Hebrews show that Jesus is Jehovah.>>

Me: What? Go back and read Psalm 110:1 in the Hebrew (if you don’t read Hebrew, use the ASV), and then read the context of the 5 quotes of Psalm 110:1 in the NT—God the Father = Yahweh and Jesus = lord.

>>the Holy Spirit is called Lord also in 2 Cor. 3:16>>

Me: No, 2 Cor. 3:16 says that the Lord (i.e. Jesus Christ) is “the Spirit”. When I get back to my library, I will give you a list of NT commentaries that affirm this.

As for the Shema, it is CLEAR—Jehovah/Yahweh (a singular, personal name) is ONE Jehovah/Yahweh (one, not three).


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

David W. wrote:
When one references the Hebrew text, a clear distinction between the two "Lords" is made, for the first LORD is the person Jehovah/Yahweh (יחוח), while the second is the generic "lord" (לאדני):

Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Psalm 110:1 - ASV)

That’s true, but the New Testament Greek text where Psalm 110:1 is quoted (Matthew 22:44, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:42; Acts 2:33-36, Hebrews 1:13) renders both Yahweh and Adonai as “kurios” (Lord), and Jesus is called “kurios” hundred to times in the NT, so the NT interprets the OT for us, and Christianity teaches that Jesus is Yahweh; so Jesus is God incarnate; God in the flesh, the word of God that became flesh; the eternal Son of God and God the Son.

εἶπεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν σου.

“He said, the Lord, to the Lord of mine; sit at the right hand of mine until I make the enemies of yours a footstool for the feet of yours.” Matthew 22:44

Also Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; Heb. 1:13

One of the other clear passages of the full Deity of Christ, especially when you notice how Jesus frames the issue in his question to the Jews and Pharisees:

42"What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to Him, "The son of David."
43He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying,
44'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
"SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET"'?
45"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?"
46 No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question. Matthew 22:42-46


Many Iranian Muslims have told me in the last 16 years that this the passage that convinced them of the Deity of Christ and then they became Christians. Not just the gospel of John and Paul speaks of the Deity of Christ, but Matthew and Mark and Luke also, as the rest of the NT.

Ken said...

Me: Kurios and adon/adoni are not personal names. The NT never calls Jesus Yahweh.

Yes it does, by the translation of Yahweh/Adonai as Kurios;
as I showed in the previous combox.
and the "I am" claims. John 8:24 and 18:1-6 show this.


As for the Shema, it is CLEAR—Jehovah/Yahweh (a singular, personal name) is ONE Jehovah/Yahweh (one, not three).

No; all it says is that is only One God, which Trinitarianism affirms, and then later by the incarnation and NT revelation, we see that the one God was always three persons in eternity past. The "let us make man in our image" points to that also.

Ken said...

Me: ἐγὼ εἰμί is not ὁ ὢν . (See Ex. 3:14 LXX.)

True, they are not the exact same Greek words. ὁ ὢν would be translated, "the existing one". Can you give us the complete verse of Exodus 3:14 in the LXX?

True, they are not the exact same Greek words, but that doesn't matter, since by the Jews reactions to pick up stones to stone Jesus, they understood Him to be claiming the "I am", "the existing one" of Exodus 3:14.

Lvka said...

The NT never calls Jesus Yahweh.


The OT (LXX - since wer'e looking at Greek texts here) never calls Yhwh "Yhwh" either... it calls him Kyrios(Lord), the translation of the Hebrew Adonai, by which word the Hebrew YHWH was replaced in both speech and writing by then(by that time)...

Lvka said...

You're comparing things diagonal-wise... using a double-standard...

Ken said...

Lvka is right here.

Ken said...

David W. wrote:
Me: No, 2 Cor. 3:16 says that the Lord (i.e. Jesus Christ) is “the Spirit”. When I get back to my library, I will give you a list of NT commentaries that affirm this.

Of course, it is always more books than faith with you; (sorry if that seems harsh) - your view seems to be some kind of Jehovah's Witness view; they don't believe in the Deity of the Holy Spirit either. The verse could go either way, since the Father, Son, and Spirit are all ontologically one; and there are many phrases of "the Spirit of God", "the Spirit of Christ", "The Holy Spirit of God" in the NT and the first and last are in the OT. Go back to 2 Cor. 3:1 and read the whole chapter, it sure seems to me Paul is talking about the Holy Spirit's work in believers lives of conforming us to the image of Christ.

Why not take the dive of faith and trust that when the Bible speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ( ie, Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Luke 1:34-35; Matthew 3:13-17) - it is pointing to the "one nature" in three persons that the early church discerned through Tertullian, Athanasius, Augustine, etc.? (the others do also, but you don't think so - like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr and Ignatius, etc.)

Why kind of church do you go to now? If at all. Don't you realize you are outside of all of Orthodoxy? RCC and EO and Protestantism?

Did the leaders and elders at the Orthodox Presbyterian Church you went to hurt you?

You're hesitancy to have faith in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is strange and baffling.

Ken said...

Exodus 3:14 in the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew OT- with my own interlinear translation)

LXT Exodus 3:14
[I just noticed the blogger software changed my Greek script into English code, etc.]

kai. ei=pen o` qeo.j pro.j Mwush/n

and he said the God toward Moses


evgw, eivmi o` w;n

ego eimi o wv
I am the existing one.

kai. ei=pen ou[twj evrei/j toi/j ui`oi/j Israhl o` w'n avpe,stalke,n me pro.j u`ma/j

and he said thus you shall say to the sons of Israel “the existing one” has send me to you.

This is from the Bible Works Hermeneutica Software, 3.1 – 1995. (which I own)


But at the web-site below, it has this as the LXX – is it wrong, misprint ? or another version of the LXX?

ἐγώ εἰμί ὁ εἰμί

I am the I am

καί εἶπον οὕτως εἶπον ὁ υἱός ἰσραήλ ὁ εἰμί ἀποστέλλω ἐγώ πρός σύ

and say thus say (? To) the son (s ?) of Israel “the I am” I am sending I to you


The LXX here has “ἐγώ εἰμί ὁ εἰμί’ = I am the I am” not “ἐγώ εἰμί o wv”

http://biblewebapp.com/study/#ref=Exodus%203:14|ver=el_wh,en_nasb

It appears to be misprints and mistakes.

Are there other versions or textual variants of the LXX?

Ken said...

"‘Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.’ Then the Jews said to Him, ‘Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and You say, "If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death.’ Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. WHO DO YOU MAKE YOURSELF OUT TO BE?’ Jesus answered, ‘If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. IT IS MY FATHER WHO HONORS ME, of whom you say that He is your God. Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, "I do not know Him," I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.’ Then the Jews said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was (genesthai- came into being), I AM.’ Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." John 8:51-59 NKJV

Notice here that Abraham is said to have come into existence (genesthai) whereas Jesus simply is (ego eimi). Noted Christian scholar and apologist Robert M. Bowman Jr., in his response to Jehovah’s Witnesses, notes:

"What is it about this contrast between genesthai and eimi that has led to such a solid consensus throughout the centuries among biblical scholars that the words contrast created origin with uncreated eternal existence? BY ITSELF, of course, the word eimi does not connote eternal preexistence. However, placed alongside genesthai and referring to a time anterior to that indicated by genesthai, the word eimi (or its related forms), because it denotes simple existence and is a durative form of the verb to be, stands in sharp contrast to the aorist genesthai which speaks of ‘coming into being.’ It is this sharp contrast between being and becoming which makes it clear that in a text like John 8:58 eimi connotes eternality, not merely temporal priority. (Bowman, Jehovah's Witnesses Jesus Christ &The Gospel of John [Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, MI, 1995], p. 114; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Ken said...

"He (Jesus) chose the term THAT WOULD MOST STRONGLY CONTRAST the created origin in time of Abraham with his own timeless eternality, the present tense verb eimi... Thus, had Jesus wished to say what JWs understand him to have said—that he merely existed for a long time before Abraham—he could have said so by saying, ‘Before Abraham came into existence, I was,’ using the imperfect tense emen instead of the present tense eimi. (This point was made by Chrysostom and Augustine, and reaffirmed by such Reformers as Calvin, and is also a standard observation found in most exegetical commentaries on John and never, to this author’s knowledge, disputed in such works.) Such a statement would have left open the question of whether or not Jesus had always existed, or whether (like the angels) he had existed from the earliest days of the universe’s history. Or, had he wished to make it clear that (as JWs believe) he had himself come into existence some time prior to Abraham, he could have said so by stating, ‘Before Abraham came into existence, I came into existence’ (by using the first person aorist egenomen instead of eimi), or perhaps more simply, ‘I came into existence before Abraham.’ Having said neither of these things, but rather, having chosen terms which went beyond these formulations to draw a contrast between the created and the uncreated, Jesus’ words must be interpreted as a claim to eternality." (Ibid., pp. 115-116; bold and capital emphasis ours)

(Robert Bowman's book)

last 2 comboxes are from Sam Shamoun's article at:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/tam2.htm

Ken said...

ἐγὼ εἰμί ὁ ὢν

"I am the existing one"

Exodus 3:14 LXX

John 8:24; 8:56-59 and 18:1-6 all point to this, clearly discernible by the context, reaction of the Jews, and the soldiers falling back to the ground.

Rory said...

As long as you all are "going back to the Bible" (or the Book of Mormon or the Koran or any other religious literature), allow me to confidently predict that you will not resolve anything because as I have suggested in many places at many times, "The Bible (and any other book) alone is inadequate to resolve doctrinal controversy."

It seems that there is presently a predominance on this blog of those who believe that apart from any authority, by our own wits, or by some individual insight from on high, human souls are in a position to work out the Nicene Creed, or Sunni Islam, or Reformed Baptism, or Orthodox Christianity, from reading the Bible! Not me. The Bible is too hard for me. I am lost if it is up to me. I also think it is too hard for my Mom and my siblings and all of my aunts and uncles. No way is this God's plan.

What do you recommend for those like me and my relatives who aren't as smart as you all? Can all of your relatives figure this out like you? Just them with their Bibles or Korans or whatever? Is this what you think God expects of every human soul? To understand the Scripture without any other human authority? Because of what I consider the manifest inability of people like you, combined with the even more plain manifest inability of my relatives to understand the Scripture alone, I recommend rejecting the very idea that we are individually capable of identifying true doctrine and extrapolating from that to the Church that is closest. You are your own authorities and I don't believe in you, even if you are smart. I can't recommend your method to my relatives.

So I am closest to agreement with Dave. At least he says he doesn't know. The Scripture still isn't clear enough for him. After 40 years of wearing out Bibles, the Scriptures is not only inadequate to resolve doctrinal controversy against you. Alone, the Scriptures are inadequate to guide him with his Greek and Hebrew and commentaries and a probable higher IQ than my relatives to a certainty of what to believe. For those of you who won't admit that the Scriptures are inadequate, I submit that you don't know my relatives and me. We are really not able to do this kind of stuff.

Do you have suggestions?

Rory

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

We all just got SCORCHED by Rory! Subhan'Allah! That was from the heart!

I don't know about Ken and I don't speak for him or David.

For me as a Sunni Muslim.

If David just prays to God even if he does so in the name of Joshua/Yeshuah or Esau/Isa it's not a problem.

This is called tawassul (seeking the means in orthodox Islam)

Think about it. If God really is triune in nature than if you pray to God the father seems to me every body is getting their fare share of the prayer!

For me David is taking the safe road. Here you have the entirety of the Old Testament and God is simply one and is revealed as one.

What if is he is afraid to make error? That is not someone who doesn't trust God that is someone who recognizes the power of God. It shows a contrive and humble heart filled with awe and reverence.

What does God want from David Ken?

I'll tell you what he can DO. He can pray and if you think that God randomly selects people for heaven and hell that is your theology not ours.

If you believe that when David is out chopping wood thinking about our discussions and a sensation over takes him and he just drops down and looks up to the sky and say deep within GOD!!!!!!!!! what do you ask or want from me? SHOW ME WHAT IS TRUTH!

If you do not think that God responds to that than your the one worshiping an IDOL Ken not me!

Allah is BOUND by his word to respond to the heart felt petitions of mankind.


"O son of Adam, as long as you call upon Me and put your hope in Me, I have forgiven you for what you have done and I do not mind. O son of Adam, if your sins were to reach the clouds of the sky and then you would seek My forgiveness, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, if you were to come to Me with sins that are close to filling the earth and then you would meet Me without ascribing any partners with Me, I would certainly bring to you forgiveness close to filling it."
(Hadithi Qudsi)-Mutawattir transmission.


Say: O My servants who have transgressed against their own souls, despair not of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Surah az-Zumar 39:53)

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

David they (the Trinitarians) are not being honest.

They go on and on about their doctrine but do they worship the Holy Spirit? How? Where?

Do they direct their prayers to the Holy Spirit? No!

The Holy Spirit is simply used for sanctification, or strengthening of God's people.

Than they want to give you some guilt trip about make a decision for this or that dogma.

Than I see them quote scripture, they quote this or that creed when they themselves admit that no one can make the claims they do except by the Holy Spirit.

They themselves claim it's a mystery.

So than they scold people for reading and reflection. How condescending!

It's them (the reformed) who believe God stops doing miracles.

Didn't the disciples raise people from the dead!! I mean what happened? Why is the Holy Spirit and the anointing not as powerful as it was?


If God is a mystery and bigger than our minds surely God would be understanding David if you don't proclaim with your tongue that you believe in this or that dogma.

After all human beings has limitations. They (the trinitarians) themselves believe that when God was on the earth he was limited by his human flesh (didn't know the day of judgment)

So how is he going to fault you if you over come by your limitations, he was too!


Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole [duty] of man. ( Ecclesiastes 12:12-13)

Ken said...

Rory,
It seems you are promoting the Roman Catholic Church position that claims it is the final authority, infallible, by its Popes and councils.

right?

Rory wrote:
". . . allow me to confidently predict that you will not resolve anything . . . "

What do you mean by "resolve anything"? The RCC arrogantly claims it is the only true church, but what did that solve? The Reformation churches, did not submit and we still reject that position. Do you see my point? Just because the RCC claims something dogmatically, does not solve the problem either - there are still millions of people who are in rebellion against the Papacy and the supposed infallible Magisterium.

If you are RCC ( I can't remember exactly - I am pretty sure you are) - the RCC should be ashamed of the Mary doctrines (PVM, Sinlessness, IC, BAM, co-Mediatrix, Co-Redemptrix) and statues/icons that have caused the Muslim world to think God had sex with Mary and pro-create Jesus and that you guys worship Mary, since you pray to her. (Qur'an 5:116; 6:101)

Certainly the Bible has many challenging passages, but it is too clear that RCC is wrong -
I Tim. 2:5 - there is only one mediator.
Matthew 1:18-25 - Joseph and Mary had a normal godly marriage after Jesus was born.
Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3, 4, 5; Romans 4 and 5 - justification is by faith alone. - ie - Trent is wrong.
Praying to statues and icons is wrong. Exodus 20, Revelation 21 and 22.

Your method is the "appeal to humility" and it sounds good; but it is possible to be both humble and confident; and God commands us to read and understand and rely on the Holy Spirit, and submit to local church authority, and obviously I have church authorities and I also look at history and others who have come before me; so the charge of arrogance and "you are your own authority" is patently false. Just as you don't trust us; I don't trust a heirarchy of arrogance (Boniface VIII, 1302 AD - "every creature must submit to the Pope for salvation" . and Pius IX (or XI, I am not taking the time to look it up - you tell us which one said that) - "I am the tradition!" ( !! - what a contradiction to all the NT !)



because as I have suggested in many places at many times, "The Bible (and any other book) alone is inadequate to resolve doctrinal controversy."

see above. the RCC did not solve the controversies either and the Protestants are still protesting. If you mean by "resolving" the lack of controversy. Not only does your Magisterium not interpret the bible properly, but it actually contradicts the Bible on many issues. (as shown above) Many RCs are protesting also - Liberals like Hans Kunz; others, they don't submit to the Pope on contraception, etc. and they have "catholics for women priests" and "catholics for gays" societies; and there is Jerry Matatics and Sedevacantism and Mel Gibson and the Society of Pope Pius the IX and XI and Latin Mass Traditionals and others.

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
For me David is taking the safe road. Here you have the entirety of the Old Testament and God is simply one and is revealed as one.

Yes, you seem to forget that Trinitarians affirm that God is One. We believe Deut. 6:4 and Mark 12:29 and I Tim. 2:5 and Isaiah chapters 40-48 also - and the NT revelation that tells us that within that one, there are three persons. John 1:1-5; 14; Matthew 28:19, 2 Cor. 13:14; Matthew 3:13-18; John 5, 8, 10, 20:28, 8:24, 8:56-59, etc. (and all those passages from earlier posts)

There is nothing contradictory about the doctrine that says that within the One Being of God, there are three persons in love relationship from all eternity.


God is love. I John 4:8 Only the Trinity has that - Lover, Beloved, and love. Beautiful.

That is why Augustine said, "Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You."

and Pascal said,
"man is born with a God-shaped vacuum."

Only the Trinity meets the need for relationship, because God is relationship.

Ken said...

Should have been:

If you are RCC ( I can't remember exactly - I am pretty sure you are) - the RCC should be ashamed of the Mary doctrines (PVM, Sinlessness, IC, BAM, co-Mediatrix, Co-Redemptrix) and statues/icons that have caused the Muslim world to think that Christians believe that God had sex with Mary and pro-create Jesus and that you guys worship Mary, since you pray to her. (Qur'an 5:116; 6:101)

Ken said...

GV19,
the bible also says that those that seek will find, But God has to reveal it to people; and even Islam agrees, which you quote a lot - "Allah guides whoever He wills to guide" - "Allah leads some astray and guides others to the light."

You claim to be against some kind of doctrine of Allah's sovereignty in your rants against Reformed Theology, but Islamic Sovereignty is even more dark than Calvinism, for in Islam, Allah actually created evil and actually does the sins (most clearly, lying - Allah is the best of deceivers". Qur'an 3:54; 8:30; 10:22

In Reformed Theology, God is not the author of evil, and God does not do the sin; God is not a sinner.

The Westminister Confession of Faith states:

God's sovereign decrees

1. Do NOT make God the author of sin (because God is holy and pure and without sin always; see Titus 1:2, Romans 9:14; I John 1:5; Hab. 1:13; Genesis 18:25; Isaiah 6; I Peter 1:15-16; Heb. 6:18; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; Psalm 85:10; 89:14; 92:15)

2. Do NOT do violence to the will of the creature - that is, there is no force or rape; rather God lovingly changes the will and heart (Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 3:1-21; Ephesians 2:1-10; And God is continuing to change us in progressive sanctification and holiness, conforming us to His image (Romans 8:28-29) and He uses commands and exhortations as means of growing in this grace. Colossians 3:1-17; Romans chapters 6, 7, 8; Galatians 5:13-26) so that a person loves God and embraces Him - a true believer receives Jesus as Lord, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, The doctrine of the Trinitas Unitas, and the doctrines of the cross, the resurrection, etc. "My Sheep hear My voice" John 10:27-30

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 3, verse 1, “Of God’s Eternal Decree”

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]" (my emphasis)

See:

The Westminster Confession of Faith on God's Decree

See also, The London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Well ho ho ho it looks like Ken is up to his old Phillipians 1:18 tricks eh?

Well Ken guess what?

Jesus NEVER said "No greater love than this that a man lay down his life for his enemy" NEVER! You can spin it all you want. They do that on Fox (your favorite channel) all the time.

Ken says,
"In Reformed Theology, God is not the author of evil, and God does not do the sin; God is not a sinner."

Exactly! Because reformed theology is not biblical. It's a man made system you have no assurance of salvation.

You remind me of the atheist who says, "I guess I'll wait and see" you have to 'endure' to the end and cross your fingers you haven't been given evanescent grace.

1. “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7

2. “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?” Amos 3:6

3. “Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?” Lamentations 3:38

Reformed theology has a Manichean view of creation. They believe in a God of Light and a God of Darkness. They believe that people do actions independent of the sovereignty of God.

They teach that God delights in suffering and blood, even though God says to the contrary!

For I desired Mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. (Hosea 6:6)

I challenge Ken, James White and the whole of the reformed scholarship on this entire planet to show us one place in the Bible where God instructs people without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness!

But for the reformed God gives evanescent grace "a temporary grace" he deceives!

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 (King James Version)
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

God punishes the innocent in place of the guilty (original sin)

Ken has a heavy conscious and a heavy heart over these doctrines so he cannot be consistent with Calvin.

Ken believes Jesus is a liar because he does not believe any Christian ever received the promise of John 16 that the comforter would guide into ALL TRUTH.

Calvin himself was deceived and misled on the issue of baby baptism. The Holy Spirit left Calvin in error, or maybe Calvin is correct and Ken is in error.

When I think of Ken and his inconsistent theology Ephesians 4:4 comes to mind.

That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Ken's gods are involved in eternal self masculine love.

Father (Male) -Son (Male) Holy Spirit (Male) John 16:13 "He"

I'm going to call a spade a spade even if it offends because this is what I see the proof is in the pudding. Little wonder so many homosexuals flock to Christianity (Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian) because that is very appealing to them.

An eternal bond of masculine love.

Ken's gods operate as loved, lover, and a conduit of love. Ken's gods are three deities that have agreed to form one power house. Gods that dwell in community and this is supposed to impress? Yawn!

I wonder what kind of communication takes place between three all knowing deities? I mean how do you play a good game of poker? I mean seriously?

Like Abdullah Al Andalusi said in his debate with James you can swear up and down that your a monotheist all you want. Someone can tell me all day long a circle has three sides.

Ken you clearly believe in three gods. There are some people who think they are not sick and you can never convince them other wise.

Ken said...

GV19,
The problem with accusing the Trinity of being homosexual (estaqfr'allah - استغفرالله) is that you are projecting your sick physical, childish, concrete, mind onto something non-physical and spiritual. That is your immature problem.

God is Spirit - John 4:23-24 - so there is not sex involved. Your mind is sick for even suggesting this kind of thing by your "calling a spade a spake" talk.
Shame on you!

Besides the Bible is clear that homosexuality is sin always. (Romans 1:18-26; I Cor. 6:9-11, I Timothy 1:8-11, Lev. 18:22; 20:13, Genesis 19, etc.)

When God said, "let us make man in our own image" and "He created them male and female". Adam, male and female - Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2

"He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man [Adam]in the day when they were created." Genesis 5:2

So physical sex was God's idea in marriage (one man for one woman); and both male and female are created in the spiritual image of God (The human soul that separates us from animals - the Soul, mind, conscience, will, creativity, morality, language, self-consciousness, communication, social relationships with others.)

Ken said...

Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; Lamentations 3:38, and the 2 Thess. 2 passages do have to be interpreted properly - it means that since God is holy and cannot sin and cannot lie (I John 1:5; Titus 1:2), then those passages have to mean that God decided to allow sin to come into the world (Isaiah 45:7) and God decides to allow tragedy/calamity to happen. (Amos 3:6; Lam. 3:38) and God allows others to believe a lie, but He doesn't do the lying. (the 2 Thess. 2 passage)

That may be also the way some Muslims come to grips with their Sovereignty passages also.

But you on the other hand have clear verses that say "Allah is the very best deceivers" (Surah 3:54; 8:30; 10:22)

We have "God cannot lie" - Titus 1:2, see also Hebrews 6:18

Rory said...

Hi all.

Hi Ken. You speculated as follows: "Rory,
It seems you are promoting the Roman Catholic Church position that claims it is the final authority, infallible, by its Popes and councils."

Then you asked: "right?"

Wrong. I am saying that my relatives and I are incapable of being the final authorities. Other than believing a living individual teacher be it you, Grand Verbalizer, Lkov, or dead indivudals like Thomas Aquinas, Joseph Smith, or Bahaullah, what should we do?

Do all of your relatives seem capable of the mental capacity even if they had the spiritual energy to carry on the theological exercise that has been necessary for you to arrive at a peaceful conclusion that Reformed Baptist thought is what the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have taught?

I am not suggesting that there is only one solution to the problem I present. There is a reason why you responded negatively and defensively to my observation of what seems clearer to me than any Scriptural truth. A good God has never expected serfs, knights, monarchs, taxi drivers, or Luther's proverbial milkmaid to be able to understand the Scripture without an intermediary in the form of another human teacher.

Why does Grand Verbalizer respond positively to my observation? Because his faith doesn't apparently depend on the assumption that every human soul is equipped by God with the natural and supernatural capacity to discern the true teachings of Scripture unaided by another human authority. I am not suggesting at all that there is only one solution to the problem I present.

If I understand him correctly, Sunni Islam, according to Grand Verbalizer's understanding, honors those of us who pray to the One God for help, and even if we do not become Sunni, the One God will forgive us, knowing our infirmities. This seems like a reasonable response to the problem I present. He is in effect saying that no one will be damned for theological imprecision. I am wondering how many faiths, BESIDES the Catholic Church, can reasonably offer a solution to
the problem that is apparent on this thread and in the real lives of 99% the people we know. If the Catholic Church is so obviously false, as you have concluded, that does not solve the problem of the reason why my relatives fail to become Reformed Baptist! There has to a better, faster, and less discouraging way of discerning the truth we need to know than years and years of intense individual Scripture study.

Right?

You reject the Catholic Church. So what? You also reject the Quakers. You reject Islam. You reject the Assemblies of God. So what? I am not asking what we SHOULDN'T do. I am asking what, in your opinion, we who know we aren't capable of tackling the problems of Scripture SHOULD do. How do simple souled believers in the One God get from where we are now, feeling incapable of untangling the web of truths and errors that the religions proclaim to the place that we are confident that the Reformed Baptists teach what the One God has revealed?

I think Grand Verbalizer has answered well. There might be other reasons for not moving towards being Sunni Muslim. But this is not one of them. I suspect that his faith has a depth that only few are capable of sounding, with a shallow pool in which the most simple minded child of Adam can find cool waters of refreshment now and in eternity. So far, so good.

Rory

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

A lot of activity here after I signed off last night; you posted:

>>One of the other clear passages of the full Deity of Christ, especially when you notice how Jesus frames the issue in his question to the Jews and Pharisees:

42"What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" They said to Him, "The son of David."
43He said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying,
44'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
"SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET"'?
45"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?"
46 No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question. Matthew 22:42-46>>

Me: I am really scratching my head Ken: THE LORD (Yahweh) says to My Lord (adoni) "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet". QUESTION: Why does one who possesses "full Deity" need someone else to put his enemies beneath his feet? Does not make any sense, especially when you add the Acts passage I quoted above:

This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:32-36 – KJV)

God the Father (The LORD/Yahweh) exalts the one that David called "my Lord" (i.e. the promised Messiah, the future King of Israel), by placing him at His "right hand", and making him "both Lord and Christ" (i.e. confirming that he is the promised Messiah and King).


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Ken,

You posted:

>>ἐγὼ εἰμί ὁ ὢν

"I am the existing one"

Exodus 3:14 LXX

John 8:24; 8:56-59 and 18:1-6 all point to this, clearly discernible by the context, reaction of the Jews, and the soldiers falling back to the ground.>>

Me: If Jesus had truly wished to make the claim that he was the Yahweh of Ex. 3:14, he would have said ἐγὼ εἰμί ὁ ὢν, not merely ἐγὼ εἰμί. Scripture interprets Scripture, and John 4:21-26 lays the foundation for how one is to understand the rest of the "I am" passages found in John's Gospel. In verse 25 "the woman" states, "I know that the Messiah is coming, the one called the Anointed; when he comes, he will tell us everything." Note Jesus reply:

Jesus said to her, "I am he, the one who is speaking with you." (John 4:26 - NAB; Greek: λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἐγώ εἰμι, ὁ λαλῶν σοι.)

Further, that the Jews sought to stone him, does not mean that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh. If this had been the case, there is no doubt in my mind that during his upcoming trial, his accusers would have presented such evidence, they did not do so. The stoning of Stephen presents certain criteria that the Jews considered to be stoning offenses:

Then they secretly induced men to say, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God."...

And they put forward false witnesses who said, "This man incessantly speaks against this holy place, and the Law; for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us. " (Acts 6:11, 13, 14 - NASB)

Note the OT background:

"You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people." (Exodus 22:28 - NASB)

And he that blasphemeth the name of Jehovah, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the sojourner, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the name of Jehovah, shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24:16 - ASV)

The Jews who sought to stone Jesus because they believed that he was blaspheming Jehovah (i.e. claiming to have received authority from Him that was not his), Abraham, the Law, etc.; to read more into the "I am" passages (i.e. that Jesus actually claimed to be Jehovah/Yahweh) is 'adding to the Scriptures' (IMO).


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Lvka,

Thanks for responding; you wrote:

>>The OT (LXX - since wer'e looking at Greek texts here) never calls Yhwh "Yhwh" either... it calls him Kyrios(Lord), the translation of the Hebrew Adonai, by which word the Hebrew YHWH was replaced in both speech and writing by then(by that time)...>>

Me: That is not accurate, there are a number of extant OT Greek texts which are dated close to the 1st century that have the Hebrew tetragrammaton (יחוח) instead of the Greek kurios.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Old_Testament_manuscripts_that_include_the_Tetragrammaton


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

David wrote:
Further, that the Jews sought to stone him, does not mean that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh. If this had been the case, there is no doubt in my mind that during his upcoming trial, his accusers would have presented such evidence, they did not do so.

You are so wrong!

John 5:16-17
16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17 Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

John 10:33
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

John 19:1-7

Jesus Sentenced to be Crucified

1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2 The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe 3 and went up to him again and again, saying, "Hail, king of the Jews!" And they struck him in the face.

4 Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews, "Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him." 5When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, "Here is the man!"

6 As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!"

But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him."

7 The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

It is I who am the one who is scratching my head at your answers.

You also avoided the Greek NT texts of quoting Psalm 110:1 - Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews - they all use Kurios for both Yahweh and Adonai.

Still scratching my head at the way you are arguing here.

It seems you never really left Jehovah's Witness doctrine. (IMO)

David Waltz said...

Ken,

I have been pondering over whether or I should respond to your following comments and questions, but after some reflection have decided to do so:

>> Why kind of church do you go to now? If at all. Don't you realize you are outside of all of Orthodoxy? RCC and EO and Protestantism?>>

Me: As I have told you in the past, since leaving the RCC at the beginning of this year I have not joined another communion, and have been attending and meeting with pastors from a number denominations.

QUESTION: why did you invoke the RCC and EO communions when you have told me in the past that you do not believe them to be valid Christian churches?

>> Did the leaders and elders at the Orthodox Presbyterian Church you went to hurt you?>>

Me: No, absolutely not.

>>You're hesitancy to have faith in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is strange and baffling.>>

Me: Because I know beyond any reasonable doubt that the doctrine of the Trinity (in the numerous forms it has taken since 325 AD) is clearly a doctrinal development. If one does not accept that infallible tradition exists to guide such development (i.e. RCC, EO), then one had better proceed with extreme caution in trying to determine if the development was a true development.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Ken,

You posted the following:

>>The LXX here has “ἐγώ εἰμί ὁ εἰμί’ = I am the I am” not “ἐγώ εἰμί o wv”

http://biblewebapp.com/study/#ref=Exodus%203:14|ver=el_wh,en_nasb

It appears to be misprints and mistakes.

Are there other versions or textual variants of the LXX?>>

Me: Seems to be an error. I own the Stuttgart critical edition of Rahlf's LXX (1979), and it lists only one textual variant for Ex. 3:14: Codex B/Vaticanus adds λεγων between μωυσην and εγω ειμι.

All other extant versions (at least to my knowledge) read:

και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην εγω ειμι ο ων και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

Rory,
You are not Roman Catholic; ok. What are you?

Mormon ?,

former Roman Catholic, what?

Jehovah's Witness?

What?

I seem to recall some of your posts when Tom the Mormon was contributing, but never understood where you were coming from.

Tell us what you are, please.

You asked, “What do we do?” What should your relatives do?

Depends on where they are at and what knowledge they have to begin with. If they were completely ignorant like a Tribal group in Papua New Guinea, we would have to start with creation and Genesis and monotheism, as the GV19 and you are saying. But I highly doubt your relatives are that ignorant; you are after all, posting on the www. I could not answer that intelligently unless you tell me where you or they are coming from.

I don't really know if you really want to know the answer or you are just asking the question in a rhetorical way.

Ken said...

David W. wrote:
QUESTION: why did you invoke the RCC and EO communions when you have told me in the past that you do not believe them to be valid Christian churches?

Because on the doctrine of the Trinity, they are correct.

The specific issue here is the doctrine of the Trinity. You have put yourself outside of all three branches of historical Orthodoxy.

It was later in history that the RCC condemned itself by condemning justification by faith alone, apart from works, at the council of Trent in the years 1545-1563 AD.

The EO is more mysterious, and I confess I don't know it very well; but it appears that it rejects the western theological developments of Augustine (Islam seems to have cut it off from developing any further than 6th-7th century); and since it rejects the doctrine of original sin and thinks the 5th, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical councils are infallible; it has lots of problems also.

But I am NOT judging individual persons, either EO or Roman Catholics.

Beyond that, I don't know much about Eastern Orthodoxy. I think that Islam was cruel to it and conquered it and stole it's beloved city, Constantinople, from it, unjustly. All of the Islam Jihads against the Byzantines and Persians were unjust and sinful from day one. They had no right to do that, attacking in aggressive warfare.

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

So good to see that you have made it back safely from St. Louis; hope you had great time!

In the first paragraph of your instructive post you said:

>> "The Bible (and any other book) alone is inadequate to resolve doctrinal controversy.">>

Me: Well if religious history proves anything, it is that the above is 'spot-on'. The following from the conservative, Evangelical scholar, A.N.S. Lane is telling:

==The Reformers unequivocally rejected the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This left open the question of who should interpret Scripture. The Reformation was not a struggle for the right of private judgement. The Reformers feared private judgement almost as much as did the Catholics and were not slow to attack it in its Anabaptist manifestation. The Reformation principle was not private judgement but the perspicuity of the Scriptures. Scripture was ‘sui ipsius interpres’ and the simple principle of interpreting individual passages by the whole was to lead to unanimity in understanding. This came close to creating anew the infallible church…It was this belief in the clarity of Scripture that made the early disputes between Protestants so fierce. This theory seemed plausible while the majority of Protestants held to Luthern or Calvinist orthodoxy but the seventeenth century saw the beginning of the erosion of these monopolies. But even in 1530 Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that ‘the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.’ By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 44, 45 – bold emphasis mine.)==

[See bottem of the right side-bar of this blog for link to full essay.]

To be deep in history...


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

and have been attending and meeting with pastors from a number denominations.

But you never specify. Jehovah's Witness? Some other non-Trinitarian cult?

or a Christian denomination that is Trinitarian?

Bahai faith?

I am glad no one hurt you at OPC.
Sorry for even asking that, but your strong stance against the Trinity and Reformed theology made me wonder.


then one had better proceed with extreme caution in trying to determine if the development was a true development.

Yes, I believe the doctrine of the Trinity was a true and good and legitimate development of the Biblical texts, interpreted properly; but many other things of the RCC (Newman's dictim) and EO (icons, rejection of justification by faith, etc.) were wrong developments, which is not development at all, rather adding to the text and to the faith, creating false doctrines and false practices.

David Waltz said...

Rory,

I am going to take a break before responding to anymore of the remaining comments (might be tomorrow afternoon before I return).

Before leaving, wanted to ask you an off-topic question: have you heard about the following Cleveland Brown's running back:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=11461

Check out the following YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7K9cSqlca4w&feature=related


This kid has speed and quickness, and hits like a tank!


David

Ken said...

Rory,
David's quoting of Anthony N.S. Lane in response to your post, was why I asked what I asked. (If you were Roman Catholic.) You can see that - that it was not negative or defensive, but natural - he shows this by his answer.

Me: Well if religious history proves anything, it is that the above is 'spot-on'. The following from the conservative, Evangelical scholar, A.N.S. Lane is telling:

==The Reformers unequivocally rejected the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This left open the question of who should interpret Scripture. The Reformation was not a struggle for the right of private judgement. The Reformers feared private judgement almost as much as did the Catholics . . . "

Ken said...

David,
Thanks so much for answering my questions.

Although we disagree; I do appreciate your spirit and demeanor here and you are a pleasure to debate/discuss.

GV19 is too mean/cruel (but that is the nature of Islam itself, "submit or die!") (calls me a liar and a hypocrite and that I am using deceptive tactics - a wrong use of his quoting Philippians 1:18 - which is goofy, because Paul is not saying that having wrong motives is a good thing; Paul is merely saying that since he is in jail, and others do have selfish motives, if they preach Christ, he chooses to rejoice and not get bitter or discouraged. GV19 is unjust; and ad homimen. Also a sick mind to accuse the Trinity of being some homosexual thing.

You are also more enjoyable and peaceful than Roman Catholic online apologist/debater Dave Armstrong. I gave up arguing with him a long time ago.

natamllc said...

Ken

I wish you well and am happy that you have picked up on the fact the DW does not hold to the Trinity of the Reformed Faiths.

One need only "locate" each of the Three in Scripture to realize that God is Three in One True and Eternal Nature.

I will do so with these three verses.

The One True God, the Holy Spirit:

Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

The One True God, Our Heavenly Father:

2Sa 7:13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

The One True God, Jesus Christ:

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

Mark my words, Ken, unless the Spirit of Grace and Truth changes DW's heart, you will not read a word of belief in the Trinity!

As you have read already, he will shuffle about with word games and you will be less certain of the Trinity, One God, Our Heavenly Father Who Sent His Son from His Heaven's Eternal Glory and Throne to the present created heavens and earth to be led by the Holy Spirit where the Holy Spirit works His sanctification work upon the Elect of God also, who are predetermined and called and chosen by an election before the foundation of the world was even laid.

Isa 4:2 In that day the branch of the LORD shall be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land shall be the pride and honor of the survivors of Israel.
Isa 4:3 And he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy, everyone who has been recorded for life in Jerusalem,..."

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.


One of the most beautiful descriptions of the Three Holy Ones Who are One is this description here:

Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb
Rev 22:2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Lvka said...

David,

you are aware that what you've provided me with is basically the sort of proverbial exception which proves the rule.. right?


They were produced by pre-Christian Jewish copyists and by post-Christian Jewish redactors in order to improve the then available Greek translations of the Hebrew Biblical text. At that time, the textual standard for the non-Hebrew speaking Christians was the LXX version.
[which contained no such curious artefacts].

Ken said...

David,
I honestly think your whole argument is defeated soundly by:

1. These clear texts from John that refute what you tried to say about the trial and the Jews seeking to stone Him.
John 5:17-18
John 8:56-59
John 10:33
John 19:7

John 18:1-8 - also - even Roman soldiers fell back and down at the divine name.

Same for John 8:24 - unless you believe that "I am", who will die in your sins.

Since they all clearly show that Jesus was claiming to be God and that is how the Jews understood Him; and at the trial they say this in John 19:7 and Mark 14:60-64 also proves this!

2. The Greek translation in the NT of Psalm 110:1 in Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; Acts 2:33-36; and Hebrews 1:13 - where both Yahweh and Adonai were rendered/translated "Kurios".

The NT infallibly interprets the OT for us. So all of your arguments there are defeated.

3. Church history before Nicea - The full Deity of Christ is taught before Nicea, a clear example is Ignatius of Antioch, on the Deity of Christ, calls Jesus God 9 clear times (11 with the textual variants; 2 of them are less clear because of this) in 7 letters (ca. 110 AD)

“Jesus Christ our God” Ephesians , Preface – “suffering by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God . . . “
Ephesians 15:3, Ephesians 18:2, Romans Preface- 2 times, Romans 3:3,

Trallians 7, and Smyrneans 10:1 are less clear. (because of textual variants)

He speaks of Christ’s blood as “God's blood” Ephesians 1:1

He calls Jesus “God incarnate” Ephesians 7:2

In Jesus “God appeared in human form” Ephesians 19:3

So, the Trinity = One God in substance/nature/ousia/essence and three in persons/personal relationship is the right and correct development based on exegesis of the text of the Bible and the early church, even before Nicea, proves this.

Nothing could be clearer.

Ken said...

Natamllc,
Thanks! -

Yes, that is true, that only God the Spirit can open hearts and minds to understand the Scriptures - Luke 24:45; Acts 16:14

That goes for David W. and the GV19 also.

David and GV19- I pray the eyes of your hearts will be enlightening, opened, awakened, and you be make alive (Ephesians 2:1-5) to understand these things.

Ephesians 1:17-19
John 6:44

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Finally able to get back to internet and this thread; shall attempt to pick-up (in order, chronologically speaking) where I left off yesterday. In your October 9, 2010 (12:34 PM) post, (responding to Ken), you wrote:

>>I am saying that my relatives and I are incapable of being the final authorities. Other than believing a living individual teacher be it you, Grand Verbalizer, Lkov, or dead indivudals like Thomas Aquinas, Joseph Smith, or Bahaullah, what should we do?>>

Me: Ken claims to believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura; though there are differing forms of SS, the one common element is that Scripture alone is the sole, infallible, final authority. In addition to this common element, the doctrine of perspicuity is added, though considerable diversity exists among the adherents of SS as to what portions of Scripture are clear, and the extent of the content of the “essentials”(which are “clear”) that one must believe (as Dr. Lane has so eloquently delineated in his essay that I referenced above). Anyone who has studied the history of doctrinal development knows that the content/list of “essentials” has been in flux, is in flux, varies from generation to generation, and has diversity among SS proponents of each generation. With this backdrop in mind, I too sincerely wonder how Ken would answer your queston.

A bit later you wrote:

>>If the Catholic Church is so obviously false, as you have concluded, that does not solve the problem of the reason why my relatives fail to become Reformed Baptist! There has to a better, faster, and less discouraging way of discerning the truth we need to know than years and years of intense individual Scripture study.>>

Me: Indeed…I thinks perhaps GV19 has touched on this in some of his numerous reflections on Reformed theology, namely the doctrine of election—if one is elect, one will believe in the true faith, the non-elect are left with no hope. But, as with the doctrine of SS, there are grave historical difficulties with such a view, for, once again, considerable doctrinal diversity exists among the adherents of unconditional election/predestination. One important lesson that my studies of historical theology and doctrinal development has taught me is that if one is looking for a group of believers that exhibits the oneness that our Lord prayed for to his God and Father in John 17, don’t look to the Reformed faith! I know this sounds a bit harsh, but the facts don’t lie.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello Ken,

As I said earlier to Rory, trying to pick-up where I left off yesterday. In your October 9, 2010 (2:16 PM) comment, you posted:

>> David wrote:
Further, that the Jews sought to stone him, does not mean that Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh. If this had been the case, there is no doubt in my mind that during his upcoming trial, his accusers would have presented such evidence, they did not do so.

You are so wrong! >>

Me: You go on to quote John 5:16-17; 10:33; and 19:1-7 seemingly as proof that Jesus claimed to be Yahweh, the God of Jews, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, et al. The argument of Jesus accusers/opponents was that he claimed to be the “son of God”; we know from Scripture that Jesus made this claim, but where in the Law is one who claims to be a “son of God” to be punished by death? Further, where in the Law can one find anything that Jesus actually said and/or did during his Earthly ministry that warranted the death penalty? Fact is, the Jews were making fraudulent claims, based on faulty exegesis. Jesus makes this quite clear in his response to his critics found immediately after John 10:33:

Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?” (John 10:34-36 – NASB)

The inconsistency of the Jesus' opponents is further evidenced by the fact that they too claimed God as their Father!!!

"You do the deeds of your father." Then they said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father -- God." (John 8:41 – NKJV)

As for Psalms 110:1, I have already commented earlier on it (twice), as well as the passages which quote it in the NT; you have ignored the original context of the passage (Scripture cannot be broken), and ignore the clear distinction between the LORD who speaks to another Lord, the LORD who raises the second Lord from the dead and appoints him both Lord and Christ!

Ken, I have a sincere question for you: are you really allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture?


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi natamllc,

Nice to see you back at AF; you wrote:

>> I wish you [Ken] well and am happy that you have picked up on the fact the DW does not hold to the Trinity of the Reformed Faiths.>>

Me: Couple of points: first, good to see that you are aware of the diversity within the Reformed tradition; second, perhaps you are not as aware of the diversity among Reformed theologians concerning the doctrine of the Trinity.

Though I reject the predominate direction that most Reformed theologians have advanced since Calvin’s day (concerning the Trinity), I share a lot of common ground with Jonathan Edwards’ view.

BTW, awhile back I posted a thread by an Eastern Orthodox theologian who maintains that Calvin (and the Reformed folk who follow his views on the Trinity) are really Tri-theists!!!

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/10/john-calvin-tri-theistic-heretic.html


Grace and peace,

David

P.S. Lot’s more catching up to do, but I am being called to dinner…

Ken said...

David,
When Jesus claims to be the Son of God and the "I am" many times, they understood Him to be claiming to be God/Yahweh - to be ontologically one (same substance/nature/ousia/essence as God the Father - that is what John 5:16-18 says - "making Himself equal with God"

and

John 10:33
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

The claim to the "the Son of God" (eternally, ontologically) was blasphemy, because it was claiming to be God. (which John 5, 8, and 10 and 19:6 say.)

Psalm 2, twice talks about the Messiah as the Son.

And Proverbs 30:4-5

I have not learned wisdom,
nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.

4 Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands?
Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and the name of his son?
Tell me if you know!

They recognized the Messiah would be the Son of God - the Jews knew this, - Mark 14:6-64.

Jesus quoting of Psalm 82:6 in John 10 does not mean that men are gods literally (like the way Mormons or the Word of Faith heresy teaches)- read all of Psalm 82 -Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for their pride and their unjust judging and injustice towards the poor and the widows and orphans. Psalm 82 is a judgment against the unjust judges of Israel (and other prideful dictators of nations also) who think they are "something" (gods, god-like), but God says they will die like men.

Jesus said God "calls" them "gods" (God is mocking them for their pride and injustice), but they will die like men, proving they are not "gods".

But the true Son of God, whom God the Father sanctified and sent into the world, He really is God the Son, the Son of God, so it is not blasphemy to claim that, because it was true.

I am the one who is letting Scripture interpret Scripture in context and according to the author's intended meaning by attention to the context, etc.

You are not interpreting any of these things right at all, in my humble opinion. I am amazed at how you ignored the NT interpretation of Yahweh and Adonai in all the NT quotes of Psalm 110:1 and how you are ignoring the clear claim of Jesus to be "I am" of Exodus 3:14 in John 8:24; 8:56-58; 18:1-6; also all the other "I am" bread of life, etc. (6:35; 8:12; 10:9-11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1)

So, yes, I am interpreting Scripture by the Scriptures, with sound principles of exegesis and attention to the context.

Ken said...

David,
You wrote the following in the combox in your earlier article on Calvin and the term "auto-theotes" ("self -God")ie - that Christ was eternally God from Himself - aseity or "self-existence" -

"As for your question, Calvin rejected Origen’s doctrine of eternal generation, opting instead for a single event.

Maybe that is what "today" means in Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 ? I admit it is a mystery ultimately, as you finally say at the end of your comments.

John 5:26
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.

When John 1:3 says, "In Him was life, and that life was the light of men." - and "I am the light of the world" -
These all three passages lend credence to Calvin's idea; but it is not different than the "God of very God, light of very light" of the Nicean Creed.

The accusation of "tri-theism" from the orthodox writer is ridiculous. (as is GV19's accusation that I believe in 3 gods.)استغفر الله
Estaqfr'allah! May God forgive you!

Calvin wrote:

“…he is the Son of God, because the Word was begotten by the Father before all ages.” (Institutes, 1.13.23.)

But, and this importantly, this begetting of the Son by the Father was strictly relational, of the person, not the essence.


I don't understand that.

For a detailed analysis of Calvin’s thought on the Trinity see Warfield’s insightful essay, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity”. An online version is available HERE.

It is not there anymore.

It sure seems to me that the more one attempts to explain the Trinity the more it becomes a “mystery”.

yes, I agree.

Psalm 145:3

". . . Your greatness is unsearchable."

Ken said...

with my agreement that ultimately the Trinity is a mystery; and I even acknowledged that RCC and EO were right on the Trinity; we have much more unity around the truth of John 17 and we have a concern for truth against the attacks of cultic groups like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and a false religion like Islam.

Although Steve Hayes was very blunt with you; he was right that you seem to give more credence to false religion like Islam and non-Christian, cultic theologies than to the Christian faith. That is bad; very bad.

Ken said...

They recognized the Messiah would be the Son of God - the Jews knew this, - Mark 14:6-64.

Should have been:

They recognized the Messiah would be the Son of God - the Jews knew this, - Mark 14:60-64.

Ken said...

David W. and GV19-
This is a great gospel presentation by David Wood - excellent!

It is the essence of what we are talking about here.

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/08/how-can-god-die.html

I wish I had thought of it.

Please watch and look up verses and ask God to speak to your heart through His Word.

It also points to the true peace and "greater love" of someone dying for his enemies (Romans 5:1; 5:6-11; John 14:27; Matthew 11:28-30) - which the Grandverbalizer19 is longing for, but cannot find in Islam.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Ken I simply say to you come back to monotheism, back away from your worship of three gods.

Come to your senses! Come to the truth.

Jesus could not have been so absent minded as to have said, "There is no greater love than this that a man lay down his life for his FRIENDS" John 15:13...-There is a greater love than that but Jesus didn't teach it period.

I know Ken it troubles you deep in your heart, you want that verse to say ENEMY so so very bad but it doesn't.

Paul doctors up your theology. You can tell me that Paul taught that sure no problem, but 33 years of his life Jesus never made the statement that I said was a much more noble teaching.

John 15:13 read it and weep

I do not worship a god or any god that urinates and dedicates.

You believe that Jesus pooped and peed and that is just insane!

Your the one with the sick mind Ken when you say,

"Also a sick mind to accuse the Trinity of being some homosexual thing"

All I said was that it is eternal MASCULINE LOVE and that homosexuals would find that appealing. You can't deny that.

Homosexuals would find it appealing. Homosexuals find the color pink appealing doesn't mean the color pink is inherently homosexual does it? No!

"On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord." (Luke 2:21-22)

Imagine that God almighty inside the womb makes Mary unclean she was not purified? God almighty gets circumcised?

Where is the istaghfullah at Ken? Oh no it gets an amen from you!

God almighty sports a penis for 33 years on this earth. Where is the istaghfurllah at Ken?

Oh no it gets a hallelujah from you right.

Than you dispute rather he was raised as simply a spirit or a 'glorified body' raised with a 'glorified penis'.

It's disgusting!

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear oh Israel the Lord your God the Lord is ONE!!!

Holy Qur'an chapter 112:1 "Say Allah is ONE!!!

Ken I seek refuge in Allah from you and your association of partners with Allah.

I seek refuge in Allah from the blasphemy of saying Allah (may he forgive me for typing it even) dedicates, urinates, and has sexual organs!

Ken you are under spiritual bondage and in darkness. Your not sure of your salvation you have to work for it...you have to 'endure unto the end' and keep your fingers crossed that God-according to the Gospel of Calvin hasn't given you evanescent grace.

your living an illusion that your the elect and it's a pipe dream buddy. Wake up!

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:

"I seek refuge in Allah from the blasphemy of saying Allah (may he forgive me for typing it even) dedicates, urinates, and has sexual organs!"

You have run out of intellectual arguments, so you now want to talk about poop and pee!

dedicates, (?? !)

I think you mean "defecates" (expelling feces)

To dedicate is to "devote something to someone or to give something over to something, or to some cause"

for Example, "Al Gore dedicates his life to the lie of Global Warming"

or

Grandverbalizer19 is dedicated to Islam.

Or

"The Grandverbalizer19 dedicated a Qur'an to his non-Muslim friend, and he was careful to only touch it with his right hand."

Of course we never say Allah (God the Father, nor the Son before the incarnation, nor the Spirit) has any physical part.

The Son of God, who was logos/spirit before John 1:14 (see John 1:1-5; Philippians 2:5-8)) took on flesh and entered into time, yes.

Well, of course Jesus, the eternal Son of God, took on flesh and had a human body and a human nature; so there is not a problem with saying that and there is nothing unclean or dirty in that.

You think sex is evil, yet Allah created it, created the idea and formed the male and female parts for Adam and Eve and all humans and sex in marriage is Allah's idea, so it is not dirty, in itself. But Jesus never got married, and He never sinned. Even the Qur'an says Jesus was sinless (19:19), but Mohammad asked forgiveness for his sins at least three times; and you are still praying for him - "may he have peace" - because he might not have peace.

Also, Allah created the body and He created the system of waste managment and how the body would get rid of waste. There is nothing shameful or dirty about it, in itself - God (Allah) created the bowels and the urinary tubes to expel unwanted and unused and toxic food materials and water/liquids after digestion process -

So, it is your weird mind that has a problem with these things.

Allah created these things - think about that! - think about when He was thinking about them and shaped them into existence! Allah came up with the shapes and ridges of the male penis and female vagina. Let that sink into your mind and bother you. You are immature to think that there is a problem with that. He doesn't mind physical matter. You think sex is somehow dirty - it is Islam that has some form of Gnosticism in it; yet in Islam in heaven the men will have the houris for eternal sex; also wine and dates.

I wonder if you were the same guy in the question and answer time in Dr. White's debate who brought up this same issue . (at the end of his debate with Hamza Malik) ?

But, no; this objection is quite common from Muslims (especially the men)[maybe it is because the women do all that hard dirty work of changing diapers and cleaning toilets], and I have heard it for years from Muslims before Dr. White started debating.

Yes, Jesus spoke John 15:13 and He also inspired the apostle Paul to write Romans 5:1-11. All Scripture is God-breathed. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Both are true - Jesus died for sinners, enemies, helpless, ungody, Romans 5:1-11; and He changes us into His friends / disciples - He gives us a new heart of repentance and love for God and love for His word and prayer and love for our enemies. You don't have that in Islam, you don't have the power of the Holy Spirit to give you grace and power to be good; you are all alone to do your rituals by yourself and hope someday that Allah will accept you; you have no peace and no assurance.

In my 26 years of working with Muslims, and having many of them over for dinner and been in their homes, the husbands will never change diapers (apparently because of this attitude).

The Muslim wives said to us many times, "can you teach my husband to change diapers?"

Islam is male chauvinism on steroids and Pelagianism on steroids.

Ken said...

David,
I did not ignore the original context of Psalm 110:1 - "Yahweh says to my Adonai"

This points to the distinction within God of the personal relationships of the Father and the Son (the Messiah, who takes on flesh), but this truth is not fully revealed in the OT. In the NT quotes, it shows that both Yahweh and Adonai are both kurios, both Yahweh, one ousia/substance/essence, but a plurality in persons/personal relationships.

The NT interprets the OT for us.

David Waltz said...

Back for further reflections to the posts I have yet to respond to...

Hi Lvka,

Back on October 9, 2010 (5:39 PM) you wrote:

>>David,

you are aware that what you've provided me with is basically the sort of proverbial exception which proves the rule.. right?


They were produced by pre-Christian Jewish copyists and by post-Christian Jewish redactors in order to improve the then available Greek translations of the Hebrew Biblical text. At that time, the textual standard for the non-Hebrew speaking Christians was the LXX version. [which contained no such curious artefacts]. >>

Me: I disagree for two important reasons: first, it can be said with a high degree of confidence that in at least one of the quotes of Ps. 110:1 in the NT, namely Matt. 22:44, that the OT text referenced was written in Hebrew; and second, you finished your quote a bit too soon, note the following that immediately came after the portion you provided:

"At that time, the textual standard for the non-Hebrew speaking Christians was the LXX version. These Greek versions include the Tetragrammaton in older and newer Hebrew letters and in a Greek transliteration inserted within the Greek narrative."

The "time" that is relevent to the quotations of Ps. 110:1 found in the NT is the period in which the NT autographa were written; concerning this period, one LXX scholar wrote:

==It would seem therefore that the evidence most recently to hand is tending to confirm the testimony of Origen and Jerome, and that Kahle is right in holding that the LXX texts, written by the Jews for Jews, retained the Divine Name in Hebrew Letters (palaeo-Hebrew or Aramaic) or in the Greek imitative ΠΙΠΙ, and that its replacement by Κμριος was a Christian innovation. (Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study, p. 272.)==

This means that the copies of the LXX in the first century, produced by Jewish scribes, and referenced by the authors of the NT, contained the Tetragrammaton. This is clearly confirmed by LXX fragments which date back to the NT period.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

http://www.youtube.com/DrOakley1689#p/c/C7D628ED9A0416B3/11/OccFXGrnE4U

Here are three very interesting and entertaining questions from Muslims at the end of Dr. White’s debate with Hamza Abdul Malik.

Be sure to watch the whole thing until the end; the third Muslim asks about the “poop and pee” issue, in different words (feces), similar to the issue that the Grandverbalizer19 brings up.

The first questioner asks about the fig tree, and God knowing all things and if Jesus is God, why he doesn’t know about the fig tree and why He doesn’t command the fig tree to produce figs; and how can God get hungry, etc. The second questioner asks “what color is Jesus?” These are all very common questions from Muslims and I have heard them many times from 1983 onward, long before Dr. White debated his first Muslim in May of 1999.

Grandverbalizer19 – are you any of these 3 questioners/persons?

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Ken you say "you have run out of intellectual arguments".

You have to stop some where and say how much is sufficient. How much argumentation does one need. Ultimately maybe the arguments are not sound (for example you, Shamoun and White's poor attempts to debunk Islam)

Ultimately it is Allah who will guide the people not our arguments. But I also realized the Prophet (saw) taught us to talk to people on their level.

I have realized after seeing David's very thorough refutation of you point by point giving exhaustive reference and refutation to you that maybe I had held you to a higher standard of intellectualism than what was appropriate.

That may sound insulting but maybe at the end of the day there is truly something wrong with a person who repeats the same worn out arguments.

Who wants Jesus to say he died for his enemies though he did not say that.

Who blatantly lies. No where did I say that sex is dirty.

You have lied about the Qur'an and Islam numerous times. There is a difference behind having a solid argument and telling something that is not factual.

Even when I gave you Surah Chapter 24 that woman's solitary evidence over comes the solitary evidence of her husband that was just not good enough for you.

Your heart is sealed Ken without a shadow of a doubt.

Ken said...

David Waltz wrote:
". . . in the Greek imitative ΠΙΠΙ, and that its replacement by Κμριος was a Christian innovation. "

David, do all LXX manuscipts from 200 BC and later, have "yahweh" rather than kurios?

Do you believe Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, and Hebrews are God-breathed, the word of God? 2 Tim. 3:16

If you think these writers of the NT "innovated" the text, then now you have gone beyond even claiming to be some kind of a pre-Nicean "Christian" subordinationist, non-Trinitarian, non-Deity of Christ "believer". Now you are gutting the NT of even being the word of God; you are implying that it was wrong for Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts and Hebrews to write Psalm 110:1 the way they did.

This seems to be getting worse for your faith (whatever it is) as we delve deeper and deeper.

David Waltz said...

Hello Ken,

Thanks much for responding to yesterdays posts; you wrote:

>>They recognized the Messiah would be the Son of God - the Jews knew this, - Mark 14:6-64.>>

Me: Now we are getting somewhere (IMHO). If the Jews knew that the Messiah would be the Son of God, then why were they faulting Jesus for claiming to be the Son of God? The obvious answer is that they did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

Now, not only did the Jews believe that the Messiah would be the Son of God (at least some of them), we also know from the DSS (and OT) that the Messiah would rule as king and would be called their "Elohim". If the OT kings of Israel could be called son of God, and God (Elohim), then for sure the Messiah could, and should, be called son of God, and God (Elohim); which, of course, he was.

But, and this importantly, what you seem to fail to understand, is that neither the OT kings (sons of God, Gods) nor the Messiah (son of God, God) is called the "one God", the "one true God"; this continues to be the foundational point that you have yet to address.

It seems at this time that Lvka's view is much more consistent with what the Bible actually says, for he too makes it quite clear he believes that the Father alone is the "one God" spoken of in the Bible.

Looking forward to your thoughts...


Grace and peace,

David

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

So with that said, I will not interact with you or your comments anymore.

You can of course deduce a number of things from that.

1) Victory for Ken your arguments are so good and mine are so poor that I just did not have the vigor.

2) Ultimately I give answer to your claims but you just repeat them, no amount of evidence will convince you to the contrary so I ask Allah to forgive me my mistakes and accept from me what is good. I leave you Ken to Allah.

But you have to understand I never think that I have the power to convince anyone. Even if David one day comes out and says, "You know what I know Islam is true"

I would never say this is because of my efforts or I conveted David. That's arrogance. A man didn't convert me....Allah did.


But ultimately as more people type up Ken Temple in google. They will keep coming to my web site and seeing a man who was a missionary to the Persian people who should know more about Islam than what he claims get soundly refuted.

They will come and learn that White continues to call himself 'Dr' when he has no accredited doctorate.

Even Calvinist who have never given thought will come and learn about Servetus, they will know about Evanscent grace, they will see Piper's testimony.

They will weigh the evidence for and against.

my blog started may of last year I got few hits a month, by december 45 a day....now 150 plus a day some times 250 from all over the world and I'm just getting started.

You have the Republican party openly courting homosexuals to 'fight Islam'. You have no started to burn Qur'ans and try and ban Mosque being built.

Aryan Hursi supposedly an athiest ask the world religions to ban together to fight against Islam.

Pat Robertson endorses Mayor Guliani why? Common goal eradicate Islam.

I leave you with the words of your creator, fashioner and sustainer Ken

Holy Qur'an chapter 9:32-33

32. Fain would they would like to extinguish Allah's Light with their mouths; but Allah will not allow but that His Light should be perfected even though the unbelievers may DETEST (it)!

33. It is He who hath sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth to proclaim it over all the other ways of life, even though the unbelievers may DETEST (it)!

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

I wanted to deal with the posts I have yet to address chronologically, but felt compelled to comment on your last comment before returning to the older posts; you posted:

>> David Waltz wrote:
". . . in the Greek imitative ΠΙΠΙ, and that its replacement by Κμριος was a Christian innovation. "

David, do all LXX manuscipts from 200 BC and later, have "yahweh" rather than kurios?>>

Me: According to Origen and Jerome, the Jewish recensions did, but the post first century Christians recensions substituted kurios for the tetragrammaton (this is the practice of the vast majority of English translations of the OT too).

>>Do you believe Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, and Hebrews are God-breathed, the word of God? 2 Tim. 3:16>>

Me: The autographa, for sure!!!

>>If you think these writers of the NT "innovated" the text, then now you have gone beyond even claiming to be some kind of a pre-Nicean "Christian" subordinationist, non-Trinitarian, non-Deity of Christ "believer". Now you are gutting the NT of even being the word of God; you are implying that it was wrong for Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts and Hebrews to write Psalm 110:1 the way they did.>>

Me: Don't follow your reasoning here at all Ken; could you clarify?

>>This seems to be getting worse for your faith (whatever it is) as we delve deeper and deeper.>>

Me: My faith is Biblical Christianity, and I respectfully disagree with your assessment.


Back to the older posts...


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

>>For a detailed analysis of Calvin’s thought on the Trinity see Warfield’s insightful essay, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity”. An online version is available HERE.

It is not there anymore.>>

Me: Thanks to the Internet Archive, I was able to obtain a valid link:

“Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity”


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Ken,

You wrote:

>>with my agreement that ultimately the Trinity is a mystery; and I even acknowledged that RCC and EO were right on the Trinity; we have much more unity around the truth of John 17 and we have a concern for truth against the attacks of cultic groups like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and a false religion like Islam.>>

Me: Depends on the Evangelical, Mormon, JW, and/or Muslim you talk to. Fact is, there is a wide range of beliefs/views among Christians concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, falling in between what has been termed 'neo-modalism' (Barth, Bloesch, Rahner, some Muslims) and 'neo-tritheism' (economic and social trinitarians: David Brown, Cornelius Plantinga, Jurgen Moltmann, some Mormons).

>>Although Steve Hayes was very blunt with you; he was right that you seem to give more credence to false religion like Islam and non-Christian, cultic theologies than to the Christian faith. That is bad; very bad.>>

Me: Two points: first, I have no problem with Steve being blunt (or anybody else) when he is accurately represents my beliefs, and refrains from lying; and second, in our on going dialogue concerning the doctrine of God and Christology, when have I invoked either Muslim authors or " non-Christian, cultic theologies"? Fact is, I have cited only the Bible, intertestament literature, and recognized Christian scholars.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
"I have realized after seeing David's very thorough refutation of you point by point giving exhaustive reference and refutation to you . . . "

I don't think David has refuted anything I have written. The NT translated Psalm 110:1 as both Yahweh and Adonai as "kurios". His argument is defeated.

Also, John 5:16-18; 8:24; 8:56-59; 10:33 and 19:1-7 refutes all of his other attempts at saying that Jesus was not claiming to be God.

No, David did not refute anything; but he is giving you as a Muslim that impression, and I am sure Muslims love this kind of argumentation, just as they love the Davinci Code lies and Ahmad Deehat's lies, and Jehovah's Witnesses arguments against the Trinity and Deity of Christ and their ideas about the Council of Nicea, etc.

Ken said...

David Waltz wrote:
"Me: The autographa, for sure!!!"

About the NT books. Ok, do you believe the autographa has kurios for Yahweh and Adonai for the translation for Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 20, Acts 2, and Hebrews 1:13?

Why do you believe in the NT?

David Waltz said...

Ken,

There is so much going on in this combox, that I 'missed' your following post (October 9, 2010 - 3:23 PM):

>>David,
Thanks so much for answering my questions.

Although we disagree; I do appreciate your spirit and demeanor here and you are a pleasure to debate/discuss.>>

Me: Thanks Ken, I sincerely appreciate your compliment, as well as "your spirit and demeanor" too."

>>GV19 is too mean/cruel (but that is the nature of Islam itself, "submit or die!") (calls me a liar and a hypocrite and that I am using deceptive tactics - a wrong use of his quoting Philippians 1:18 - which is goofy, because Paul is not saying that having wrong motives is a good thing; Paul is merely saying that since he is in jail, and others do have selfish motives, if they preach Christ, he chooses to rejoice and not get bitter or discouraged. GV19 is unjust; and ad homimen.>>

Me: With all due respect to GV19, I have been troubled by some of his recent language.

>>Also a sick mind to accuse the Trinity of being some homosexual thing.>>

Me: I think you overstated what GV19 actually said; here it is again:

== Ken's gods are involved in eternal self masculine love.==

Me: IMO GV19 has failed to appreciate a very important detail: Greek distinguishes between physical/sexual love, erōs, and spiritual love, agapē.

>>You are also more enjoyable and peaceful than Roman Catholic online apologist/debater Dave Armstrong. I gave up arguing with him a long time ago.>>

Me: Thanks again Ken. I cannot speak to your experiences with Dave, but I have had some very constructive dialogues with him.


Grace and peace,

David

P.S. I am sure I have 'missed' other important comments that have been made, if so, I ask that if anyone would like me to address issues I have yet to comment on, and/or would like further clarification(s), to please let me know.

P.S.S. Headed in to town for a bit; shall return this later, the Lord willing.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

David I want you to know that as I stated many times you have allot of very good information on this blog.

Your depth of the subject matter is also very amazing.

I do apologize for any language that is not suitable as of late.

I just think to sum up some of my recent language is that Muslims do indeed hold the creator to a higher standard.

I have yet to see many of these Christians hold to account those among them who use language that is extremely troubling to us (Sam Shamoun) for example.

So it is with tongue in cheek that anyone who would be troubled with my approach would cite this guy as an authority.

David you said,

"Me: IMO GV19 has failed to appreciate a very important detail: Greek distinguishes between physical/sexual love, erōs, and spiritual love, agapē."

I think I haven't failed to appreciate anything in this regards. I certainly hope that I can be seen as a person that at the very least recognizes the relationship between the three deities that the Tri-theist worship is not sexual.

My point is even as it stands (spiritual love) it is shared between three masculine entities.

It is also something vaguely defined. You have (lover) (loved) and the conduit of love. That is all well and great, but if we went deeper into how is this bond or love shared it really exposes this doctrine for what it is.

Now it may seem like loaded language to call it Tri-theism.

Just like a Christian as the right to not be convinced that Muhammed (saw) is a messenger of Allah, we as Muslims are not convinced that the position that people like Ken hold is anything but Tri-theism.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

I think to say that the creator understands evil, and is ultimately behind the rise of evil because it makes no theological sense to call the creator the creator of all-minus this and that.

This kind of theology is inconsistent and is simply wanting to cherry pick theological aspects that may seem troubling over all to some.

I think more dangerous than gods formed with our own hands are those formed with our own theological musings.

"Surely Allah forgives not that a partner should be set up with him, and forgives all besides this to whom He pleases. And whoever sets up a partner with Allah, he devises indeed a great sin." (Holy Qur'an chapter 4:48)

I have to be speak very strongly against all forms of shirk and polytheism. If we Muslims compromise on the first part of our Shahadah (That there is only one God) we stop being Muslim.

The first part of the Shahadah is very exclusive (God is One with no partners).

The second part of the Shahadah (Muhammed ar rasulullah) is inclusive as it recognizes every messenger/prophet that Allah has sent to humanity.

So if an Orthodox Jew wants to enter into Islam he/she is most welcome but they cannot say to us (well I want to skip over John and Joshua (what those in the West call Jesus) because it is part of that package.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

The defenders of the Trinity (three gods coexisting together in community) have put themselves in a very difficult position.

On the one hand if they stress too much on the unity of the three deities than this would lead to Monarchic Modalism and eventually back to the Monotheism that Jews and Muslims believe in.

For example I noted that Ken did not give meaningful response to the exchange you had concerning 2 Cor. 13:14.

Thus we as Muslims point out the clear distinction between Joshua(Jesus), God and the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand if they stress to much on the distinction of the three deities than this exposes their doctrine for what it actually is Tri-theism.

Thus we would point to the clear believe in the absolutely one God.

I keep seeing the word mystery brought up again and again. So ultimately this seems like a case of Gnosis (knowledge) that is hidden and has to be revealed secretly.

I have to make another comment about the language as of late after reflecting upon a certain verse in the Qur'an

"Do not insult their Gods, lest out of ignorance they insult Allah" (Holy Qur'an chapter 6:108).

This is a very beautiful teaching because Allah is instructing me not to insult Ken or his gods; and not being condescending but making an excuse (maybe they are ignorant) -which is not an insult we are all ignorant of some things (I certainly am).

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

A Jew can explain his concept of God to me and I can say o.k we have no problem.

But when the Tri-theist try and explain their gods to us we have a problem. Look at some of the language they use.

"The one essence is simultaneously three persons, and the three persons are one essence. The trinity is not a composition of one essence with three persons." G.T Shedd

That is dressed up in gnostic verbiage.

"If you try to understand the trinity you will lose your mind, but if you don't believe it you will lose your soul." Quote-old Christian proverb.

1st Corinthians 14:33 "God is not the author of confusion."

So all those people who make Trinitarian diagrams would do well to reflect upon the following:

"Isaiah 40:18 'To whom will you liken God to, and what likeness will you compare him?"

Isaiah 45:5 "I am the Lord and there is no other, THERE IS NO GOD BESIDE ME, It is I who arm you,though you know me not."

No God beside God? (at the Right Hand of God)

So who is the one on the throne I ask the Christian.

God she replies.

And the one at the right hand?

God! again she replies.

Hebrews 10:11,12 "All the Priests stand at their duties (in the Temple) every day, offering over and over again, the same sacrifices. He on the other hand, has offered one single Sacrifice for sins, and then taken His place for ever, (at the Right Hand of God) where He is now waiting until His enemies are made His footstool." *note* enemies are a footstool Jesus didn't die for them.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

“But if they turn away, say: “God sufficeth me: there is no god but He: on Him is my trust- He is the Lord of the Throne (of Glory) Supreme!”" (Holy Qur’an 9:139)


just as 2 Cor. 13:14 is a difficult text for the tri-theist as it would undermine their position

so has John 17?3 along with John 13:16 always been a powerful 1 and 2 combo.

"This is life eternal that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You, the only true God, has sent." (John 17:3)

and John 13:16 "He that is sent is not greater than he that sent him." (John 13:16)

Here Jesus says that there is only one true God. If there is truly distinction in the 'godhead' as the Tri-theist say than it means that 'god the father' sent 'god the son'. Jesus said, 'he that is sent(himself) is not greater than he(God) that sent him."

So this very distinction is self-undoing.

However the verses above have been very helpful in dealing with Jehovah's Witness as well. When they translate John 1:1 "and the word was a god"

I ask them was Jesus a false god or a true god? Quite naturally they respond he is a true god.

That is when I quote John 17:3

Was is it to say that God's essence died on the cross or to say that one of God's personalities died on the cross?

What's really going on?

As far as the video posted above. It's amazing that David Wood is a teaching fellow of philosophy, of course it's a Jesuit university and not Harvard and one can readily see why.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Simple response to that video is what the Bible says.

Habakkuk 1:12: God does not die.

So once we start playing around with clear text like this and making them ambiguous there is no end to it.

Than text that say God does not lie we can now play around with it too.

God does not lie to the elect but he will lie and deceive everyone else. I could see the hermeneutic at work at Westminster.

Wood's analogies do not work. That is the problem with Qiyas (analogy) and it has been critiqued in the Islamic tradition as well.

Example: A person can be a father, a son and an unkle at the same time.

True but he can also be a husband, a cousin a grandfather so how many roles do you want to give him?

David if I give you a call in Washington and I enter into the next room and pick up the telephone and I speak through the telephone am I now one in essence with the living room?

Am I now one in essence with the telephone? Am I the telephone? Am I the living room?

I think one can see how 'goofy' to borrow a person's expression can be.

The analogy does not hold. Antony Rogers and David Wood have been refuted here: http://www.acommonword.net/2010/09/allah-cannot-reveal-himself-correcting.html

No Muslim believes the Qur'an to be Allah incarnate.No! If you burn a Qur'an are you burning Allah? No!

I did note that David Wood did not say any where in the video that God died. So it would be great for him to clarify his position. It sounds to be he was promoting nestorian heresy (as do almost all Christians who try and defend the idea of Jesus being created and uncreated at the same time etc)


"Isaiah 40:18 'To whom will you liken God to, and what likeness will you compare him?"

"There is nothing like unto Allah" (Holy Qur'an chapter 42:11)

For example we as human beings need spacial location to communicate to one another.

If you say that God needs spatial location or has it when he communicates to humanity you have just violated statements in the Qur'an and the Bible.

When we pray to God. Where to those prayers travel to? Is it up? Left? Right? Down? How long does it take to reach God?

So if God is not IN creation (contained by space) while hearing our communication it is also reasonable to assert that God is not contained by the six directions or IN his creation when communicating to humanity.

Thus in Islam Tahweed is very clear and strong. Allah is sovereign over all and independent of all things.

I have yet to see a Christian give me an example where God communicated anything to humanity without being IN his creation.

This is problematic indeed.

All types of true and perfect praise are due to Allah alone the Lord of all the worlds, and only the mistakes are mine.

Peace and Grace.

Ken said...

Ken had written:
>If you think these writers of the NT "innovated" the text, then now you have gone beyond even claiming to be some kind of a pre-Nicean "Christian" subordinationist, non-Trinitarian, non-Deity of Christ "believer". Now you are gutting the NT of even being the word of God; you are implying that it was wrong for Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts and Hebrews to write Psalm 110:1 the way they did.>>

David W. wrote:
Me: Don't follow your reasoning here at all Ken; could you clarify?

It just sounds like you think that Matthew and Mark and Luke and Acts and Hebrews (the Psalm 110:1 quotes) are wrong and that the Christians changed the Hebrew Scriptures. You are careful to say the "autographa" for belief in the NT as "God-breathed". It sounds like you don't think that the NT we have now is correct; that it should have had "Yahweh" (the tetragrammaton = 4 letters of the sacred name, unpronounced.)

You are also careful to say "Jewish recensions" for the LXX. Do you mean that the original LXX translators were not Jews ? Of course you don't believe that.

They were all Jews in 280 BC - 200 - 167 BC. Are you saying the Christians changed the LXX in 50 AD ? or 80 AD, and then the Jews rescended the text later and put "yahweh" back in?

That actually doesn't make sense, since it was originally the Jews who would replace Yahweh with Adonai in speech when reciting the Torah as they were afraid to even pronounce the divine name.

So, when Romans 10:9-10 says one must believe that "Jesus is kurios" - what does it mean?

You make the point, that the phrase, "one true God" or "only God" is only used of the Father. (John 17:3, Ephesians 4, I Cor. 8:6 - but if you say that Jesus is less than "full deity" but some kind of lesser deity, you still don't solve the problem, you still have at least 2 gods, and one who became God later as He was shooting out from the Father, like rays from the sun. Without the definition of "one essence/substance/ousia/nature" and "three in person/hypostasis/personal relations, it is either modalism or tri-theism. (it seems to me)

Do you think Jesus is the logos? Was the logos eternal into the past? Do you think the logos is God or "a god"? If He is "a god", then it is you who are a polytheist, because there is only One God. that is the problem with Jehovah Witness theology and Arianism.

It is also more difficult for the Sunni Muslim to respect that - 2 gods thing. Or, it should be. If Jesus, the internal logos, "became" God by later "coming out of the Father" (the uttered logos) like rays from the sun (which is what the subordinationism idea seems to be saying), then that seems to be worse for Monotheism, as it seems to promote polytheism and God evolving and changing.

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
True but he can also be a husband, a cousin a grandfather so how many roles do you want to give him?

But the God-breathed Scriptures limit the issue to three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and limit the essence/ousia/nature/substance to ONE. (And God is never spoken of in terms of "grandfather and cousin and uncle" - stick to the revelation - "Father, Son, and Spirit" only.

Matthew 28:19 - baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit . . .

2 Cor. 13:14 - by the way, how is that verse a problem?

"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
Ultimately it is Allah who will guide the people not our arguments.

Please explain how your view in Islam, of God's Sovereignty is different from Reformed theology (Calvinism) - without the extra ad hominem attacks - If Allah guides some to safety/peace/paradise and others to hell; on what basis does He do that?

Respond to this, which I have heard many times, from Muslims _ "Even if I keep all of the laws and rituals of Sharia perfectly and the five pillars of duties and the six beliefs in my heart perfectly, Allah can still send me to the hell-fire, if He wants to; everything is "Ensha'allah". "No one can know for sure if he is going to paradise."

Ken said...

David,
One more thing, earlier you said that the LXX translation of Yahweh is a Christian innovation, quoting some scholar. You also are open to Bahai'ism because you think it may be possible that the second coming of Messiah was in Bahai'ollah. (estaghfr'allah !)

That is why it seems that your faith is not in the God of the Bible - you are re-doing all of 2000 + years of Christian theology by your musings and ponderings - you seem to imply that the NT was wrong to interpret Yahweh as Kurios (LORD), which is what JWs seem to say (that He is a lesser "god", but not one in essence with the Father; and said that the orthodox view of the second coming was like the same mistake the Jews made about the first coming.

That requires a complete re-interpretation of everything known about the bible and theology.

It seems to be a view that pushes the "right interpretation" back to sometime between 200 BC and 90 AD.

You never really come out and say everything, you are very careful and guarded. What specific church to you go to now and how is it connected to some form of unity with other orthodox Christians that have at least some level of John 17:17-23 desire and efforts toward unity around the truth?

To say that Jesus is "a god" (JWs view of John 1:1) rather than "God in same essence as the Father" is shirk/polytheism.

The one essence/ousia doctrine protects Monotheism.

I wrote an article on the fact that the Greek Grammar points to Sola Scriptura because within the Grammar of John 1:1, both Arianism (a god, polytheism, Jesus becoming a god) and Modalism (changing masks at different times)are defeated.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/greek-grammar-points-to-sola-scriptura.html

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
The defenders of the Trinity (three gods coexisting together in community) have put themselves in a very difficult position.

You mis-represent what the Trinity is - three persons (not gods) who co-exist together in community who are ONE GOD.

Ken said...

Habakkuk 1:12: God does not die.

Christians agree with that. David Wood was clearly saying only the human nature and body of Jesus died. The Divine nature did not die.


Wood's analogies do not work. That is the problem with Qiyas (analogy) and it has been critiqued in the Islamic tradition as well.

But even Qiyas is part of Islamic Fiq, right?


David if I give you a call in Washington and I enter into the next room and pick up the telephone and I speak through the telephone am I now one in essence with the living room?

Am I now one in essence with the telephone? Am I the telephone? Am I the living room?

John 1:1-5 and all other verses that teach the Deity of Christ, is not saying that the logos is just “the phonetic sounds” of someone; the logos is the mind, soul, spirit, unexpressed and expressed thoughts of a person. Hence, the essence of a person; a clear teaching of the “homo-ousias” (same nature).


No Muslim believes the Qur'an to be Allah incarnate.No! If you burn a Qur'an are you burning Allah? No!

That was David’s point! God did not die; only the human nature and body of Jesus died. But the Qur’an does have 2 natures, you cannot deny. One is invisible and in Allah’s mind, the other is in physical ink and paper and book binding. You are respecting the essence of Allah by handling the physical verses with respect.

Ken said...

I did note that David Wood did not say any where in the video that God died.

Of course not, because God did not die; the divine nature did not die.

So it would be great for him to clarify his position. It sounds to be he was promoting nestorian heresy (as do almost all Christians who try and defend the idea of Jesus being created and uncreated at the same time etc)

Nestorius was eventually vindicated as not heretical. (The Bazaar of Hereclides) Nestorius objected to calling Mary, “the mother of God”, because of what it sounded like, and that is the exact problem with RCC and EO to this day – over-exalting Mary and causing Muslims to think that Mary is part of the Trinity and that Christians thought God had sex with Mary. Estaqhfr’allah ! The praying to Mary and icons and statues of her and people bowing down and kissing her statues caused, at least partly, if not majority of the cause (along with other heresies like Collyridians and Christian nominalism) Surah 5:116 and 6:101 and 112 and the whole mis-understanding in history that Islam has had of Christianity.

Besides, RC and EOs believe in the 2 natures of Christ, one is eternal and God (logos from eternity) and one is human which he got from Mary.

David Waltz said...

Hi GV19,

Thanks much for responding: you wrote:

>>I do apologize for any language that is not suitable as of late.

I just think to sum up some of my recent language is that Muslims do indeed hold the creator to a higher standard.

I have yet to see many of these Christians hold to account those among them who use language that is extremely troubling to us (Sam Shamoun) for example.

So it is with tongue in cheek that anyone who would be troubled with my approach would cite this guy as an authority.>>

Me: I certainly understand your sense of frustration, for I too have on numerous occasions have experienced certain double-standards when dealing with some Reformed folk online. I have learned the hard-way not to emulate the crasser methodology that is employed by many apologists, and now point out double-standards when they occur, and then try to distance myself from the method—in other words, I hold myself to higher standards.

>> I think I haven't failed to appreciate anything in this regards. I certainly hope that I can be seen as a person that at the very least recognizes the relationship between the three deities that the Tri-theist worship is not sexual.

My point is even as it stands (spiritual love) it is shared between three masculine entities.>>

Me: Appreciate the clarification. I would only add at this time that the vast majority of Christians do not believe that God is "masculine" (i.e. male), but rather as a pure spiritual being, is neither male nor female. The descriptions of God in masculine terms (there some feminine ones too) are anthropomorphisms.


BTW, it is not just Muslims who detect tri-theism in the theology of many Trinitarians; a number of Trinitarians also accuse other Trinitarians of tri-theism, which is why when someone tells me that they believe in the Trinity I ask them: which form of Trinitarianism?


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello Ken,

Appreciate your further clarification; in your response you wrote:

>>It just sounds like you think that Matthew and Mark and Luke and Acts and Hebrews (the Psalm 110:1 quotes) are wrong and that the Christians changed the Hebrew Scriptures. You are careful to say the "autographa" for belief in the NT as "God-breathed". It sounds like you don't think that the NT we have now is correct; that it should have had "Yahweh" (the tetragrammaton = 4 letters of the sacred name, unpronounced.)>>

Me: I do not believe that anyone has in their possession an infallible Greek NT text/version; do you believe that one exists, if so, what is it.

[For the record, the 5 quotations of Ps. 110:1 in the NT are not identical in any Greek manuscript.]

>>You are also careful to say "Jewish recensions" for the LXX. Do you mean that the original LXX translators were not Jews ? Of course you don't believe that.>>

Me: "Jewish recensions" of the LXX are just that, the recensions of LXX written by Jewish scribes after the production of the original LXX; scholars rightly make the distinction between the post-first century LXX recensions produced by Jews, and those by Christians. And of course, I believe the original LXX was produced by Jews as were all the editions of the LXX prior to the second century.

>> They were all Jews in 280 BC - 200 - 167 BC. Are you saying the Christians changed the LXX in 50 AD ? or 80 AD, and then the Jews rescended the text later and put "yahweh" back in?>>

Me: First, I am merely pointing out what scholars are saying; second, I know of no Christian LXX prior to the second century (though I think it would be safe to assume that fragmentary copies of the LXX were beginning to be produced sometime in the later portion of the first century, even though we have no extant textual evidence of this).

As LXX scholarship currently stands, the original LXX had the tetragrammaton, and most Jewish recensions retained it; however, no Christian recension of the LXX has the tetragrammation. This means, of course, that the LXXs in existence during on Lord's ministry had the tetragrammaton, and there is a high degree of probability that the LXXs in use by the earliest Christians also had it.

>> You make the point, that the phrase, "one true God" or "only God" is only used of the Father. (John 17:3, Ephesians 4, I Cor. 8:6 - but if you say that Jesus is less than "full deity" but some kind of lesser deity, you still don't solve the problem, you still have at least 2 gods, and one who became God later as He was shooting out from the Father, like rays from the sun. Without the definition of "one essence/substance/ousia/nature" and "three in person/hypostasis/personal relations, it is either modalism or tri-theism. (it seems to me)>>

Me: All I am saying Ken is what the Scriptures say: the only person termed the "one God", the "one true God", is the Father. I have purposefully not entered into philosophical speculation, and keep trying to bring us back to what the Bible actually says. I do not believe that the Bible defines the ontology of Yahweh's Word and Spirit, and am open to different possible conceptions that Christian theologians have speculated on.

>> Do you think Jesus is the logos>>

Me: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you believe that Yahweh's Word is the pre-existent Christ?

>>Was the logos eternal into the past?>>

Me: Eternal, yes, but also begotten.

cont'd

David Waltz said...

cont'd

>>Do you think the logos is God or "a god"?>>

Me: The Greek of John 1:1 is not clear-cut, which is why I remain somewhat reserved as to what the predicate, anarthrous theos denotes.

>>If He is "a god", then it is you who are a polytheist, because there is only One God. that is the problem with Jehovah Witness theology and Arianism.>>

Me: With all due respect, you have presented a false dichotomy; review the essays by the following Evangelical Hebrew/OT scholar, and get back to me:

http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

David Waltz wrote:

Me: "Jewish recensions" of the LXX are just that, the recensions of LXX written by Jewish scribes after the production of the original LXX;

Did the originals have Yahweh and Adonai in the LXX or "kurios" for both in Psalm 110:1? The way you write is still unclear. If they did have Yahweh in the original with the Greek symbol (I cannot take time to struggle with getting the symbol here for blooger- Farsi is easier for me because I have it downloaded as a main keyboard language.)

If the original had Yahweh for Psalm 110:1, why did the Jews do "rescensions" ?

Did the Christians print the LXX also? Or is all we have is just translation of quotes of it in the NT?

or are they translating it Kurios in the Nt quotes of Psalm 110:1?


scholars rightly make the distinction between the post-first century LXX recensions produced by Jews, and those by Christians. And of course, I believe the original LXX was produced by Jews as were all the editions of the LXX prior to the second century. But did they have yahweh or kurios?

Again, it seems you don't accept the NT translation of "yahweh" from the Hebrew as Kurios; right? So, you don't seem to believe that the NT text is inspired, God-breathed, because they all have "kurios" for both Yahweh and Adonai.

Ken said...

David W. wrote:
I have purposefully not entered into philosophical speculation, and keep trying to bring us back to what the Bible actually says. I do not believe that the Bible defines the ontology of Yahweh's Word and Spirit, and am open to different possible conceptions that Christian theologians have speculated on.

Do you think the Trinity is too much philosophical speculation? Without defining things, you will end up with either Modalism or Arianism (or some kind of other lower deity, which makes it polytheism; "a god".

I think my article "Greek Grammar Points to Sola Scriptura and the Trinity" is true and Daniel Wallace, a Greek scholar, nailed the truth down in his explanation. There is no other option - either modalism or Arianism (estaghfr'allah !) or Trinity/full Deity of Christ.

Thanks for the link to the "The Divine Council".

Very deep and extensive.

I have never heard of this guy.

I don't know Ugaritic or Akkadian, but I did take one quarter of Biblical Aramaic, but forgot a lot of it, although I did make a A in the course in 1988.

You are forcing lots of deeper study! I have too much to do right now to get into it, but what I saw is very intriguing. As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating!"


>>Was the logos eternal into the past?>>

Me: Eternal, yes, but also begotten.

What does "begotten" mean? For Muslims, it carries the meaning of marriage and the sexual act of a male having sexual relations with a female and pro-creating a son. (Qur'an 112, 6:101; 5:116)

Estaghfr'allah !

استغفر الله

But, it seems that in the Bible, it means "only unique one", not "biologically born".

Which one is it?

How does God as a spirit being from all eternity beget a son?

I am just asking questions, in order to better share the gospel with Muslims, and teach.

Ken said...

Interesting that Michael Heiser is currently teaching at Liberty University.

Rory said...

In the course of expounding Psalm 65, St. Augustine of Hippo makes an observation regarding the willingness of God to forgive every sin and in the course of doing so makes a pointed remark denying a mistaken notion of the Christian belief that has apparently been continued by our respected Grand Verbalizer:

"The Lord rose again, and many believed: they perceived not when they crucified, nevertheless afterwards they believed in Him, and there was forgiven them so great a transgression. The shedding of the Lord's blood was forgiven the manslayers, not to say, God-slayers: Now to the manslayers has been forgiven the shedding of the blood of Him innocent..." (para. 4, On the Psalms, Ps. 64 for Protestants)

Writing before the Koran was known, Augustine affirms the distinction of Christ as Man and Christ as God. He clearly denies in this passage that God was slain. "The shedding of the Lord's blood was forgiven the manslayers, not to say, God-slayers." He then continues to affirm the forgiveness granted to manslayers.

Time forbids that I show that St. Augustine was Trinitarian and affirmed the deity of Christ. It will not do for the Non-Christian to deny our belief in the distinction between Christ as God and Christ as Man. Of course it seems impossible. The rational mind admittedly staggers at the idea.

I also want to add that I fully appreciate Grand Verb's objections regarding God as man, even in the graphic descriptions he gave above, which I trust were not for the purpose of denigrating our beliefs, but to emphasize the impossibility in his mind that something so contemptible and degrading as that God Almighty should be possessed of human nature and all that this encompasses.

With my whole heart I want to say that I appreciate the indignance which Muslim believers in the same one God feel at the notion of subjecting The Almighty One to a life in the womb, then being carried about, nursed, diapered and changed, and as a growing boy and on into manhood. The Koran mentions if I am not mistaken, the incompatibly of God eating and drinking. I appreciate that. I do not wish for a moment to lessen the infinite chasm that separates God the Creator from created man, made in God's image with a rational faculty. God be praised.

It is essential for true Christian worship that we do not forget that our own animal existence, fully dependent and contingent upon a transcendent Creator who is infinitely above and beyond us, while we truly share in many ways the "dignity" of dumb rodents, horses, fish, or even creeping things.

Let not those of us who believe that the good God sent His fully divine and only-begotten Son to this earth to adopt us as His own grateful sons and daughters for a moment be appalled that a Muslim, or the Koran itself should draw attention to the meanest and lowliest aspects of human existence. Does it make us love God more or less to realize that in His Holy Threefold Solitude, He sent One to to bridge a gulf as wide as that which separates a man from a weed?

Let us not blanch or blush at the truth of which Grand Verbalizer has reminded us. Rather, let us ponder lovingly the incomprehensible love of Him..."Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." (Phil. 2:6, 7)

It is a most reasonable speculation that there were proud angels scandalized at this "crazy scheme". They were pure spirits who seemed unable to accept the plan of God to unite Himself with such pathetic creatures. One can sympathize, after a fashion with such angels. It was a tragedy in heaven.

But think how much greater an earthly tragedy, if using the same reasoning as Satan and his demons, men should fail in faith to accept the revealed love of a Creator for such lowly creatures as we truly are.

Rory

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.


Rory you are a breath of fresh air!

First I want to say thank you for the comments above where you said,

"I think Grand Verbalizer has answered well. There might be other reasons for not moving towards being Sunni Muslim. But this is not one of them. I suspect that his faith has a depth that only few are capable of sounding, with a shallow pool in which the most simple minded child of Adam can find cool waters of refreshment now and in eternity. So far, so good."

All praise be to Allah and only the mistakes are from myself! Thank you!

By Allah I was recently speaking with a Muslim who debates with Christian apologist and I told him I would let all these people walk on my face (Ken Temple, James White, Sam Shamoun<whom I cannot stand personally,) if they embraced Islam.

I would prefer them to myself by Allah. I just want so bad in my heart for them to accept the truth.

Some times I see them struggle or go through spiritual turmoil. I recently watched James White give further refutation to Ergun Caner a week ago and his face was so filled with pain and spiritual anguish and only people who live in a box and never see the light of day could deny it.

Even a Muslim brother brought to my attention something I hadn't given much thought to. He said we (as Muslims) should not pronounce the tetragrammaton YHWH in front of the Jews because it's disrespectful.

"Do not insult their Gods, lest out of ignorance they insult Allah" (Holy Qur'an chapter 6:108).

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Rory I also appreciate this comment,

"I also want to add that I fully appreciate Grand Verb's objections regarding God as man, even in the graphic descriptions he gave above, which I trust were not for the purpose of denigrating our beliefs, but to emphasize the impossibility in his mind that something so contemptible and degrading as that God Almighty should be possessed of human nature and all that this encompasses."

Also added the text of Philippians is a nice touch.

Ultimately the issue between us regarding the word becoming flesh.

1) Jesus in Islam is 'A' Word -one of many.

2) That which proceeds forth from God is not god we do see pantheism as being the ultimate manifestation of this theological angle.

3) Christians themselves do not seem to understand that the whole point of God becoming man is not to convince people of some trinity or that he is divine. The whole point was to give his shell (form) -organic nature or blood upon the cross.

Now this is fine and well, and Christians like to emphasize Jesus deity empowering him time and again to do amazing feats. The problem is time and again the human nature over comes the subdues the nature of the divine.

Luke 2:52, Mark 13:32 about not knowing. Jesus was tempted, ate food, Jesus prayed by himself.

Ultimately Jesus is reported to have said John 8:40, "Now you seek to kill me a Man (Anthropos) that has told you the truth which I have heard from God, did this not Abraham?"

The Greek word used there means mortal human being, fully man without a dual nature (fully God, fully man).

Anthropos distinguishes us from animals on the one hand and from God, deity and divine ouusia on the other hand.

The Greek language has never used this word (Anthropos) to be used for anything other than a mortal man. It is where we get the word Anthropology-the study of man.

“The Messiah son of Mary was only a messenger, many messengers had passed away before him. And his mother was a virtuous woman.They both used to eat food.Look how We make the proofs clear to them, then look how they (disbelievers) turn away.” (Quran 5:75)

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Wny would Allah mention in the Qur'an that they (Mary and Jesus) BOTH used to eat food?

If we are to believe people like James White who borrows polemic from Zwemer the Qur'an gets it all wrong.

However, the Qur'an is directing a polemic towards docetism. Why would the Qur'an feel the need to address this issue?

If we look at it closely it is one of the first and gradual steps that were taken to deify The Messiah Esau (Joshua) whom you call Jesus.

Docetic, comes from the Greek word meaning "to appear."

For us the problem is not that many Christians believe that Jesus is God, but that in reality they deny his humanity.

Philippians 2:7 Jesus was found in the fashion, form or appearance of human beings. Not that he was really human.

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body,was vindicated by the Spirit,was seen by angels,was preached among the nations,was believed on in the world,was taken up in glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

I'm sure we are all aware some of the controversy that relates to some of the alternative readings of this passage. Nonetheless the word appeared is here.

There has never been a human being that was fully god in the history of humanity.

The problem basically is that those Christians who say they believe Jesus is God do not really believe he was fully human. It's a tongue in cheek statement. Now if I was to be charitable (and drop Islamic aqeedah) for the sake of discussion) I could say yes o.k God becomes a man.

However, it's not that God becomes a man (in the sense that he stops being God) but God takes on the form of a man or takes on human flesh.

So what happens is essentially God is incognito. God is not really a human being, because he can still do all kinds of amazing feats (that some of our Christian friends say make him God)

However, to say that the person is truly human is tongue in cheek as well. Jesus never knew in his life what it was to be truly human.

Since from his birth his humanity was simply a cloak, that was infused with divinity.

Is it any wonder that the gospel of John and Luke both have text that many scholars today recognize as being anti-docetic.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

It's amazing that early Christianity has people like Marcion and Montanus and this doesn't cause people to scratch their heads?

Of course the early Muslim community was bitterly divided over political ascension this is not something that can be hidden. It is transparent.

However, our theological contentions come some 250 years latter. Something to think about.

It does give credence to people like Ehrman who state that it seems that from the very beginning there was some battle among the believers over what constituted Orthodox opinion.

Christians like to say oh we had no 'Christian Uthman' who did a whole sale burning of the text.

That's fine and well, but we also didn't have "Islamic Bishops, Priest, and so forth who kept the text guarded and to themselves"

The Qur'an was in general population, the people were recited portions of it in their daily prayers five times a day, it was read and recited entirely during the month of ramadhan year after year; the text of the New Testament were not. The were very carefully guarded.

We have a guy from the Qur'an only movement Rashad Khilafa who threw two verses out of the Qur'an from chapter 9 in OPEN VIEW of modern print, press, television and internet for a theological conviction. What could only ponder what happened in those days behind locked doors.

Some people (especially Muslims) think that it was necessary for entire text to be penned out of thin air. Not necessarily.

slight verb tense changes, changes in pronouns, subject tenses etc could radically alter a person's perceived understanding of a given text.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

In the passage above God is Elohim (plural) but is is a plural of majesty or are there three gods who exist in community?

The following word created gives us a clue. In this context the verb form created is singular.

So this lets us know that Elohim is plural of respect.

(Holy Qur'an 21:107 “And We did not send you (O Muhammad) except as a mercy to the world.

Here above We in the Qur'an is plural of respect and not number. How do we know? the 'send' is also singular.

Imagine if in Genesis 1:1 the verb form for created was plural. The tri-theist would be having a field day with it!

So imagine the shock of atheist and agnostics who upon pressing Bart Ehrman what do you think the this or that text originally said, and he responds 'it says pretty much what we have today'.

Now the evangelicals and others sit back puff the cigar and toast. Pure victory they smile.

Not really, after all why did Erhman leave the faith (matters of good and evil were more pressing) but ultimately as a person who knows the Greek language very well he realizes how subject, verb tense, and a plethora of other nuances can really alter the meaning of things.

One thing I can appreciate about the Roman Catholic Church and/or Orthdoox is the tremendous amount of study and discipline a person has to have before they are able to open their mouth about issues.

In Protestant Christianity any Tom, Dick and Harry can speak about the Bible. < We now have this problem with Wahabbism but not in traditional Sunni Islam.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

David,

I usually do not find occasion to differ with you about much but I did want to comment about something.

You stated,
"Appreciate the clarification. I would only add at this time that the vast majority of Christians do not believe that God is "masculine" (i.e. male), but rather as a pure spiritual being, is neither male nor female. The descriptions of God in masculine terms (there some feminine ones too) are anthropomorphisms."

The majority of the Christians I have encountered (a cross the board) do describe the creator in masculine terminology only.

I think that words have to have some degree of meaning behind them. I am not saying that you do not believe words don't carry meaning because I know better.

But I think it's not fair to take away from the fact that at least for the Tri-theist among the Christian community the appellation of Father-Son carries allot of theological weight and baggage to it.

I have yet to see an Aramaic translation that translates John 16:13 as 'When she the spirit of truth comes she will guide you into all truth for what ever she shall hear that shall she speak"

I think much of the Qur'an speaking of God having a son being an abomination is rhetorical for the Christians.

As Deedat used to do (and rightfully so) he simply wanted clarification. What do you mean when you say begotten by God?

He would have people respond it means sired by God! What? No we don't believe this they would say but this is what it means.

So how can we have discussion and communication. The hopes of having discussion and communication is that we are speaking words that should have impact, meaning otherwise your speaking Greek I'm speaking Korean and the rest is simple hand gestures.

So the Qur'an is rhetorical. God begotten not nor is begotten.

Christians say of course we don't believe that. Yet the early literature is filled with it, firstborn, begotten, only begotten god, child of god, etc.

I am happy the Christians are now translating monogenes as 'unique son' or 'only of his kind'.

It's a step in the right direction. So now once we start pressing the issue why would God choose to be expressed as 'Father' 'Son' and Masculine Holy Spirit?

If this is anthropomorphic description why is that any attempt to say Mother and Daughter is attacked with such vigor?

Surely the son on earth was a man. But if that was true for the earthly existence we could think in terms of Mother-Daughter for the 33 years in which there was not a manifestation of the divine in human flesh.

Of course the response is always scripture does not say that so we don't say it. That brings back full circle.

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Busy morning for the beachbum, finally able to check in on the blog. Yesterday, you posted the following:

>>Did the originals have Yahweh and Adonai in the LXX or "kurios" for both in Psalm 110:1? The way you write is still unclear. If they did have Yahweh in the original with the Greek symbol>>

Me: We don't have copies of the original (first Greek translations of Hebrew Biblical texts) LXX; however, the oldest copies/fragments that are extant (produced by Jewish scribes, of course; circa 2nd century BC - 1st century AD) when the tetragrammaton was used in the Hebrew text, it was duplicated in the Greek text. Ps. 110:1 is not represented among these oldest texts, but LXX scholars, based on the older fragments that we do have, are confident that oldest LXX texts retained the tetragrammation throughout.

>>If the original had Yahweh for Psalm 110:1, why did the Jews do "rescensions" ?>>

Me: As with the hand copying of all ancient texts, errors crept into the copies; recensions are attempts to get back to the "original". The Jewish rencensions were not an attempt to restore the tetragrammaton (the tetragrammaton was not being replaced with kurios), but rather, they were the attempts to correct scribal errors.

This is probably a good place to point out that some of the earliest so-called Christian "recensions", may not have been recensions at all, but rather, translations directly from the Hebrew texts.

>>Again, it seems you don't accept the NT translation of "yahweh" from the Hebrew as Kurios; right? So, you don't seem to believe that the NT text is inspired, God-breathed, because they all have "kurios" for both Yahweh and Adonai.>>

Me: We don't have the originals Ken, and I believe that only the autographa were "God-breathed".

Question: do you believe that Matthew penned his gospel in Hebrew as stated by Jerome? If not, could you give your reasons why.

For a good summation of the LXX, see the article in the ISBE, which is linked to below:

ISBE - Septuagint

[Note: the link takes you to page 404, the actual article is pages 400-409.]

Sincerely hope I have been of some assistance...


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Ken,

You posted:

>>Do you think the Trinity is too much philosophical speculation?>>

Me: Depends on which form of the Trinity we are talking about.

>>Without defining things, you will end up with either Modalism or Arianism (or some kind of other lower deity, which makes it polytheism; "a god".>>

Me: You forgot subordinationism, tritheism, and unitarianism.

>> I think my article "Greek Grammar Points to Sola Scriptura and the Trinity" is true and Daniel Wallace, a Greek scholar, nailed the truth down in his explanation. There is no other option - either modalism or Arianism (estaghfr'allah !) or Trinity/full Deity of Christ.>>

Me: I respectfully disagree; such a view does not accurately portray the view/s of the pre-Nicene CFs.

>> What does "begotten" mean? For Muslims, it carries the meaning of marriage and the sexual act of a male having sexual relations with a female and pro-creating a son. (Qur'an 112, 6:101; 5:116)>>

Me: Excellent question, apart from Mormons, I am not aware of any other modern Christian sect that teaches a physical sense.

I do know that many of the early CFs (thanks to the LXX translation of Prov. 8:22ff.) used the terms gennetos and ktisma interchangeably.

>>But, it seems that in the Bible, it means "only unique one", not "biologically born".

Which one is it?

How does God as a spirit being from all eternity beget a son?>>

Me: I did a brief treatment on monogenēs; don't remember if I posted it here at AF, will try and track it down later today.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Ken,

Trying to find my original paper, still looking, but during my search I did find the following from a book I was working on:

== John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9 (John 1:14 reads “the only begotten from the Father”). Though many modern commentators had tried to weaken the generative sense of the term “only begotten” [some translating it as simply “only” (NJB, RSV, NRSV), or “the One and Only” (NIV)], one must not lose sight that of the fact that the term still retained much of it’s generative sense during the NT period, and this is reflected in its early ecclesiastical usage by many of the Church Fathers [see G.W.H. Lampe, ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1961, 17th impression 2003), pp. 880-882; Gerhard Kittel, ed., English translator and editor, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967), vol. IV, pp. 740-741; and John V. Dahms, “The Generation of the Son”, in Journal of the Evangelical Society, vol. 32.4 (Dec. 1989) p. 496.] Particularly insightful are Clark’s comments, “the two verbs themselves are derived from an earlier common stem…the genes in monogenes derives immediately from genos”; and then importantly that the word genos, “as a matter of fact suggests begetting and generation, as much as if it had been derived from gennao”, Gordon H. Clark, The Trinity (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1985) p. 120. On the somewhat controversial issue of whether “only begotten Son” or “only begotten God” is the best reading of John 1:18 see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament (London – New York: United Bible Societies, 1971, corrected edition, 1975), p. 198.==


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi GV19 and Rory,

Both of you have provided some excellent reflections in your last few posts. I am still pondering over the content; if after further thought I feel I can substantially add to what you have written, I will do so.


Grace and peace,

David

natamllc said...

David

a comment like this one is why I am a bit apprehensive about you, guarded!

Me: We don't have the originals Ken, and I believe that only the autographa were "God-breathed".

You have, as yet, not given any direct answer to direct questions asked by Ken.

Instead we have this sort of answer. No one has any autographa to work from, so what's the point of that answer?

So, if you can explain it, where are we to locate ourselves then with an answer like that one cited above when it comes to the test to see if we are of the Faith once delivered to the Saints?

Upon what do we use to apply the testing if not the Scriptures we do have available today? Do you think God is shortsighted or lapsed in His abilities to send through written records written from autographa His Spirit of Grace and Truth to His predetermined, predestined, chosen Children who are continually being sanctified daily through the abundance of Grace and gift of Righteousness provided to us?

2Co 13:4 For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God.
2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you fail to meet the test!
2Co 13:6 I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test.
2Co 13:7 But we pray to God that you may not do wrong--not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed.
2Co 13:8 For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.

When I read your answers to Ken here, on your blog, your articles or the things you respond to at other blogs I see you frequent as I do, I always come to this verse in my mind from Habakkuk about you:

Hab 2:4 "Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.

The New Testament exegetical understanding of that that the Prophet Habakkuk writes that identifies those who have the Faith and those who do not can be somewhat understood with these Words of Paul, here:

1Co 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
1Co 13:2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
1Co 13:3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.


I do not believe you have the Spirit of Christ, David.

I would encourage you to open your heart and turn to Him, the Son of God and receive from Him His Spiritual Life He provides to all who call upon His Name.

Lvka said...

Again: why are you comparing apples with oranges? -- compare NT manuscripts from the fourth century with LXX manuscripts from the same century. (since before that time we possess only small and random fragments of material).

And how can you engage such general speculations based on a few fragments here and there?

If replacing YHWH with Kyrios was a Christian invention (it wasn't: if you don't believe me, ask yourself why pious Jews never pronounce the Name of God in the first place, but always replace it with Adonai or ha-Shem), what else could this possibly mean, other than they believed the Lord (Jesus Christ) to be the same as the Lord (YHWH) ?

Lvka said...

Anyway.. conspiracy theories not-withstanding, I hope that everyone here is familiar with the fact that:

1) the writing and pronunciation of the Name of God began to be tabu for Jews whole centuries before Christ, and -until this day- pious Jews never write it or pronounce it.

(Not only that, the avoid writing the numbers 15 and 16 as YH and YW because both are abbreviations of the Name).

(They also write "G-d" instead of God for the same reasons -- those in the American diaspora, I mean).


2) They replaced it with Adonai, meaning Lord, whose Greek translation is Kyrios, the title used constantly for Christ in the NT.

David Waltz said...

Hi Lvka,

Thanks for responding; you wrote:

>>Again: why are you comparing apples with oranges? -- compare NT manuscripts from the fourth century with LXX manuscripts from the same century. (since before that time we possess only small and random fragments of material).

And how can you engage such general speculations based on a few fragments here and there?>>

Me: I am presenting what LXX scholars have written; though I am well read on the subject (i.e. the Septuagint), I do not consider myself expert enough to definitively confirm or deny the current scholarly consensus.

>>And how can you engage such general speculations based on a few fragments here and there?>>

Me: Don't know exactly what to say...if the oldest LXX extant texts have the tetragrammaton, and if Jewish scribes still use the written tetragrammaton in their Greek and Hebrew translations, what should one conclude?

>>If replacing YHWH with Kyrios was a Christian invention (it wasn't: if you don't believe me, ask yourself why pious Jews never pronounce the Name of God in the first place, but always replace it with Adonai or ha-Shem), what else could this possibly mean, other than they believed the Lord (Jesus Christ) to be the same as the Lord (YHWH) ?>>

Me: Kurios was used to replace more than just the tetragrammaton, and in many applications, the referent in no sense can/could be construed as Yahweh; hence, context is always important.


Grace and peace,

David

Lvka said...

Tell me one other case in which the applicant is identified constantly as "the Lord". (David? Moses? Michael?). Words have meaning.

Lvka said...

The phrase "Lord Jesus" appears 118 times, in 115 verses.

The phrase "Christ our Lord" appears 9 times.

The phrase "Jesus our Lord" appears 7 times.

The phrase "Jesus the Lord" appears twice.

The phrases "Lord Christ" and "Christ the Lord" appear one time each.

-- can you give me another example (except for God Himself), who is called Lord well over 100 times?

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Just some passing comments.

First when you (Rory, David, Lvka) get the chance there is a new debate (done about a month ago) up at my blog

http://www.acommonword.net/2010/10/debate-god-of-old-testament-jesus-or.html

Which is the God of the Old Testament Jesus or Allah? This is a good debate in that it is very well moderated, each speaker is passionate not mincing words and yet there is complete respect for one another. (This is not their first encounter).

Both speakers make some excellent points and definitely leave people with something to think about.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Theology, literally logos (reasoning, discourse) on theos(God or divinity), is the activity of reflecting upon or thinking systematically about God, i.e., His nature, His attributes, and His relations with humanity and the universe. In the broadest sense, theology may be considered a branch of philosophy, and in this capacity need not be associated with any religion or revelation. In its more common, restricted sense, however, theology refers to the efforts of the adherents of revealed religion to understand the explicate what scripture says about God and the Unseen.

the result of this effort is invariably a set of doctrines or dogmas which taken together are also referred to as 'theology' and, in their distilled form, constitute religious creeds, or what Muslims commonly refer to as 'aqida'.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Typically, one or another creed will succeed in gaining the assent of those who are vested with or assume the right to define theological orthodoxy (from the Greek, orthos, straight, correct, and doxa, opinion, doctrine), When this occurs, all other theological doctrines are judged as heresy, and those who profess these irregular views are branded heretics. Heresy, however, in the context of classical Islam, was not in every instance synonymous with infidelity or apostasy, Indeed in its best tradition, Islam, like Roman Catholicism, recognized, mutatis mutandis, the distinction between formal heresy, i.e., the willful persistence in error, and material heresy, or the holding of heretical doctrines through no fault of one's own. Heresy, in other words, could connote not one but several categories of theological deviance, from outright Unbelief (kufr) to unsanctioned (though non-damning) innovation (bid'a) to honest mistakes and misunderstandings.

Ken said...

GV19 and David,
I have been too busy the past 2 days and finally found some time to read more and respond here.

GV19 - You keep saying, "Ken really believes in three gods or Tri-theism"

You remind me of “Baghdad Bob” (The Iraqi spokesman when Saddam was hiding and US military invaded Iraq in 2003); when he said, “Where are the soldiers? They are not here!"

So many Muslims have said to me over the years, “LA ! لا - NO !” (In regard to the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the meaning of verses in the Qur'an, the reliability of the Bible, the crucifixion and death of Jesus, etc. - they just say "LA!" with no listening or understanding or respect. Very frustrating!)

So, it is unjust to say that we really believe in 3 gods, when the doctrine of the Trinity is “One God in three persons” in all 2000 years of Christian history; and do that at people after they explain things for you.

It seems the David Waltz’s view of Jesus, of being some kind of a lesser deity, is worse (closer to shirk and kufr, etc.) than “One God in nature, three in persons”, because it is a being that has become divine, or evolved, or was eternally "begotten" (in his definition or understanding of that, it is unclear as to what he means; I still don’t know what he means; because the traditional view of that is the full Deity of Christ from all eternity, His nature was eternally always there "emanating"/"flowing out of" (?) out from the Father - for lack of a better way to explain it - "begotten" in theological language was metaphorical, since God is Spirit from all eternity and there is no physical meaning; no marriage meaning; no sexual meaning) --

David is saying Jesus is not fully God, but is called “a god” (holding onto JW/Arian doctrine and yet being undecided as to explaining it) and yet, Jesus shares in the glory with the Father – John 17:5, yet Isaiah says, “I will not share My glory with another”. (Still unclear as to what he believes even with many articles on this issue at this blog, mostly casting doubt on the Trinity; and over 100 comments at this post alone; we still don’t get a clear picture of what he believes, in my opinion.)

Ken said...

David,
I looked up all the quotes of Psalm 110:1 in the NT and none of them have any textual variants in the phrase that includes Yahweh or Adonai, that is, they are all “kurios says to my kurios” - the issue of “the LORD says to My Lord, sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for My feet.”

I don’t have time to cut and paste all of these verses now in Greek. Anyone can look it up. That should be enough. So, when you say you believe in the Autographa of the NT, are you saying that you believe the Christians first wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, and Hebrews with the Yahweh in it, but there is no evidence of this in any Greek manuscript?

You never come out clearly and say what you are implying and that is frustrating to me.

All the Greek manuscripts we have of these passages have “kurios says to my kurios” (“the Lord says to my Lord”), but you are implying that the autographa was not written that way.

No, I don’t believe Jerome is right, that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew first, because we just have no evidence for this. (or Irenaeus or Papias or Eusebius– I think all of them, or two of them, or one of them said the same thing. Not taking the time to look that up again.) When the evidence is produced and can be proven, then I will believe it. Until then, we have thousands of manuscripts that point to Matthew being originally written in Greek.

David Waltz said...

Hi Lvka,

Finally able to check in on the blog after a busy day; you posted:

>> Tell me one other case in which the applicant is identified constantly as "the Lord". (David? Moses? Michael?). Words have meaning.>>

Me: In Psalm 110:1, Yahweh (יחוח) is speaking to adoni/"my lord" (אדניﬥ), not "the Lord". Please note the following:

"The form adōnî ("my lord') (pl. adōnay), a royal title (1 S. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title adōnāy ("my Lord," "Lord," or "O Lord"), used over 130 times of Yahweh, especially in Psalms and Isaiah." (M. J. Harris, ISBE, 3.157.)

"1. adôn, nom. lord, master (DCH 1:119-22; HALAT 1:12-13; BDB, 10-11) occurs 334x in OT. It is most often used in reference to human lords and masters (over 330x). Leaving adōnāy (=Yahweh) out of consideration, it is used only about 30x of the divine Lord/Master, as in the divine title adôn kol-hā' āres, Lord of all the earth (Josh. 3:11, 13)." (Gordon H. Johnston, New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, 1.257.)


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi GV19,

You posted:

>> Just some passing comments.

First when you (Rory, David, Lvka) get the chance there is a new debate (done about a month ago) up at my blog

http://www.acommonword.net/2010/10/debate-god-of-old-testament-jesus-or.html>>

Thanks much for the link; will listen to the debate right after I respond to Ken's last post.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

GV19 wrote:
"Heresy, however, in the context of classical Islam, was not in every instance synonymous with infidelity or apostasy, Indeed in its best tradition, Islam, like Roman Catholicism, recognized, mutatis mutandis, the distinction between formal heresy, i.e., the willful persistence in error, and material heresy, or the holding of heretical doctrines through no fault of one's own. Heresy, in other words, could connote not one but several categories of theological deviance, from outright Unbelief (kufr) to unsanctioned (though non-damning) innovation (bid'a) to honest mistakes and misunderstandings."

GV19-
Problem is that in Islam, willful persistence in error or formal heresy, and Kufr, and apostasy are all punishable by death, and evangelism of Muslims is also. We can only have this conversation because of the freedom of the west and internet, etc.

"If anyone leaves Islam, kill him." Evangelism is forbidden, freedom of thought and freedom of religion and freedom of choice is forbidden by Islam. These are all from the Sahih Hadiths and commentator of your school of Fiq (Maliki); so you cannot just dismiss them with “you are not qualified to comment on Islamic Hadith science or Fiq.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 6922—Muhammad said, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

Sunan Abu Dawud 4337—The Apostle said: Kill those who change their religion.

Sunan an-Nasa’i 4025—Muhammad said: "After me there will be many calamities and much evil behavior. Whoever you see splitting away from the Jama’ah or trying to create division among the Ummah of Muhammad, then kill him, for the Hand of Allah is with the Jama’ah, and the Shaitan is with the one who splits away from the Ummah, running with him."

Sunan Ibn Majah 2535—It was narrated from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.”

Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik 36.18.15—The Messenger of Allah said, “If someone changes his religion—then strike off his head!”

Isn’t this the leader of the school of Sharia Jurisprudence (Fiq) that you follow? Malaki ?

Sunan Ibn Majah 2540—It was narrated from Ubadah bin Samit that the Messenger of Allah said: “Carry out the legal punishments on relatives and strangers, and do not let the fear of blame stop you from carrying out the command of Allah.”


All the Christians and Jews were killed or expelled from Arabia. (or they accepted Islam outwardly, and kept quiet about their real inner faith). Abu Bakr led the bloody wars of apostasy to force the pagans back to Islam after many left Islam after Muhammad died.

Under the Khalif Umar and many others after him, the Muslims aggressively attacked and killed millions of people for centuries in Jihads/Harbs/Qatals - starting with unjust aggression against Byzantine and Persia.

Eventually, the financial pressures and being "dhimmis" pretty much gutted the Muslim world of the original Jews and Christians, and very few left today - Egypt has the most that survived, the Coptic Church, then Lebanon, but as the Muslims get more violent and unjust, the more the minority Christians are leaving Islamic lands.

We have brains, and most people with reason and sincerity will reject Islam, based on this stuff and Qur’an

Violence/Jihad/aggressive warfare/Qatal - 8:36; 9:1-5; 9:14; 9:29;

oppression of women -4:34;

and mis-understanding and false information about Christianity - 4:157; 4:171; 5:116; 6:101; Surah 112; and many other wrong things in Islam.

Ken said...

oops, 8:36 should have been 8:39

Violence/Jihad/aggressive warfare/Qatal - 8:36; 9:1-5; 9:14; 9:29;

Ken said...

my post disappeared !

That was a first for me - the problem you were having at Beggar's All.

Now to try and reproduce it.

Bummer.

Ken said...

GV19-
You talk about the difference in formal heresy, etc. and apostasy. Well, normal people don’t want to hang around in cultures that have death penalty for apostates or formal heresy, etc. In light of the AHadith below, Qur’an 2:256 seems un true in real Islam, and the only verse used in the west to try and make Islam look “nice”.

Problem is that in Islam, formal heresy (persistence in error), Kufr, and apostasy are punishable by death. "If anyone leaves Islam, kill him." Evangelism is forbidden, freedom of thought and freedom of religion and freedom of choice is forbidden by Islam. These are all from the Sahih Hadiths and commentator of your school of Fiq (I think, right? = Maliki); so you cannot just dismiss them with “you are not qualified to comment on Islamic Hadith science or Fiq.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 6922—Muhammad said, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

Sunan Abu Dawud 4337—The Apostle said: Kill those who change their religion.

Sunan an-Nasa’i 4025—Muhammad said: "After me there will be many calamities and much evil behavior. Whoever you see splitting away from the Jama’ah or trying to create division among the Ummah of Muhammad, then kill him, for the Hand of Allah is with the Jama’ah, and the Shaitan is with the one who splits away from the Ummah, running with him."

Sunan Ibn Majah 2535—It was narrated from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.”

Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik 36.18.15—The Messenger of Allah said, “If someone changes his religion—then strike off his head!”

Isn’t this the leader of the school of Sharia Jurisprudence (Fiq) that you follow? Malaki ?

Sunan Ibn Majah 2540—It was narrated from Ubadah bin Samit that the Messenger of Allah said: “Carry out the legal punishments on relatives and strangers, and do not let the fear of blame stop you from carrying out the command of Allah.”

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Seems you have been busy too; you wrote:

>> So, it is unjust to say that we really believe in 3 gods, when the doctrine of the Trinity is “One God in three persons” in all 2000 years of Christian history; and do that at people after they explain things for you.>>

Me: The above is not historically accurate; the first theologian to actually teach the equivalent of the phrase "One God in three persons" was Augustine in the early 5th century. Further, Eastern Orthodoxy rejects Augustine's view of the Trinity, reserving the title "One God" for the Father alone (you need to talk with Lvka on this.)

>>It seems the David Waltz’s view of Jesus, of being some kind of a lesser deity, is worse (closer to shirk and kufr, etc.) than “One God in nature, three in persons”, because it is a being that has become divine, or evolved, or was eternally "begotten" (in his definition or understanding of that, it is unclear as to what he means;>>

Me: The above is confusing Ken, when have I said the Logos of God is "a being that has become divine"; fact is, I have never said that. And when have I said that the Logos of God "evolved"; once again, never. And finally, concerning the issue of "eternally 'begotten'", you know from my recent thread on this, that a variety of views are held by conservative Prots, so I think you need to be a bit more reserved on this.


>>I still don’t know what he means; because the traditional view of that is the full Deity of Christ from all eternity, His nature was eternally always there "emanating"/"flowing out of" (?) out from the Father - for lack of a better way to explain it - "begotten" in theological language was metaphorical, since God is Spirit from all eternity and there is no physical meaning; no marriage meaning; no sexual meaning) -->>

Me: Could you provide a precise definition of the phrase "full Deity"?

>>David is saying Jesus is not fully God,>>

Me: I am saying that Jesus in not the "one God", the "only true God".

>>but is called “a god” (holding onto JW/Arian doctrine and yet being undecided as to explaining it)>>

Me: Not true, I do not believe that the Logos/Son of God was created ex nihilo the tenant that defined the teachings of Arius and his early followers.

>>and yet, Jesus shares in the glory with the Father – John 17:5, yet Isaiah says, “I will not share My glory with another”.>>

Me: Let's see what the Bible has to say on this...

And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God. Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a stone of crystal-clear jasper. (Rev. 21:10, 11)

>>(Still unclear as to what he believes even with many articles on this issue at this blog, mostly casting doubt on the Trinity; and over 100 comments at this post alone; we still don’t get a clear picture of what he believes, in my opinion.)>>

Me: Mostly casting doubt on extra-Biblical notions about the Trinity, not on Yahweh (the Father), His Word (the Son) and His Spirit (the Holy Spirit).


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

All the Christians and Jews were killed or expelled from Arabia. (or they accepted Islam outwardly, and kept quiet about their real inner faith). Abu Bakr led the bloody wars of apostasy to force the pagans back to Islam after many left Islam after Muhammad died.

Umar, the second Khalif, under him launched aggressive unjust wars against the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire. (obeying 8:39; 9:1-5; 9:14; 9:29 and the Hadiths that go with them, and example of the prophet.) This Islamic tradition continued, until stopped by Europe in 732 AD, but then continued again in many other places in the east, and was not stopped until the 1500s; then Islam had a big change by the abolishment of the Khalifate around1922-1924 by Ataturk.

Eventually, the financial pressures and being "dhimmis" gutted the Muslim world of the original Jews and Christians, and very few left today - Egypt has the most that survived, the Coptic Church, then Lebanon, but as the Muslims get more violent and unjust, the more the minority Christians are leaving Islamic lands.

We have brains, and most people with reason and sincerity will reject Islam, based on this stuff and Qur’an 8:39 ("fitneh"

فتنه
does not mean "persecution", but "tumult, rebellion, sedition, disorder, chaos, etc."

9:1-5; 9:14; 9:29; 4:34 and 4:157; 4:171; 5:116; 6:101 and many other wrong things in Islam.

Lvka said...

David,

the only distinction is that one is the singular, and the other is the plural, and unless you speak of an actual group of lords, it usually means God.

Just like Elohim is also a plural, which, unless you speak of an actual group of rulers or judges, it usually means God.


Addressing someone respectfully as "my lord" is one thing,... but -in case you haven't noticed-, the 140 examples I offered you did not fall into this category (when someone approaches Him and says to Him: "Lord,.." or "My lord,..").

Nor was Christ a man of wordly power, to explain such constant references to Him as "Lord" (as was the case with the OT kings you were talking about). His kingdom was not of this world. (To make a comparison, He's called prophet only about a dozen times).

Ken said...

It looks like my post re-appeared, but also the new ones with added information or sometimes less information.

Ken said...

David Waltz wrote:
Me: The above is not historically accurate; the first theologian to actually teach the equivalent of the phrase "One God in three persons" was Augustine in the early 5th century.

David,
As for your statement that Augustine was the first to write, “one God in three persons”, I think that the combination of the Biblical texts, with Didache (70 - 100 AD - baptism in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, echoing Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14; along with Ignatius’ (107-117 AD) clear statements on the Deity of Christ, and then Theophilus of Antioch (183 AD) , Tertullian (160-220 AD), Hippolytus, Irenaeus(180-200 AD), and Athanasius(d. 373), all before Augustine(d. 429), I think a good case can be made that my statement is an expression of legitimate development.

Tertullian formulated the Godhead in Latin as tres personae, una substantia.
(Three persons, one substance/ousia/nature/essence)
Adversus Praxaeus 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11; 12; De Pudicia 21; The Apology 21; On the Prescription Against Heretics, 29


In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever—that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date. But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds. (Against Praxaeus 2)

Tertullian (160-220 AD) is perhaps most famous for being the oldest extant Latin writer to use the term Trinity (Latin trinitas),[4] and giving the oldest extant formal exposition of a Trinitarian theology.[5] Other Latin formulations that first appear in his work are "three Persons, one Substance" as the Latin "tres Personae, una Substantia" (itself from the Koine Greek "treis Hypostases, Homoousios").


(4) "Trinitas" is itself a Latinization of the Greek "he trias" (the Triad), a term that was used earlier than Tertullian by Theophilus of Antioch in Ad Autolycum 2.15 to refer to God, God's Logos (Jesus), and God's Sophia (Wisdom, = Holy Spirit)


5. In Adversus Praxean; Against Praxeus (the whole book, studied as a whole, with part of chapter 2 quoted above)

His definition in the same work of the two natures of Christ (Adv. Prax 27) is identical with the Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD.

Tertullian outlined a formula summarizing the Biblical teaching on this, and was the first to use the word trinitas in a technical way to describe the relation of God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The work is question is Adv. Praxean, but he also uses the term in De Pudicitia 2, and 21, and 25. He also was the first to use the word persona for the persons of the Trinity.

Ken said...

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/newmans-doctrine-of-development-rests.html

This recent post (yesterday), by John Bugay, shows the difference between legitimate doctrinal development and illegitimate doctrinal development, and it was very, very exiting for me to see this a few minutes ago.

Ken said...

David W. wrote:
Me: Could you provide a precise definition of the phrase "full Deity"?

>>David is saying Jesus is not fully God,>>

David - you were the one who was saying something like that, in your discussions about subordinationism and Calvin's "auto-theotos" (?); but it will take time for me to go back and find your precise statements and wording. I am the one who cannot understand you. The reason for my lack of precision is based on your unwillingness to say - you back off when I asked you about John 1:1 and "a god", etc.

Suffice to say that your providing the Muslims (GV19) with your (wrong) evidence against the Trinity [he is enjoying your argumentation against the Trinity and against the Deity of Christ], while at the same time acknowledging some kind of understanding of "The Father, the Son, and the Spirit", which is also shirk/polytheism in Islam, no matter how we define the "one substance in three persons" or subordination issue."

David Waltz said...

Hello again Lvka,

Thanks for responding; you wrote:

>> the only distinction is that one is the singular, and the other is the plural, and unless you speak of an actual group of lords, it usually means God.>>

Me: Wrong; you seem to be confusing adôn, adōnî, adōnay with adōnāy; and you ignored the caution expressed by Murray J. Harris—here it is once again:

"The form adōnî ("my lord') (pl. adōnay), a royal title (1 S. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title adōnāy ("my Lord," "Lord," or "O Lord"), used over 130 times of Yahweh, especially in Psalms and Isaiah." (M. J. Harris, ISBE, 3.157.)

[You can access the full entry HERE - go to page 157.]

You also ignored Johnston’s remarks concerning the 334 occurrences of adôn (in its various forms), in that over 300 of them DO NOT refer to God/Yahweh—once again:

"1. adôn, nom. lord, master (DCH 1:119-22; HALAT 1:12-13; BDB, 10-11) occurs 334x in OT. It is most often used in reference to human lords and masters (over 330x). Leaving adōnāy (=Yahweh) out of consideration, it is used only about 30x of the divine Lord/Master, as in the divine title adôn kol-hā' āres, Lord of all the earth (Josh. 3:11, 13)." (Gordon H. Johnston, New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, 1.257.)

Anyway, hope you take the time to read the ISBE; maybe you will find it clearer than I have been.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Though there is much I agree with in your 3:41 PM post, it fails to take into account the following:

==Tertullian at the turn of the second to the third centuries had already used the Latin word substantia (substance) of God, and used it in the most direct literal way. For him God consisted of spirit (spiritus), a kind of thinking gas. God therefore had a body and indeed was located at the outer boundaries of space. He is apparently immeasurable but not infinite. It was possible for Tertullian to think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sharing this substance, so that the relationship of the Three is, in a highly refined sense, corporeal. His metaphysic (if that is the right word for it) was borrowed directly from Stoicism. He can use the expression unius substantiae (‘of one substance’). This had led some scholars to see Tertullian as an exponent of Nicene orthodoxy before Nicea, and even claim that the West, represented by Tertullian, Novation and Dionysius of Rome, had always upheld the consubstantiality of the Son. But this is far from plausible theory. Tertullian’s materialism is, when seen at all closely, a totally different thing from any idea of ousia or homoousios canvassed during the fourth century. (R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p. 184.)==

The quotes I provided from the pen of Tertullian in THIS THREAD, lends substantial credence to Hanson’s reflections.


Grace and peace,

David

Lvka said...

You're missing the point. Again.

300+ instances used of personS. Not person. THEY are called by its various forms.

Jesus is called lord countless times: I did not bother you with that...

What I did bother you with are 140 instances (about HALF the total number of OT exceptions) in which a SINGLE person is called "Lord Jesus", "Lord Christ", "Christ the Lord", "Jesus the Lord", "Jesus our Lord", "Christ our Lord", etc.

This is NOT the same as someone saying to Him: "Lord, xxx" or "My lord, xxx".


Here's a comparison:

The names David and Jesus each appear about 1,000 times in Holy Scripture; the former is called lord in about 40 instances, mostly in the trivial "my lord" sense you were talking about: and he was an actual king; ... the latter in 140 instances, but NOT in the mundane ``my lord" sense (when you address someone), and He was a carpenter. [There are at least about 70 such instances that I was able to spot, but they are NOT part of those 140]


Words have meaning; no-one else in the NT is called lord all over the place. Let alone mentioning "Lord Peter", "Paul our Lord", etc. -- It's absurd.

David Waltz said...

Hello again Ken,

I too saw John’s thread (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/newmans-doctrine-of-development-rests.html), this morning; but to be honest, was just not that impressed. John is just now entering into an area of study that I, and Dr. Michael Liccone, have researched and written on at length. If you are really interested in this subject, the following threads (and the links to the threads therein) offer some serious ‘food for thought’:

http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2009/02/dr-witt-on-material-formal-sufficiency.html

http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-time-fr-behr.html

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/12/behr-louth-hanson-newman-giles-and.html

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/12/lonergan-and-newman-on-development-of.html

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/07/presuppositions-and-doctrinal.html

There is so much more, but do not want to overwhelm…


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Lvka,

This will have to be my last post for this evening…

In your last response you wrote:

>> You're missing the point. Again.

300+ instances used of personS. Not person. THEY are called by its various forms.

Jesus is called lord countless times: I did not bother you with that...

What I did bother you with are 140 instances (about HALF the total number of OT exceptions) in which a SINGLE person is called "Lord Jesus", "Lord Christ", "Christ the Lord", "Jesus the Lord", "Jesus our Lord", "Christ our Lord", etc.>>

Me: I was trying to stay on the issue of the LXX which I believe is important (along with the Hebrew Bible and DSS) to our understanding how terms were used in the first century. Kurios is used in the NT to translate the following names/terms: Yahweh, adôn, adōnî, adōnay, and adōnāy; it would be intellectual suicide to ignore how the translated terms were used.

In an upcoming post, the Lord (adôn, not adōnāy) willing, I want to do a detailed study on Psalm 110:1 and its use in the NT.

Grace and peace,

David

Lvka said...

I understand that... but if the abusive use of "Lord" in reference to Jesus was only meant to cover or convey the three mundane or trivial meanings of the word, why don't we find it used in similar industrial proportions for other mundane or trivial people in the NT? And given the fact that He's also called God, albeit not in the 'one God and Father' sense, why do you have SUCH a hard time seeing the most obvious, that lies right in front of your eyes?

Ken said...

David,
Your link to Tertullian post, it was actually me there also discussing things with you a while back; as with one of the posts you gave on Development of Doctrine, as you disagree with John Bugay's article. I disagree with you.

Oh well; no one but the Spirit of God can move you. You are nice, but very stubborn. At least the parts I have quoted from the ECFs show the biblical, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

Everyone can go to other books or quotes by a human author and find goofy or weird things (Tertullian's a thinking gas, and your claim that he thought God was some kind of physical material) - the ECFs were not infallible, but Scripture is.

You still seem to me to be someone "who keeps on learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth" and your arguments are giving false credibility for Muslims like the GV19 to use in their arguments against the Trinity and Deity of Christ, which is, in my opinion, shameful and deserving of loving rebuke.

The Mormons (Tom, who used to come and comment here) and the Universalist-Liberal Chris (who thinks homosexuality is ok and not a sin), also like a lot of what you write, and seem to use your methodology to give positive credence for their views also.

The result of this is something that is very sad and grievous. (Promotion of false doctrines and heresies - like saying Mormonism could be found in Irenaeus or Bahai'ism might be true) It seems you don't want to decide on Biblical Christianity, and keep remaining open to all sorts of possibilities - such as Bahai'ism, which seems to me to be a modern attempt to retain monotheism mixed with unitarian/liberal intellectual "peace and justice" movements (for lack of a better designation). It sounds like the atheist Bill Maher's dumb statements like "Christians need to update their religion" - that is what modern Bahai'ism seems to be. Take away all exclusive claims (on the surface) - like John 14:6); but after you look at it, it to is exclusive, once one understands it.

David Waltz said...

Good morning Lvka,

You posted:

>>I understand that... but if the abusive use of "Lord" in reference to Jesus was only meant to cover or convey the three mundane or trivial meanings of the word, why don't we find it used in similar industrial proportions for other mundane or trivial people in the NT? And given the fact that He's also called God, albeit not in the 'one God and Father' sense, why do you have SUCH a hard time seeing the most obvious, that lies right in front of your eyes? >>

Me: I think we need to be accurate, adôn is also used in 30+ instances as a title for Yahweh; it is used as a title for the promised Messiah, kings of Israel, etc.; I would not describe such uses as "mundane".

You say that I am "missing the point", not "seeing the most obvious, that lies right in front of your eyes", I must disagree, I do not diminish the exalted position of Jesus Christ, God's Word/Logos, the Son of God, our "Lord and God"; but neither do I ignore his relationship to the Father, who is his God, the "one God", the "only true God." Right now, what I am attempting, is a rigorous implementation of ad fontes, devoid of anachronisms, devoid of any isms (e.g. Calvinism, Augustinianism, Arianism, Socinianism, Thomism, et al.).

Grace and peace,

David

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah,Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

It's 12:49 in the afternoon and it's Friday! I wonder what R.C Sproul Jr's plans are for the weekend?????

Yeeee haaaa!

In all seriousness though I was looking over at the link:
http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/JB-RB.Jn8_58.Index.htm
WOOOOW! 2 Links of nearly 260 pages each just on how to properly understand John 8:58.

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Thanks for responding; you wrote:

>>Your link to Tertullian post, it was actually me there also discussing things with you a while back; as with one of the posts you gave on Development of Doctrine, as you disagree with John Bugay's article. I disagree with you.>>

Me: I brought you back to that thread because of what you said about Tertullian in your earlier post. With all due respect and sincerity I cannot fathom how one who has read Tertullian at length can continue to invoke him as adherent of post-Nicene Trinitarianism. My goodness, what post-Nicene Trinitarian would affirm/write:

"Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created, for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. For if that, which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning, — I mean His wisdom, which was then born and created, when in the thought of God It began to assume motion for the arrangement of His creative works..."

"For before all things God was alone — being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself."

"Listen therefore to Wisdom herself, constituted in the character of a Second Person: “At the first the Lord created me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works, before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled; moreover, before all the hills did He beget me;” that is to say, He created and generated me in His own intelligence."

"I confess that I call God and His Word — the Father and His Son — two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones. Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated: Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties."

cont'd

David Waltz said...

cont'd

>>Oh well; no one but the Spirit of God can move you. You are nice, but very stubborn. At least the parts I have quoted from the ECFs show the biblical, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.>>

Me: Well Ken, I am almost (note the almost [wink]) speechless...find in the ECF's the autotheos of the Son and Spirit, find in the ECFs that the Son and/or Spirit is the "one God", or the "one true God"...

>>Everyone can go to other books or quotes by a human author and find goofy or weird things (Tertullian's a thinking gas, and your claim that he thought God was some kind of physical material) - the ECFs were not infallible, but Scripture is.>>

Me: That Tertullian believed that God was a material substance is affirmed by every patristic scholar I have read who has written on the subject.

>>You still seem to me to be someone "who keeps on learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth">>

Me: You continue to ignore my core beliefs, beliefs I have held for over 4 decades now, with NO change. Fault me for questioning Calvin's novel innovations, Van Til's bizzare speculations, Augustine's move from homoousios to monoousios and a host of other extra-Biblical accretions, but you cannot find one fault with my core beliefs, because you believe them too.

>>and your arguments are giving false credibility for Muslims like the GV19 to use in their arguments against the Trinity and Deity of Christ, which is, in my opinion, shameful and deserving of loving rebuke.>>

Me: Muslims don't invoke/use a beachbum like me in their debates and/or formulation of doctrine; to suggest such is just plain 'goofy'. (Hope you don't mind me borrowing one of your terms.)

>>The Mormons (Tom, who used to come and comment here) and the Universalist-Liberal Chris (who thinks homosexuality is ok and not a sin), also like a lot of what you write, and seem to use your methodology to give positive credence for their views also.>>

Me: Do you really think Tom and/or Chris have formed their theology from my writings? Come on Ken...

>>The result of this is something that is very sad and grievous. (Promotion of false doctrines and heresies - like saying Mormonism could be found in Irenaeus>>

Me: Ken, that is just not true, I have never said that " Mormonism could be found in Irenaeus".

>>It seems you don't want to decide on Biblical Christianity>>

Me: Sigh...this thread is about Biblical Christianity without the addition of isms.

With all due respect, you are not representing what I have posted with anything close to accuracy. But with that said, still love you as a brother in Christ.

Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi GV19,

Got very busy yesterday and was not able to listen to the debate you linked to—hopefully later today I will be able to do so.

The debate between Bowman and BeDuhn is certainly comprehensive; I think it is safe to say that what ever side one takes concerning the interpretation of John 8:58, that it can be legitimately read in more than one sense.

Hoping for good weather this weekend, would like to get a bike ride and run on the beach in...


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

David,
I love you too, in Christ, and enjoy our discussion and informal debate and disagreements here. Nothing is meant personal.

We're back to the question, at the beginning, Do you believe in the Trinity?

and do you think Jesus is "a god" or "God" ?

I wasn't saying that Tom the Mormon and Chris got or formed their theology from yours, I was saying that it seemed they found it attractive or in many ways "compatible" (at least it seemed to me) because they both want a form of Christianity that develops more later in history into the either the liberal Unitarianism with homosexuality as ok; or the Mormonism. And it did seem that you put a bunch of passages from Irenaeus up, if I recall, about the "I said, you are gods" passage in Psalm 82 and John 10 - in the combox I think; that implied that you were saying that Tom was legitimately seeing Mormonism as a possibility of development.

I don't know if Muslims or GV19 will use your material in the future; but it seems like he might be able to make that argument in the future at his web-site - (that see, here are Christians who cannot agree on the Trinity, and the Trinity really is not taught in the Bible) that's Ok, God will not be mocked, and all history has lots of heresies and "apologists" for their false doctrines.

Without good teaching about the Trinity, all the Iranians I have taught over the years were naturally modalists or Arians.

I firmly believe that the Trinity is taught in the canonical Scriptures (one God in substance/ousia; yet three in person, or personal relationships). And that Jesus is one person, with two natures, He is God and Man; the God-man.

I think Piper's article on Athanasius was very insightful.

in my next post, I will quote from it; I think I did in the past, but will try and do that again.

"without the addition of "isms" - ? what does that mean?

Honestly, it sounds so "Jehovah Witness" to me. They just react to the words "Trinity" and "homo-ousias" and "three persona" as not being in the text, yet they are there in teaching and meaning.

Without "Protestantism" or "Trinitiarianism", etc. ?

What Protestant churches would be comfortable with your view of Jesus and the Trinity?

Local church community is important also; we cannot be "just me and my Bible" (and massive library) all alone in the woods/on the beach/in my office. The church is people.

Ken said...

At the end of John Piper's message - Contending For Our All -

Under, "Lessons" -

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/contending-for-our-all

3. Loving Christ includes loving true propositions about Christ

What was clear to Athanasius was that propositions about Christ carried convictions that could send you to heaven or to hell. There were propositions like: “There was a time when the Son of God was not,” and, “He was not before he was made,” and, “the Son of God is created.” These propositions were strictly damnable. If they were spread and believed they would damn the souls which embraced them. And therefore Athanasius labored with all his might to formulate propositions that would conform to reality and lead the soul to faith and worship and heaven.

I believe Athanasius would have abominated, with tears, the contemporary call for “depropositionalizing” that you hear among many of the so-called “reformists” and “the emerging church,”younger evangelicals,”postfundamentalists,” “postfoundationalists,”postpropositionalists,” and “postevangelicals.”36 I think he would have said, “Our young people in Alexandria die for the truth of propositions about Christ. What do your young people die for?” And if the answer came back, “We die for Christ, not propositions about Christ,” I think he would have said, “That’s what Arius says. So which Christ will you die for?”

Athanasius would have grieved over sentences like “It is Christ who unites us; it is doctrines that divides.” And sentences like: “We should ask, Whom do you trust? rather than what do you believe?”37 He would have grieved because he knew this is the very tactic used by the Arian bishops to cover the councils with fog so that the word “Christ” could mean anything. Those who talk like this—“Christ unites, doctrine divides”—have simply replaced propositions with a word. They think they have done something profound and fresh, when in fact they have done something very old and stale and very deadly.

This leads to a related lesson . . .

Ken said...

Piper's fourth lesson from Athanasius, he also quotes from one of your favorite books on this issue that you have recommended and sited.

4. The truth of biblical language must be vigorously protected with non-biblical language.

Athanasius’ experience was critically illuminating to something I have come to see over the years, especially in liberally minded baptistic and pietistic traditions, namely, that the slogan, “the Bible is our only creed” is often used as a cloak to conceal the fact that Bible language is used to affirm falsehood. This is what Athanasius encountered so insidiously at the Council of Nicaea. The Arians affirmed biblical sentences. Listen to this description of the proceedings:

The Alexandrians . . . confronted the Arians with the traditional Scriptural phrases which appeared to leave no doubt as to the eternal Godhead of the Son. But to their surprise they were met with perfect acquiescence. Only as each test was propounded, it was observed that the suspected party whispered and gesticulated to one another, evidently hinting that each could be safely accepted, since it admitted of evasion. If their assent was asked to the formula “like to the Father in all things,” it was given with the reservation that man as such is “the image and glory of God.” The “power of God” elicited the whispered explanation that the host of Israel was spoken of as dunamis kuriou, and that even the locust and caterpillar are called the “power of God.” The “eternity” of the Son was countered by the text, “We that live are alway (2 Corinthians 4:11)!” The fathers were baffled, and the test of homoosion, with which the minority had been ready from the first, was being forced (p. 172) upon the majority by the evasions of the Arians.38

R. P. C. Hanson explained the process like this: “Theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself.”39 The Arians railed against the unbiblical language being forced on them. They tried to seize the biblical high ground and claim to be the truly biblical people—the pietists, the simple Bible-believers—because they wanted to stay with biblical language only—and by it smuggle in their non-biblical meanings.

But Athanasius saw through this “post-modern,”post-conservative,” “post-propositional” strategy and saved for us not just Bible words, but Bible truth. May God grant us the discernment of Athanasius for our day. Very precious things are at stake.40

Ken said...

more from Piper lessons from Athanasius

6. Don’t aim to preach only in categories of thought that can be readily understood by this generation. Aim at creating biblical categories of thought that are not present.

Another way to put it is to use the terminology of Andrew Walls: Don’t embrace the indigenous principle of Christianity at the expense of the pilgrim principle.41 The indigenous principle says, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” (1 Cor. 9:22). The pilgrim principle says, “Do not be conformed to this world,but be transformed by the renewal of your mind” (Rom. 12:2).

Some of the most crucial and precious truths of the Scripture are counter-intuitive to the fallen human mind. They don’t fit easily into our heads. The orthodox understanding of the Trinity is one of those. If the indigenous principle had triumphed in the fourth century, we would all be Arians. It is far easier for the human mind to say that the Son of God, like all other sons, once was not, and then came into being, than it is to say that he has always been God with the Father, but there is only one God. But the Bible will not let its message be fit into the categories we bring with our fallen, finite minds. It presses us relentlessly to create new categories of thought to contain the mysteries of the gospel.

Archibald Roberts points out that with the conversion of Constantine and the Edict of Milan (313) which gave legal status to Christianity, “the inevitable influx of heathen into the Church, now that the empire had become Christian, brought with it multitudes to whom Arianism was a more intelligible creed than that of Nicaea.”42 And if you want to grow a church the temptation is to give the people what they already have categories to understand and enjoy. But once that church is grown, it thinks so much like the world that the difference is not decisive. The radical, biblical gospel is blunted and the glory of Christ is obscured.

Rather, alongside the indigenous principle of accommodation and contextualization, Athanasius would plead with us to have a deep commitment to the pilgrim principle of confrontation and transformation and brain-boggling, mind-altering, recategorization of the way people think about reality.

Lvka said...

David,

could I recommend you a book?

Jacob Neusner: A Rabbi Talks With Jesus

Odo said...

So Um Salamah went and talked with the prophet but he did not respond to her. When the group asked her what the prophet said she told them that he did not respond. So they asked her to go talk to him again until he responds… then the prophet said to her, “Do not hurt me with Aisha, for the inspiration did not come upon me when I was IN (fee) A WOMAN’S GARMENT (Thawb) EXCEPT THAT OF AISHA.” Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith Number 2393

“A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.” Deuteronomy 22:5

Rory said...

This is very presumptious of me. Assuredly, I will look foolish if my guesses here are contradicted because I am going to try to answer a question asked of somebody else, not AS myself, but pretending that I can guess the mind of that somebody else...none other than our blog host, David Waltz.

Ken asked David:

"We're back to the question, at the beginning, Do you believe in the Trinity?"

David's Answer according to Rory:

"I believe in at least 66 Books of Scripture that do not give me certainty as to the varied theories and formulae of Trinitarian doctrine. Leaving aside the question of whether I need to entertain the possibility of other inspired Scriptures, I am not convinced that the 66 Books clearly outline the doctrinal formulations most often accepted by those who identify themselves as Trinitarian."

---------------

In short, David is submissive before the authority of Holy Scripture, inasmuch as he can understand what the 66 Books means. He has been submissive for 40 years to these 66 Books. Not being currently affiliated with any ecclesiastical authority, how can he possibly say that he does or does not believe in the Trinity? He knows he does if the 66Books teach it. He knows he doesn't if the 66 Books don't teach it.

But even though he should place his own will and mind before God regarding this issue begging that not his mind, but God's be the guide, he cannot have reasonable certainty part from a private revelation or the authority of an ecclesiastical institution that he regards as deserving of trust.

I am Trinitarian myself not because I figured out the Trinity after a quick and easy read of the 66 Books. Instead I found the church I consider deserving of my trust and as it happens, it is Trinitarian.

In my opinion, even those who say the Scriptures are clear and easy to understand proceed in the same manner as I have. The problem with them is that they can't admit it. They can't admit that their creeds, and their preacher theologians play the same role for their faithful as pope and ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church do for the Catholic faithful. Having rejected Catholic authority on the presumption that the Scriptures clearly teach something else, for Protestants, "back to the Bible" means pretending it is all easy and simple, when the scandalous disunity of devout and well-meaning Protestants even more clearly makes us know that the Bible alone, at least their 66 Book Bible alone, is a formula for division, schism, and heresy.

A few days ago Ken suggested that I was "promoting the Catholic Church". I denied it because there are other ways around the dilemma that I have just described besides being Catholic. I don't need to promote the Catholic Church in "back to the Bible" thread. I am reminding us of something that is obvious to all except those whose origins will not permit admission of the obvious.

I am not promoting Catholicism only when I paraphrase the clearest and plainest truth of Scripture that I know:

"And this one thing at least is certain; whatever the 66 Books teach, whatever the 66 Books omit, whatever the 66 Books say and unsay, at least the Christianity of the 66 Books is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this...to be deep in the 66 Books is to cease to be a Protestant"---with thanks to the soon to be canonized Dr. Newman

This will remain true so long as Protestantism stubbornly persists against all the contemporary, biblical, and historical evidence that shows how the 66 Books alone are NOT clear and easy to understand.

This is what we learn by going "back to the Bible"...and we haven't even discussed why Protestants believe in the 66 Books!

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Just for the record "If" I ever was a Christian or to become one I most likely would end up in the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Eastern Syriac Churches category because as a Muslim I have gained allot of historical insight and perspective from my own vantage point.

Consider the following facts about the United States in general.

Think about the number of people in the United States who own passports, and think of the number who actually travel with them.

Compare states that have a higher percentage of Catholics and those that have Protestants and than compare them in terms of education.

The facts are that a huge number of people who are Protestant (reformed, evangelical or Bible only) tune in every Monday and Thursday night to watch WWE and TNA wrestling and they really buy into the story lines of Hulk Hogan and Rick Flair can you imagine that?

Anyone who gives the Bible a careful read or study will see there are numerous contradictions (apparent or not, real or not)- The only way these are worked out is through semantic gymnastics, and in depth hermeneutic (some believable and some not so)

It requires you to read John Hayley's 'Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" 452pages!

or Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties-480 pages

or Bible difficulties and seeming contradictions by William Arndt-261 pages.

In my experience reading the Bible ALONE has led more people away from the Christian faith than anything else I can think of.

However, reading one or two of the apologetic works above at least helped those who remained Christian (for various reasons) to sleep better at night.

Now here is where it gets tricky. Unless I know something about literary device, hyperbole, rhetorical questions, and so forth I am going to be puzzled or lost over a great deal of what Biblical text says.

Examples:

or, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

I know that either this text is a blatant lie or I need some interpretative device to help me understand it.

When I go to my pastor and tell him but Joe calls upon the name of the Lord. Pastor responds yes but you see Joe is a (United Pentecostal, Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Reformed Baptist, Assembly of God, Church of Christ, Congregationalist, Methodist, etc) and those people don't teach what the Bible says!!!

To assure me the pastor points the following passage out.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21)

continued...

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

continued from above...

and now I am wishing the pastor never pointed out the text above cause it raises more problems for me....

1) It still looks like it is a blatant contradiction to the clear statement in Romans.

2) What is the will of the father if not but to call Jesus Lord?

Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.(1 Corinthians 12:3)

So I go to bed wondering how God could will for someone to call Jesus Lord an act that happens via the Holy Spirit and for that person to still not get into the kingdom of heaven.

So than I get to learn that the salvation I thought I had maybe evanescent grace all along! Gosh for something that's a FREE GIFT I sure am having to put allot of effort in to understanding scripture.

You would think me being the elect and all I could simply just have some private revelation or some miraculous event to confirm for me issues that keep me restless at night (after all being the elect I'm special right)

Than I have questions about inconsistent interpretation and hermeneutic example:

As a Calvinist I'm allowed to understand passages that state Jesus died for all to mean that he died for all (the elect).

But when my Catholic friend interprets 'All have sinned and come short of the glory of God' to be hyperbole and mean 'most' or all-except Mary, John, Jeremiah possibly others my Calvinist friend jumps up and down having a fit!

Dag nab it! This total and sola scriptura ordeal just doesn't seem to cut the mustard, I'm going through lexicons, hermeneutic, trying to understand literary devices, context, history. Goodness!

So than I start to ask myself two questions.

1) Does scripture claim it will guide me into all the truth?

2)Can scripture grant me eternal life?

continued...

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Well Jesus said the scriptures give eternal life!

Really? Where did he say that?

He said it right here!

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me (John 5:39)

Well did he say the scriptures possess eternal life or that they point to him (Jesus)?

Do the scriptures guide me into all the truth? No!

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (John 16:13)

But wait says my sola sciptura and total sciptura Protestant friend....you see the Holy Spirit inspired men to write (SCRIPTURE) and that was the Truth that he guided us into!

Oh I say to myself. So let me get this straight Presbyterian are Calvinist? Yes he says.

Reformed Baptist are Calvinist? Yes again he says.

Presbyterian and Calvinist believe in all five points of the TULIP? Yes!

Both believe in Total and and Sola scriptura? Yes!

Run that whole argument about what age is appropriate to baptize babies in again?

Fade to black....

Rory said...

Hi Grand Verb.

I have what I consider the appropriate regard for the Scriptures (73 Books for me). I believe they are in their original autographs the inspired and inerrant word of God. But I wouldn't have learned that from the pages of Scripture either.

I have been needing to question a problem that I perceive you have with the fact that Jesus does not Himself allude to His own deity (You will forgive my capitalization of the pronoun. It is not for presuming the question answered, but a necessary reflection of reverence on my part.)

I would suggest that a careful attention to the way God reveals Himself is to take note of what we might call, a holy reticence or modesty. It almost seems as though the God who has remained hidden for eternity past, has a reluctance to come right out directly and declare His own position.

You will probably recall that the Father sent the Son to reveal...the Father. The Father, when speaking audibly in the Gospels does not proclaim Himself either, rather He points to the Son. Think of the Transfiguration, or His baptism in the Jordan by St. John. Then when the Son leaves, ascending, He departs with promises that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity (as we understand it), the Paraclete will come. To do what. To speak of Himself? No. To speak of the Son. Jesus says that the Spirit does not come to speak of Himself.

I could have made this sound a lot more inspiring and found all the references. But I have company coming in a few minutes and if I waited for the time to do it all up properly, it mightn't get done. I am asking you to consider that it isn't at all surprising that Christ was more interested in declaring Himself as true man, the Son of man, and leaving the task of declaring His deity to another.

I think I could be persuasive in getting you to see that this is a very plausible theory that can make us comfortable in knowing that Jesus tended, as the Father tended, and the Spirit tended, to avoid declaring His own deity.

There was even a reluctance to declare Himself as Christ! Remember when he asked his disciples who people were saying the Son of man was. There were several answers but St. Peter piped up with the truth. But the truth, that He was the Christ, the Son of Living God was not preached by Christ Himself! Jesus didn't deny the truth, but He made sure that we all knew that Jesus didn't reveal it to Peter, neither did flesh and blood at all, but the Father.

I don't mean to say that I have proven the Trinity at all. You know by now that I think non-Trinitarian interpretations of the Scripture alone are plausible. But I bring this to your attention to show why Trinitarians need not be troubled if we note that neither the Father, the Son, nor the Holy Ghost directly declare their own glory. It seems unnecessary, and even out of "character" if you will, to expect a direct statement of fact from the Son as to His deity.

The doorbell rings!!! GOtta run!!!!

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Rory I appreciate the post thank you. By the way my last three previous post I was not trying to be sarcastic I was simply trying to be rhetorical and put myself in a position that many others have been in (are in now) and maybe find themselves in, in the future.

I think all that you said is plausible. Every position has it's strength or weakness.

Charismatic Catholics are interesting to me. Because there is tradition and there is experience of God. There comes a point when the ink is dry and reason only takes us so far.

This is why in Islam Ihsan is to worship God as if you can see him and if not know that God sees you.

The inward sciences of Islam called Ihsan, tassawuf and what orientals label Sufism is to experience the divine. This experience is not something objective that others can observe (they maybe able to see the ancillary fruits of it) -more calm disposition, humility, reverence and less to no ego in the person.

However the experience is completely for the said individual.

It's for the person who has exhausted book after book, and after each reading more questions arise than are answered.

I just think that if the Holy Spirit (especially if it is God) descends upon a person, enters into them, moves them, inspires them) that should be quite an AWESOME experience indeed. It should be earth shaking. I don't think your just sitting there one day and you get 'tickled'.

However, since experience is subjective it also has it's problems.

I don't think the Catholics or the reformed Protestants can contain the Charismatic movement that is sweeping the Earth because it speaks to a certain reality that both the Reformed and the Catholics, and Orthodox are not addressing adequately.

What is so problematic about the movement is that it is subjective experience and it's hard to shake someone from what they "KNOW" and what they have "EXPERIENCED".

It's interesting that Monatanus thought he was the 'Spirit of Truth' in John 16:13. Charismatics claim private revelation.

So again it's a dichotomy. So there needs to be an authoritative tradition that prevents 1001 different inspired people from cropping up speaking on behalf of the Creator.

continued...

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Now I can appreciate your saying,

"I believe they are in their original autographs the inspired and inerrant word of God"

But that is just it isn't it. At least you are more honest in your approach. As I already mentioned some times Atheist and us Muslims as well really like to milk Bart Ehrman's statements, yet at the same time for the Christian 'fundamentalist' to ignore his position that God could have preserved those original autographs is also foolhardy.

Some times in Christian-Muslim dialogue we have not been fair to each other because we are comparing apples and oranges most of the time.

A better comparison is Jesus and the Qur'an (which is the last revelation)

Hadith and the New Testament how were they preserved and how do we know they are trustworthy.

In the first comparison Muslims can argue that the Qur'an is still here. You can pick it up and read it and look at it's challenges and meet them or force to accept the veracity of it's claims.

Christians could argue that you can't experience the Qur'an but you can experience Jesus.

It could generate all kinds of interesting discussion.

The second point on the New Testament and the Hadith is that the hadith literature contains things that we know that the prophet Muhammed (saw) said because they are tawatur (they come down through multiple independent chains backed up by links with people we have detailed biographies about going back to the Prophet)

Where as we would ask the same for the New Testament documents or even the Masoretic text as well.

Where are the links do they come down from multiple incongruent chains?

As I said my faith doesn't teach me just because your not a "Muslim" that you will go to hell or even remain in hell forever.


In Islam there are some people who are dragged into heaven in chains. These people are the very humble and pious among humanity who are so awed by the mercy and love of the creator that Allah has to order angels to shackle them and drag them into heaven.

Only the meanest, cruelest and lowest of the people remain in the hell fire for the longest of time.

Eventually everyone is embraced by Allah's mercy and light. Allah is the irresistible.

There are black holes in our universe that eat light so to speak. The force of gravity is so strong that any light with in it's 'grasp' pulls light into it. Where it goes we do not yet know.

The light cannot escape.

In Islam we have an opposite view theologically speaking that there is Allah's light and eventually all darkness is turned into light.

The darkness cannot resist.

Lvka said...

...and here's for a quick read...

Ken said...

All,
I have been busy and just now getting back to read some of the new comments over the weekend.


Rory,
I thought you said you were not Roman Catholic, but your recent posts indicate that you are. (73 = 66 + Deutero-canonicals (Apocrypha) right? and the innovative Newman quote. I am confused.

Can you clarify?

Ken said...

Rory wrote:

"In short, David is submissive before the authority of Holy Scripture, inasmuch as he can understand what the 66 Books means. He has been submissive for 40 years to these 66 Books. Not being currently affiliated with any ecclesiastical authority, how can he possibly say that he does or does not believe in the Trinity? He knows he does if the 66Books teach it. He knows he doesn't if the 66 Books don't teach it."

The struggle of David, appears to be over how to understand John 1:1 and church history of "homo-ousias" and "three persona" or "three hypostasis" with the Shema - Deut. 6:4 and so many other passages, that there is only one God.

Maybe he struggles with the fact that the word "Trinity" and "homo-ousias" and "three hypostasis" are not in the text of Scripture. That is why I provided those quotes of Dr. John Piper about lessons we learn from Athanasius. It is almost like no one read them.

But, David still acknowledges some kind of "subordinationism" of a doctrine of the Trinity, (The Father is greater than all); that the Father is the One God or "the One true God", yet Jesus is the eternal word of God, the logos, the eternally begotten (not in a physical sense, but in a spirit sense of for lack of a better illustration, like rays of light coming out of the sun); and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, - That at least in looking at the 66 books is clear, that the three persons are named in Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14, and they are in passages such as Luke 1:34-35; Matthew 3:13-17; I Cor. 12:4-5 (same Spirit, same Lord, same God), Ephesians 4:3-6 (obviously the Matthew 28:19 and other passages limit the Tri-unity to "Father, Son, and Spirit") I Peter 1:1-3; etc. and many other passages.

Ken said...

Anyway, the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture (clearness) does not mean that every verse is clear and that there are not various levels of clearness in the Biblical texts.

It is clear enough though.

"repent and believe the gospel" Mark 1:15

"believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved." Acts 16:31

Rory, the innovative way you changed the Newman quote to the "66 books of the Protestant Bible" rather than church "history" is clever, but wrong.

The Reformation still stands, since the Roman Catholic Church has not repented of it's false doctrines (especially its condemnation of justification by faith alone at Trent) and actually adding to Scripture.

We can talk about justification by faith and indulgences and Papal authority, and the appearance of idolatry of bowing down before the bread and wine as if it really changed into Jesus, (a most superstitious and ridiculous theology); these are clear enough, but the most clear is the issue of Mary - the way the RCC has treated Mary beyond the Biblical text is a shameful thing. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary goes beyond and clearly violates Matthew 1:18-25 and 12:46-50 (and all the other passages on Jesus' brothers and sisters) John 7, Mark 3; etc. The sinlessnes and Immaculate Conception are clear violations of Romans 3:23 and the early history of Christianity and Luke 1:46-47; and the Bodily Assumption is even admitted by RCs as not in Scripture at all.

I Timothy 2:5 - That there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, is clear enough to take down the false doctrines of the RCC views on Mary, and having other intercessors of the dead saints also.

The statues of icons of her and RCC and easterners bowing down in front of these things and praying to her and calling her "the Mother of the God" (beyond the meaning that Jesus was always God; it is an unwise dogma that causes Muslims to stumble); is and was a terrible injustice of giving the whole Muslim world for all of its history the wrong idea of what Christianity taught. (Qur'an 5:116; 112; 6:101; 5:72-73) This also proves the Qur'an is not from Allah (The God), because even he mis-understood what the Trinity was.

These things are clear enough. Certainly there are differences on issues like baptism among the Reformed (Presbyterians vs. Baptists) and the Charismatic issue, etc.; but Protestants are unified on the main things.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

"These things are clear enough. Certainly there are differences on issues like baptism among the Reformed (Presbyterians vs. Baptists) and the Charismatic issue, etc.; but Protestants are unified on the main things."

"But Protestants are unified on the MAIN THINGS"

Some how John 16:13 "And how be it when She the Spirit of Truth comes She WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH. for what ever she shall hear that shall she speak."

For some reason "unified on the main things" seems to take the charm out of the phrase "guide into all truth"

Dunno about you people but takes the bite out of it for me.

If this statement is hyperbole than goodness.

When the holy spirit comes she will guide you into 'most of the truth'.

When the holy spirit comes she will guide you into 90% of the truth.....

Trust you all had a great weekend! I know I did! I betcha R.C Sproul Jr had a good weekend too!

David Waltz said...

Hi all,

Like Ken, "I have been busy and just now getting back to read some of the new comments over the weekend."

I received 3 new books in the mail, and chose to read them rather than participate in internet activities. I also reread the book that Lvka recommended: A Rabbi talks with Jesus, and shall begin my musings with a few words about the book.

I am no stranger to the writings of Jacob Neusner, in addition to the above mentioned book, I also own and have read his God, Revelation, The Incarnation of God, The Talmud, Torah, Midrash in Context, Messiah in Context, Judaism in Late Antiquity (3 vols.), and Introduction to Rabbinic Literature.

He begins his A Rabbi talks with Jesus with:

==In this book I explain in a very straightforward and unapologetic way why, if I had been in the land of Israel in the first century, I would not have joined the circle of Jesus' disciples. I would have dissented, I hope courteously, I am sure with solid reason and argument of fact. If I heard what he said in the Sermon of the Mount, for good and substantive reasons I would not have followed him. (Page xi.)==

A bit later:

==What I want to discuss with Jesus is how his teachings fit together with the Torah. (Page 5.)==

He states that he will limit his critique of Jesus' and His teachings to the gospel of Matthew, but it is important to note, that he reads the NT through the eyes of post-Chalcedon Catholic Christianity. Note the following:

==What are we to make, for example, of the notion that God has a mother, to whom God listens? How are we to under stand the claim that, uniquely in all humankind, Jesus was God incarnate, "in our image, after our likeness," in the language of Genesis' account of the creation of man and woman, in a way in which no other human being has been in God's image: God incarnate. (Pp. 9, 10.)==

Neusner clearly believes that the Torah is incompatible with Catholic Christianity, and any form of Christianity which holds to theotokos and Jesus as God incarnate. (For a more detailed analysis along this lines, see David Klinghoffer's, Why The Jews Rejected Jesus.)


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello Rory,

Back on the 16th, you penned the following:

>>David's Answer according to Rory:

"I believe in at least 66 Books of Scripture that do not give me certainty as to the varied theories and formulae of Trinitarian doctrine. Leaving aside the question of whether I need to entertain the possibility of other inspired Scriptures, I am not convinced that the 66 Books clearly outline the doctrinal formulations most often accepted by those who identify themselves as Trinitarian.">>

Me: I need you to write for me more often, the above is a concise, and accurate analysis of my thoughts...

History speaks to this issue as well, I sincerely doubt that post-Constantine Catholic bishops and emperors would have ordered the burning of non-Nicene theological treatments if the Scriptures, " clearly outline the doctrinal formulations most often accepted by those who identify themselves as Trinitarian." (Calvin too demanded the burning of non-Nicene theological treatments.)


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi GV19,

So good to hear that you had a "great weekend"; I too can attest to the same. Got a nice beach run in, and a 'boat-load' of reading in.

QUESTION: Could you elaborate a bit more on the following that you posted:

>>It's 12:49 in the afternoon and it's Friday! I wonder what R.C Sproul Jr's plans are for the weekend?????...

...I betcha R.C Sproul Jr had a good weekend too! >>

What's up with R.C. Sproul Jr. ??? (Curious minds want to know...[grin].)


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Lvka,

Thanks much for the link to the selection from Laurent A. Cleenewerck's, His Broken Body; as you probably know, I own the book. I would be very interested in finding out what Ken (and Rory too) thinks about the following from page 321:

==II. THE FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY

1. “One God,” East and West

Because Paul Owen writes from a Western perspective, his presentation quickly reveals the root of the difference between the Greek and Latin perspectives:

Orthodox Christians believe that God is one eternal, personal and spiritual divine substance who exists in three modes of subsistence, or three selfdistinctions.

Here, “Orthodox Christians” refers to ‘mainstream (Western)Christians,’ not to the Eastern Orthodox. In fact, the authentic Eastern Orthodox mind would disagree with the above statement which seems to confuse “personal” and “substance.” The Greek Fathers would have written quite a different summary, something along the lines of:

Orthodox Christians believe in one God the Father, whose person is uncaused and unoriginate, who, because He is love and communion, always exists with His Word and Spirit.==

Me: The last paragraph is (IMHO) much more faithful/accurate to the what the Bible (and early CFs) affirms.

Is more of the book available online for Ken and Rory to read?



Grace and peace,

David

Rory said...

Hi Dave,

I know very well why I believe the filioque clause. The Roman Church teaches it and I am a Western Christian.

It is my understanding that the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome are permitted to leave this clause out of their creedal confessions. I think this shows that in spite of every assumption of the last millenium and more, good Catholics are free to consider two different schools of thought on the question.

I do not suppose the Eastern Orthodox would easily consider the question to be open, but they should. They don't even have a Vatican I that affirms infallibility under certain conditions. I am hopeful that the grave problems that have arisen as a result of the Second Vatican Council will eventually result in a needed clarification of when we may be sure that the Church of which Christ is Head, speaks infallibly, in virtue of His Headship and the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Rory said...

Hey Ken,

Thanks for your reply to what I wrote over the weekend.

The Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary and Jesus' relatives don't seem like proper subjects for a "Back to the Bible" thread. Those are theological developments which grow out of our knowledge of the person of Christand His Blessed Mother. Of course, you think that everything that wasn't clearly spelled out in Apostolic times is therefore false. Traditional Christians reject that presumption. This is why you have to argue so tenaciously form pre-Nicene Church Fathers teaching post-Nicene dogma. And that is why to be deep in history or the 66 books is to cease to be Protestant.

If you think the Bible clearly proves that Mary wasn't assumed into heaven, I don't see it. Rom. 3:23 is not necessarily speaking of every individual including the mother of God. The whole context of ch. 3 is in relation to whether Jews or Gentiles are in different positions before God. Nope. They are all under sin. Using Scripture alone, Jesus' brothers are not necessarily His Mother's physical sons. It just can't be resolved with certainty by insisting on a narrow view of who those brothers must be based on pre-conceived notions that are also at odds with theological development and Apostolic Tradition as we discover it historically.

It is ordinarily folly for a Traditonalist to argue Scripture with a non-Traditionalist. The non-Traditionalist always seems assume that the Traditionalist shares his belief in the clear sufficiency of Scripture. Suffice to say I reject your interpretation without saying that my position is clear. Yours are plausible readings of the pertinent texts too. The problem with yours is that it just can't be squared with "Tradition". I am a Traditional Christian. I reject sola scriptura.

Rory

PS: I could sooner believe that you are the child of R.C. Sproul than I could believe that Rom. 3:23applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary!

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

"What's up with R.C. Sproul Jr. ??? (Curious minds want to know...[grin].)"

http://www.acommonword.net/2010/10/reformed-christian-rc-sproul-jr-we.html

This is directed to Rory about
The Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1658587/posts < Look what the Sola Scriptura, Total Scriptura, Holy Spirit leads you into all the truth reformed church did here!

"Instead of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit," worshippers may substitute "Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb" or "Rock, Cornerstone and Temple," the Los Angeles Times reported Friday."

So let me try and guess who that compassionate mother could be in some people's minds? The child is obviously Jesus and the Life giving womb obviously is a reference to Mary (may Allah cover her in Mercy).

The PCUSA is also not against Marijuana either!

Reformed Theology seems to be very liberal to me, to liberal and inconsistent for this Muslim!

Little wonder when they (the reformed Christians) run out of intellectual arguments against Islam it's the whole (crusades, invasion of Persia, Muhammed (saw) fought wars, married a 9 year old, apostasy) those are the exact same kind of arguments I would expect from a liberal!

Lvka said...

To my indirect knowledge of Neusner's book, he doesn't merely read into Jesus' words things He never meant, but undestands His words from a Jewish perspective as meaning that He indeed saw Himself as divine, without making any reference to other Gospels: he deduces this only from Matthew's Gospel alone. -- that's why I suggested his book to you.

Lvka said...

The reason I gave you the filioque-article was not to show you that "Eastern Orthodoxy" is in line with the "PRE"-Nicene Fathers, but rather to show you that the "POST"-Nicene Cappadocian Fathers are "in line" with their fore-bearers in the faith, those that came before them (IOW, to show you that there's no diference between the "PRE"-Nicene Fathers and the "POST"-Nicene ones: Nicaea didn't change anything, that's the point I was trying to make -- the NICENE Fathers themselves said in the Creed that they believe in ONE GOD, the Father almighty; and in ONE LORD, Jesus Christ ["true God of true God", "of one essence or substance with His Father"]; and in ONE Church; and that they confess ONE Baptism; etc).

David Waltz said...

Hi GV19,

Thanks much for the link to the R.C. Sproul Jr. video. Wow, very disturbing; a booze and Bible session...


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello Lvka,

Neusner only discusses the divinity of Jesus and "incarnation of God" in the preface and first chapter, which is basically an introduction. He does NOT discuss these issues at all in the rest of the book which deals with selected passages from Matthew where he contrasts certain teachings of Jesus with the Torah.


Grace and peace,

David

P.S. As for whether or not there has been the development of doctrine in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, seems we will have to agree to disagree.

Lvka said...

I still don't understand where you see differences between pre-Nicene, Nicene, and post-Nicene Fathers. All three groups identified the one God with the Father; all three groups saw the Son and Holy Spirit as divine and unbroken from the Father.

Ken said...

David Waltz wrote:
Me: "That Tertullian believed that God was a material substance is affirmed by every patristic scholar I have read who has written on the subject."

So? Even if he did believe that; he was not infallible and his writings are fallible. We are free to use our brains and "test everything" (Acts 17:11; I Thess. 5:21-22; I John 4:1 ff) to see what is true and what is false. the Bible says, "cling to that which is good, and reject the false" - I Thessalonians 5:21-22

so, we can accept the good things that Tertullian says, that line up with Scripture (which I cited) and don't contradict it; and reject the bad and goofy and heretical things he said.

Easy.

To be deep in history and the Scriptures is to repent of Roman Catholic additions (ie, corruptions) to valid tradition, repent of false doctrine and practices, and repent of it's dogmas ( 1215 -transubstantiation, Council of Trent - 1545-1563; IC of Mary -1854; Infallibility of Pope- 1870; BA of Mary -1950) and return to Christ and to repent of entertaining the possibility that Bahai'ism might be another revelation from the Living God.

Yes, GV19 - we all know that the PCUSA is very liberal and they are apostate as a whole. (There are some individual churches of PCUSA that are still orthodox, but the big denomination is apostate. That is why the good Presbyterians separated from them in the 1970s and formed the PCA (Presbyterian church in America). David can tell you when the Orthodox Presbyterian Church formed and other conservative Bible believing Presbyterian groups.

David Waltz said...

>>David can tell you when the Orthodox Presbyterian Church formed and other conservative Bible believing Presbyterian groups.>>

==On June 11, 1936 the now famous G. Gresham Machen, a former professor at the Princeton Theological Seminary (on July 18, 1927, Machen, with his colleagues Oswald Allis, Robert Wilson and Cornelius Van Til, formed the conservative Westminster Theological Seminary, in Philadelphia – see Longfield’s, The Presbyterian Controversy, for in depth details), with “a group of about 300 people…met in Philadelphia to form a new church that would be true to the Bible”. But, unity within this new church did not last very long: “A year later it became apparent that the new church was actually composed of two groups with views so divergent [even though both ascribed to the Westminster Standards] as to make continued unity impossible”. A split occurred on September 6, 1938, forming two new churches: the Bible Presbyterian Church, and the church now known as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).

In the south, a split between the conservatives and liberals took place a bit later in 1973, and the conservative denomination now known as the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) was formed. However, the schisms were far from over, more splits loomed on the horizon.

In 1981, another split from the PCUSA occurred, forming the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC). 1998 witnessed the emergence of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches out of the PCA. (This schism has its roots in “Federal Vision” controversy.) And in 2006, the ultra-conservative Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS) was formed (the OPC and PCA were just not ‘conservative’ enough!)

As of 2009, I am aware of no less than 8 conservative Presbyterian denominations which adhere to the Westminster Standards (the 7th and 8th being the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America).==

The above is from the following thread:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/03/calvin-on-visible-church-and-apostasy_28.html


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

David,
I even made some comments at the Presbyterian thread that David linked to.

So, David, how would you explain to a Muslim that Jesus is the logos (word of God; John 1:1-5; 1:14) and the Son of God (Luke 1:34-35) and "eternally begotten"; that He existed before He was born of the virgin Mary, and that there is nothing physical or sexual in the term "begotten Son of God",(John 1:18; 3:16; others) as Surah 5:116 and 112 and 6:101 suggest for the Muslim? (even though you don't think Muhammad and the Qur'an are describing the true Christian doctrine of the Trinity in these verses, or the Son of God/God the Son/ begotten issue about Jesus - you seem to think it is against polytheistic Arabs who believed in the sons and daughters of Allah and the Collyridians ONLY - so how would you explain Biblical Christianity to Muslims?

Your belief is still "shirk"; so how are you going to overcome that?

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Forgive the tardiness of my response; in my defense, the beachbum has been busy!

You posted:

>>So, David, how would you explain to a Muslim that Jesus is the logos (word of God; John 1:1-5; 1:14)>>

Me: "O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers." (Surah 4.171, Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the The Holy Quran, p. 239.)

>>and the Son of God (Luke 1:34-35) and "eternally begotten"; that He existed before He was born of the virgin Mary, and that there is nothing physical or sexual in the term "begotten Son of God",(John 1:18; 3:16; others)>>

Me: I think most Muslims would agree that Allah's Word existed prior to the creation of the physical world. (Perhaps GV19 could give us the various schools of thought on this issue.)

>>as Surah 5:116 and 112 and 6:101 suggest for the Muslim? (even though you don't think Muhammad and the Qur'an are describing the true Christian doctrine of the Trinity in these verses, or the Son of God/God the Son/ begotten issue about Jesus - you seem to think it is against polytheistic Arabs who believed in the sons and daughters of Allah and the Collyridians ONLY - so how would you explain Biblical Christianity to Muslims?>>

Me: I believe the Qur'an is addressing certain views held by some Christians of the 7th century in the Arabian peninsula that you acknowledge as being heretical. I do not believe that Qur'an addresses the view/s of the early Church Fathers and/or the Biblical position.

>>Your belief is still "shirk"; so how are you going to overcome that?>>

Me: If God the Father is the "one God", the "only true God", how is my position "shirk"?

Ibn Ishaq provides one of the earliest exchanges between Muslims and Christians on the issue of Christology:

==So when they went into the royal presence and the questions [concerning Jesus]were put to them, Ja'far answered: 'We say about him that which our prophet brought saying, he is the slave of God, and his apostle, and his spirit, and his word, which he cast into Mary the blessed virgin.' The Negus took a stick from the ground and said, "by God, Jesus, son of Mary, does not exceed what you have said by the length of this stick.' (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, trans. by A. Guillaume, p. 152.)==

Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

David W. Wrote, quoting the Qur'an 4:171

". . . Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, . . . "



quoting the Qur'an 4:171 as answer to Muslims on who Jesus is. Some things in 4:171 are good and useful; but some are not true - and they interpret the good things differently that we do; for example - the above phrase - Jesus was only a messenger of Allah -

This is teaching the Jesus was only a man, only a messenger - that He is not the Son of God, nor eternally begotten. And "Kalimat'allah" is good for us to use, but in Islamic theology it does not mean "the eternal mind and work of God, who is a person in personal relationship with the Father, a Son from all eternity".

By including that phrase from the Qur'an, if that is part of your answer - You have now demoted Jesus to only a human creature. Do you want to clarify that?

Unless you are using the verse to emphasize the phrases that are true (word of God, spirit from God, Al Messiah, son of Mary, etc,) and you are not intending that phrase to be part of your answer - ?

You said earlier, you believe Jesus is eternally begotten Son of God, - how do you explain that? that phrase "he is only a messenger" denies that, even your version of subordinationism.

Ken said...

correction, Word (logos), not work

"the eternal mind and word of God, who is a person in personal relationship with the Father, a Son from all eternity".

Ken said...

Your position is shirk because you told me earlier that Jesus is the Son of God, who is eternally begotten.

Whatever that means to you doesn't matter as far as Islam is concerned, the above qualifies as "shirk".

Lvka said...

Islam and Arianism basically deny the kingship of the members of the King's royal family. -- that's their problem. The Queen and Prince are one with the King in power and sovereignity, but they cannot do anything without his approval, and everything they are and have they own to him. Hope this helps.

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Thanks for responding to my last post; you wrote:

>>By including that phrase from the Qur'an, if that is part of your answer - You have now demoted Jesus to only a human creature. Do you want to clarify that?>>

Me: I have been told that the Arabic phrase, innamā al-masīhu, only the Messiah, is referring to Isa's/Jesus' unique role as Messiah.

>>Unless you are using the verse to emphasize the phrases that are true (word of God, spirit from God, Al Messiah, son of Mary, etc,) and you are not intending that phrase to be part of your answer - ?

You said earlier, you believe Jesus is eternally begotten Son of God, - how do you explain that? that phrase "he is only a messenger" denies that, even your version of subordinationism.>>

Me: If innamā restricts al-masīhu (as suggested above) and not rasūlu then your concerns are for sure eliminated. And yet, even if one allows innamā to restrict rasūlu it cannot be understood in an absolute sense given the fact that the same ayah also clearly states that Isa is also "His word", and "a spirit proceeding from Him".


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

David,
Problem is, you are avoiding my questions about "Son of God" and "begotten" and "eternally begotten" - Islam says Jesus was only human -
Surah 3:59

You are implying that in the Arabic - "only a messenger of Allah" is not there. Context seems to indicate that is a valid translation, for later,

"It is far removed from the transcendent majesty that He should have a son!" later in 4:171

You are trying to re-interpret Islam and the Qur'an - against all their history, tradition, and tasfirs - that is not right unless you have a really really strong case with lots of evidence.

You don't.

You are still a "mushrakeen" مشرکین

(one who ascribes partners to God)
from شرک = "shirk" - giving partnership to God.

because you affirm Jesus is divine in some sense - and you affirm that He is the Son of God and eternally begotten (whatever that means, which you still don't say).

Do you think the Father was like the Sun (but a Spirit - John 4:23-24) in eternity past and later, at some point, the Son started flowing out from Him, like rays from the Sun? (an illustration you say is a lot in the Early church fathers) - as J. N.D. Kelly does also.

Ken said...

Obviously, I don't believe that believing in the Trinity or that Jesus is the eternal Son of God; that He is God the Son, the logos, who became flesh; is "shirk" ("2 or with the Holy Spirit, 3 gods")

But, the Muslims think that about me and you also. I meant from their perspective, we are both "mushrakeen".

Martin said...

I can only point to a book you may well own http://www.thesacredpage.com/2010/10/emery-on-biblical-methodology-of.html

David Waltz said...

Hi Martin,

Thanks much for the heads-up and link to Emery's, The Trinity in Aquinas (2004). I don't own this book, so I have not had a chance to read it yet. Do you own and/or have read the book?


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

David,
You are still not answering directly;

What about Surah 5:75?



مَّا الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ إِلَّا رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ وَأُمُّهُ صِدِّيقَةٌ ۖ كَانَا يَأْكُلَانِ الطَّعَامَ ۗ انظُرْ كَيْفَ نُبَيِّنُ لَهُمُ الْآيَاتِ ثُمَّ انظُرْ أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ (75)

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

Ken said...

Wow! A book that David Waltz does not own!

Amazing!

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

You asked about Surah 5:75...

A more accurate translation reads:

"The Messiah, son of Mary, is but an apostle; indeed apostles before him have passed away..." (The Holy Qur'an, S. V. Mir Ahmed Ali, p. 480.)

Once again, the negative particle precedes al-masīhu; once again I wonder about the uniqueness of Jesus as the Messiah in the Qur'an; and once again, the Qur'an clearly states that Jesus, in addition to being the Messiah and an apostle (rasūlu,) is also Allah's "Word" and "Spirit". All this suggests to me that any restrictions imposed by the negative particle (apart from Messiah-ship) cannot be understood in an absolute sense.


Grace and peace,

David

Jnorm said...

David,


1.) In regards to scholars:

They often do come with bias. How many western scholars do you know that have something good to say about the LXX? Not to many!

Also, what does one mean by "Jewish recentions" of the LXX?

The Early Christians (Justin Marty) didn't consider the newer jewish greek translations of aquilla and...I forgot the other name, but they didn't consider that as being part of the LXX text family. And so when you say oldest jewish LXX available.....what do you mean? The NT quoted from the LXX and it didn't use what you are trying to assert about the 1st century LXX family....also what do you mean by oldest surviving jewish LXX recentions? Do you mean the ones by aquilla and so and so?

What does later non-believing Greek translations have to do with Christians? Also, in order to be consistent, it would seem as if you would have to say that the 2nd century christians not only changed their LXX text family, but also the four Gospels as well.

You seem to go out of your way to deny the traditional Christian belief about Jesus being Divine.

Why go through all this trouble?


2.) Tertullian and his corporeal soul doctrine. I only saw that in regards to humans, Angels, and the spiritual world in general.....like in Hades. I could be wrong, but I didn't see that in regards to God. But even with that, the west still made use of the word Consubstantial, and as seen with Nicea, the word doesn't have to have a material connotation.

I've noticed your quotes of Tertullian about Wisdom being created...as probably quoted from Scripture. But I didn't see any quotes by you in where the Logos is Eternal?

Why didn't you quote about their belief of the Logos being in the bosom of the Father? You made it seem as if they believed that there was a time in where the Logos didn't exist. From what I saw, they always saw the Logos as existing!

I really don't understand why you are fighting the idea of the Logos Incarnated as being Divine.

Why are you fighting it?

Justin Marty
"For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing."

Justin Marty
"I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same."

Jnorm said...

David,


1.) In regards to scholars:

They often do come with bias. How many western scholars do you know that have something good to say about the LXX? Not to many!

Also, what does one mean by "Jewish recentions" of the LXX?

The Early Christians (Justin Marty) didn't consider the newer jewish greek translations of aquilla and...I forgot the other name, but they didn't consider that as being part of the LXX text family. And so when you say oldest jewish LXX available.....what do you mean? The NT quoted from the LXX and it didn't use what you are trying to assert about the 1st century LXX family....also what do you mean by oldest surviving jewish LXX recentions? Do you mean the ones by aquilla and so and so?

What does later non-believing Greek translations have to do with Christians? Also, in order to be consistent, it would seem as if you would have to say that the 2nd century christians not only changed their LXX text family, but also the four Gospels as well.

You seem to go out of your way to deny the traditional Christian belief about Jesus being Divine.

Why go through all this trouble?

Jnorm said...

2.) Tertullian and his corporeal soul doctrine. I only saw that in regards to humans, Angels, and the spiritual world in general.....like in Hades. I could be wrong, but I didn't see that in regards to God. But even with that, the west still made use of the word Consubstantial, and as seen with Nicea, the word doesn't have to have a material connotation.

I've noticed your quotes of Tertullian about Wisdom being created...as probably quoted from Scripture. But I didn't see any quotes by you in where the Logos is Eternal?

Why didn't you quote about their belief of the Logos being in the bosom of the Father? You made it seem as if they believed that there was a time in where the Logos didn't exist. From what I saw, they always saw the Logos as existing!

I really don't understand why you are fighting the idea of the Logos Incarnated as being Divine.

Why are you fighting it?

Justin Marty
"For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing."

Justin Marty
"I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same."

David Waltz said...

Hi Jnorm.,

Just moments ago, I noticed your new posts in this thread. I definitely would like to share some of my thoughts on what you have written, but unfortunately, need to get to bed; I have an appointment with the dentist tomorrow to put back in place the crown on my implant that came off yesterday (praise God that I did not swallow it!!!).

Anyway, please be patient with me; should have something up by tomorrow afternoon, the Lord willing.


Grace and peace,

David

Jnorm said...

Take your time. And I hope all goes well with the dentist.

I only stopped making comments on your blog because I didn't want to talk about these things in front of non-Christians. It just felt weird and uncomfortable. Islam has a long history in using the things that divide Christians to their advantage. They will use it to keep us apart. Divide and conquer. This was the main reason why EO and OO were kept apart for so long. Before the rise of Islam we were constantly in and out of communion. Yes, 451 A.D. wasn't the real breaking point. The real breaking point was a century or two later.


1.) But yeah, it seems as if you are trying real hard to make it seem as if Jesus isn't Divine. Also, do you believe that all the gospels were written in Hebrew / Aramaic? Or just the Gospel of Matthew? Why don't you see the Greek as being Inspired? Because of variations? What does that have to do with anything? Some degree of variation is going to exist.
If a level of variation existed in the first century, and if they (in the first century) still saw Scripture as being Inspired, then shouldn't we today still see variation filled Scripture as being Inspired? If it didn't bother them then why should it bother us?


2.) Why don't you see translations as being Inspired by God? If there is an aspect of God that is always incomprehensible and if God has to use Accomodation in the Inscripturation process, then wouldn't that also imply some form of dynamism instead of stasis in the area of Inspiration and Inerrancy? Wouldn't that imply that Translations can also be Inspired?


3.) Also I've noticed that you had trouble with the councils as being infallible. I saw that you noticed the difference between the Old Nicene party vs the New Nicene party. For some reason this bothers you. Why? It doesn't bother me. You do know that there were local councils between Nicea and Constantinople 1? And so in my mind the new interpretation was valid.

You seem to believe in some form of stasis or 100% absolute uniformity when it comes to the issue of Truth. When it comes to Truth, sometimes you gotta have some flexibility or else you are gonna break like concrete once you run into something messy.


4.) Also, what is it about our view of the Trinity that you don't like? From my end, I think we are extremely close to the Pre-Nicene views. Out of all the groups (EO, Rome, and Protestantism) we are the closest! So what is it about us you don't like? Have you heard any of our speakers talk about the issue?

Jnorm said...

Take your time. And I hope all goes well with the dentist.

I only stopped making comments on your blog because I didn't want to talk about these things in front of non-Christians. It just felt weird and uncomfortable. Islam has a long history in using the things that divide Christians to their advantage. They will use it to keep us apart. Divide and conquer. This was the main reason why EO and OO were kept apart for so long. Before the rise of Islam we were constantly in and out of communion. Yes, 451 A.D. wasn't the real breaking point. The real breaking point was a century or two later.


1.) But yeah, it seems as if you are trying real hard to make it seem as if Jesus isn't Divine. Also, do you believe that all the gospels were written in Hebrew / Aramaic? Or just the Gospel of Matthew? Why don't you see the Greek as being Inspired? Because of variations? What does that have to do with anything? Some degree of variation is going to exist.
If a level of variation existed in the first century, and if they (in the first century) still saw Scripture as being Inspired, then shouldn't we today still see variation filled Scripture as being Inspired? If it didn't bother them then why should it bother us?


2.) Why don't you see translations as being Inspired by God? If there is an aspect of God that is always incomprehensible and if God has to use Accomodation in the Inscripturation process, then wouldn't that also imply some form of dynamism instead of stasis in the area of Inspiration and Inerrancy? Wouldn't that imply that Translations can also be Inspired?

Jnorm said...

3.) Also I've noticed that you had trouble with the councils as being infallible. I saw that you noticed the difference between the Old Nicene party vs the New Nicene party. For some reason this bothers you. Why? It doesn't bother me. You do know that there were local councils between Nicea and Constantinople 1? And so in my mind the new interpretation was valid.

You seem to believe in some form of stasis or 100% absolute uniformity when it comes to the issue of Truth. When it comes to Truth, sometimes you gotta have some flexibility or else you are gonna break like concrete once you run into something messy.


4.) Also, what is it about our view of the Trinity that you don't like? From my end, I think we are extremely close to the Pre-Nicene views. Out of all the groups (EO, Rome, and Protestantism) we are the closest! So what is it about us you don't like? Have you heard any of our speakers talk about the issue?

Jnorm said...

Lets forget about Tertullian's corporeal soul doctrine for just one second.

What are your thoughts about what he said here?
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xiii.html (the whole chapter)

and

Tertullian
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.iii.xxi.html
Apology: Chapter XXI
We have already asserted that God made the world, and all which it contains, by His Word, and Reason, and Power. It is abundantly plain that your philosophers, too, regard the Logos—that is, the Word and Reason—as the Creator of the universe. For Zeno lays it down that he is the creator, having made all things according to a determinate plan; that his name is Fate, and God, and the soul of Jupiter, and the necessity of all things. Cleanthes ascribes all this to spirit, which he maintains pervades the universe. And we, in like manner, hold that the Word, and Reason, and Power, by which we have said God made all, have spirit as their proper and essential substratum, in which the Word has in being to give forth utterances, and reason abides to dispose and arrange, and power is over all to execute. We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun—there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. The material matrix remains entire and unimpaired, though you derive from it any number of shoots possessed of its qualities; so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, 35is in His birth God and man united. The flesh formed by the Spirit is nourished, grows up to manhood, speaks, teaches, works, and is the Christ



Ok, do you feel that his corporeal doctrine nullifies everything he had to say about the issue? Do you feel that we can't use him as a reference because of it?


He clearly saw the Father and Son as being of the same Substance.

Earlier I showed how Justin Marty saw them as being of the same Essence or undivided. And so I don't know if you can say that the idea of a "Unity in Substance or Essence" was brand new.

David Waltz said...

Hi Jnorm,

Finally have some time to spend on your recent comments. In your 11-06-10 (6:45PM) post you wrote:

>> 1.) In regards to scholars:

They often do come with bias. How many western scholars do you know that have something good to say about the LXX? Not to many!

Also, what does one mean by "Jewish recentions" of the LXX?

The Early Christians (Justin Marty) didn't consider the newer jewish greek translations of aquilla and...I forgot the other name, but they didn't consider that as being part of the LXX text family. And so when you say oldest jewish LXX available.....what do you mean? The NT quoted from the LXX and it didn't use what you are trying to assert about the 1st century LXX family....also what do you mean by oldest surviving jewish LXX recentions? Do you mean the ones by aquilla and so and so?

What does later non-believing Greek translations have to do with Christians? Also, in order to be consistent, it would seem as if you would have to say that the 2nd century christians not only changed their LXX text family, but also the four Gospels as well.>>

Me: I think you are referring to Jewish recensions/revisions, which are Greek versions of the OT that come after the 1st century AD. The so-called 'original' LXX is the Jewish Greek version of the OT the pre-dates the first century AD.

As for "western scholars" and the LXX, I think the manuscript evidence speaks to the concerns that exist among the consensus of LXX scholars. We just don't know for sure exactly what the LXX was for we only have a few fragments from the actual period of the composition of the 'original' LXX.

>> You seem to go out of your way to deny the traditional Christian belief about Jesus being Divine.

Why go through all this trouble?>>

Me: I do not deny that the Logos of God, the pre-incarnate Son of God, was NOT divine; I affirm that He was/is divine—what I currently am NOT able to affirm is that the Logos/Son of God is "the one God" and/or autotheos.

>> 2.) Tertullian and his corporeal soul doctrine. I only saw that in regards to humans, Angels, and the spiritual world in general.....like in Hades. I could be wrong, but I didn't see that in regards to God. But even with that, the west still made use of the word Consubstantial, and as seen with Nicea, the word doesn't have to have a material connotation.>>

Me: Agreed.

>> I've noticed your quotes of Tertullian about Wisdom being created...as probably quoted from Scripture. But I didn't see any quotes by you in where the Logos is Eternal?

Why didn't you quote about their belief of the Logos being in the bosom of the Father? You made it seem as if they believed that there was a time in where the Logos didn't exist. From what I saw, they always saw the Logos as existing!>>

Me: The early CFs held to what patristic scholars have termed the "two-stage Logos theory"—i.e. the Logos un-uttered, and the Logos uttered; the Logos internal and the Logos external. That I why Tertullian could say in one sense that the Logos was eternal, and yet in another that "there was a time the Son was not."

>> I really don't understand why you are fighting the idea of the Logos Incarnated as being Divine.>>

Me: Once again, I do NOT deny that the Logos is divine.

cont'd

David Waltz said...

cont'd

>>Justin Marty
"For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing."

Justin Marty
"I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.">>

Me: Justin also wrote...

==Then I replied, “I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things — above whom there is no other God — wishes to announce to them.” (Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 56 – ANF 1.223.)

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed. (First Apology, ch. 13 – ANF 1.166, 167; see also ch. 60.)==

There is also the very important reference from Justin concerning "the other good angels":

==Hence we are called atheists. And we confess that we are atheist, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us theses things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore. (First Apology, ch. 6 – ANF 1.164.)==

cont'd

David Waltz said...

cont'd

>>I only stopped making comments on your blog because I didn't want to talk about these things in front of non-Christians. It just felt weird and uncomfortable. Islam has a long history in using the things that divide Christians to their advantage. They will use it to keep us apart. Divide and conquer. This was the main reason why EO and OO were kept apart for so long. Before the rise of Islam we were constantly in and out of communion. Yes, 451 A.D. wasn't the real breaking point. The real breaking point was a century or two later.>>

Me: I understand your reticence, but I think Muslims need to keep in mind that Islam is divided too. One important Hadith states that Islam would be divided into 73 sects, of which only one would be "true", with the other 72 headed for hell. (See this LINK for the Hadith and additional information.)

>>1.) But yeah, it seems as if you are trying real hard to make it seem as if Jesus isn't Divine. Also, do you believe that all the gospels were written in Hebrew / Aramaic? Or just the Gospel of Matthew? Why don't you see the Greek as being Inspired? Because of variations? What does that have to do with anything? Some degree of variation is going to exist.

If a level of variation existed in the first century, and if they (in the first century) still saw Scripture as being Inspired, then shouldn't we today still see variation filled Scripture as being Inspired? If it didn't bother them then why should it bother us?>>

Me: Just Matthew. As for "inspiration", I would argue that reliable translations of the autographa are in some sense "inspired" since they accurately relate what was communicated in the originals. However, with that said, they are NOT "God-breathed" in the SAME SENSE as autographa.

>>2.) Why don't you see translations as being Inspired by God? If there is an aspect of God that is always incomprehensible and if God has to use Accomodation in the Inscripturation process, then wouldn't that also imply some form of dynamism instead of stasis in the area of Inspiration and Inerrancy? Wouldn't that imply that Translations can also be Inspired?>>

Me: Good questions, and I do not have concrete answers. For now though, the relationship between 'revelation', 'inspiration', 'illumination' needs to be properly defined, for I have noticed that some use the terms interchangeably.

QUESTION: Do you believe that revelation from God continued past the apostolic age?

>>3.) Also I've noticed that you had trouble with the councils as being infallible. I saw that you noticed the difference between the Old Nicene party vs the New Nicene party. For some reason this bothers you. Why? It doesn't bother me. You do know that there were local councils between Nicea and Constantinople 1? And so in my mind the new interpretation was valid.

You seem to believe in some form of stasis or 100% absolute uniformity when it comes to the issue of Truth. When it comes to Truth, sometimes you gotta have some flexibility or else you are gonna break like concrete once you run into something messy.>>

Me: The threads under the label Councils delineate my current concerns about the councils and infallibility. Perhaps you could address my concerns ONE point at a time so I can understand your position with clarity, and then allow for me to respond.

cont'd

David Waltz said...

cont'd

>>4.) Also, what is it about our view of the Trinity that you don't like? From my end, I think we are extremely close to the Pre-Nicene views. Out of all the groups (EO, Rome, and Protestantism) we are the closest! So what is it about us you don't like? Have you heard any of our speakers talk about the issue?>>

Me: I too believe, as you, that the EO are much closer to " the Pre-Nicene views" than the RCC and Prots; however, there remains some differences (at least according to my current understanding).

I think it is important for all who are reading my threads and comments to keep in mind that I am not attempting to convert and/or de-convert ANYONE. At this time in my walk with God, I am merely expressing some of my concerns and research.

Thank you so much for taking the time to read and interact with my musings; I sincerely appreciate the fact that you have done so, and look forward to continued dialogue with you.

God bless,

David

Jnorm said...

I'm sorry for taking so long to respond back. Please forgive me. I have been working on a paper.

David said:
"As for "western scholars" and the LXX, I think the manuscript evidence speaks to the concerns that exist among the consensus of LXX scholars. We just don't know for sure exactly what the LXX was for we only have a few fragments from the actual period of the composition of the 'original' LXX."


Jnorm:
Ok, I see. I'm just always skeptical when it comes to this issue for it seems as if noone has anything good to say about the LXX family of texts.



David said:
"I do not deny that the Logos of God, the pre-incarnate Son of God, was NOT divine; I affirm that He was/is divine—what I currently am NOT able to affirm is that the Logos/Son of God is "the one God" and/or autotheos."


Jnorm:
Oh I see. If used in that context then yes I would agree, however, there is another context. What are your thoughts to what Tertullian says here?

Quote:
""Quote:
"That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement that at no time proceeds out of our mouths. I will therefore not speak of Gods at all, nor of Lords, but I will follow the apostle. So that if the Father and the Son are both to be invoked, I will call the Father "God" and invoke Jesus Christ as "Lord." But when Christ alone [is spoken of], I will be able to call Him "God," as the same apostle says " Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever. For I should give the name "Sun" even to a sunbeam, when considered by itself. But if I were to mention the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I do not make two suns, still I will reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance-just as God and His Word, the Father and the Son.""


Tertullian was still able to call Him God. Yes, it was in a different context. One that didn't confuse Persons, but he was still able to do it. Also when Tertullian talks about a Sun and it's beam, I think this is the image he had in mind:

here

What say you?

Jnorm said...

David Said:
"Me: The early CFs held to what patristic scholars have termed the "two-stage Logos theory"—i.e. the Logos un-uttered, and the Logos uttered; the Logos internal and the Logos external. That I why Tertullian could say in one sense that the Logos was eternal, and yet in another that "there was a time the Son was not."


Jnorm:
True, but what say you? Our Post Niceane Triniterian tradition is more guarded in it's language due to the rise of Modalism and Arianism......mainly Arianism. And so now we talk about the Son in regards to both the external as well as the internal. But I feel that the essence of our view is still the same.
The Fullness of Christ in the Gospel of John

What say you?

Jesus - The Word of God


David said:
"Once again, I do NOT deny that the Logos is divine."

Jnorm:
Thanks for clarifying. And I'm sorry for pressing you like this. I just didn't know.


David said:
"Justin also wrote..."

Jnorm:
If the Father is the Source then where is the problem? In regards to the issue of "the other good Angels":
Jesus - Angel and Apostle Now if you had in mind the idea of reverence to the same degree as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit then I would have to disagree. What is said here by Justin is somewhat ambigious. He doesn't say this in other places when talking about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Surely there is something about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that is unique.

Jnorm said...

David said:
"Me: I understand your reticence, but I think Muslims need to keep in mind that Islam is divided too. One important Hadith states that Islam would be divided into 73 sects, of which only one would be "true", with the other 72 headed for hell. (See this LINK for the Hadith and additional information.)"

Jnorm:
Thanks for the link and understanding as to why I am reticent.


David said:
"QUESTION: Do you believe that revelation from God continued past the apostolic age?"


Jnorm:
Good question, in one sense no, but in another sense yes. I'll have to review and re-read some stuff just to make sure.



David said:
"The threads under the label Councils delineate my current concerns about the councils and infallibility. Perhaps you could address my concerns ONE point at a time so I can understand your position with clarity, and then allow for me to respond."


Jnorm:
I'll look at it, but I'm writing a paper at the moment and so it might take a while.


David said:
"I too believe, as you, that the EO are much closer to " the Pre-Nicene views" than the RCC and Prots; however, there remains some differences (at least according to my current understanding).

I think it is important for all who are reading my threads and comments to keep in mind that I am not attempting to convert and/or de-convert ANYONE. At this time in my walk with God, I am merely expressing some of my concerns and research.

Thank you so much for taking the time to read and interact with my musings; I sincerely appreciate the fact that you have done so, and look forward to continued dialogue with you."


Jnorm:
Understood! Thanks for the inter-action

David Waltz said...

Hi Jnorm,

You posted the following:

>>What are your thoughts to what Tertullian says here?

Quote:
""Quote:
"That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement that at no time proceeds out of our mouths. I will therefore not speak of Gods at all, nor of Lords, but I will follow the apostle. So that if the Father and the Son are both to be invoked, I will call the Father "God" and invoke Jesus Christ as "Lord." But when Christ alone [is spoken of], I will be able to call Him "God," as the same apostle says " Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever. For I should give the name "Sun" even to a sunbeam, when considered by itself. But if I were to mention the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I do not make two suns, still I will reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance-just as God and His Word, the Father and the Son.""


Tertullian was still able to call Him God. Yes, it was in a different context. One that didn't confuse Persons, but he was still able to do it...

What say you?>>

Me: Tertullian is attempting to describe, IMO, the fundamental teaching that the Father is "the one God", in the sense that He, and He alone is the 'fount' of divinity. So, in this sense, one cannot speak of "two Gods"; and yet, because the Son/Logos is truly begotten from the Father, he too is divine.

Now, with that said, Justin, Origen, Eusebius and other CFs actually spoke of "another" God, and/or of "two Gods", but in a sense that does not deny that the Father, and the Father alone, is "the one God".


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Jnorm,

Thanks much for the links to the 3 podcasts. I am looking forward to listening to them, but it will probably be Monday or Tuesday before I can do so. I am sure that once I have done so, I will have some thoughts to share.


Take care and God bless,

David