----- Original Message ----- From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
> John, you say > "A second reason for the confusion (as I understand it) is > that God did not chose to explain Himself to us. Without "official" > explanation, we have only conjecture. Each of the three are there, in the > inspired text. I am afraid that if we try to explain what has not been > fully revealed, we give the enemy another target." > > I say > I can't let this go without weighing in. Please bear with me. This > quote conjures pictures in my head of a couple bored tea-drinkers trying to > think of something to do with the rest of their day. "Well," said one of > them, "why don't we conjecture something about God." The other one says, > "Yes, let's do, and why don't we make it about something which has never > been talked about." And since they were bored and ornery, they spent not > only the rest of the day, but the rest of their lives building on this > imaginary doctrine, the fallout being that we here in the 21st century can't > figure out how to get away from their conjectures and back to something more > biblical to say about the God of the Bible. > > Well, that is just ridiculous. [:-) The Trinity/person language of the 3rd > century developed out of real-time struggles to preserve biblical truths > about God and the Incarnation. It's not like Arius, the heretic who started > the controversy, did not believe the Bible was the word of God. He was a > very devout man. He believed the things he said about Jesus Christ, and he > thought they were biblical. The problem was, he thought the Bible taught > there was a time when the Son was not. Well now, if that were true, what > would it do to the Hebrew idea of one - ness? What would the unity of God > become if the Son and Holy Spirit just happened to disappear? Unity demands > a coming together, a subject-object relationship. A single mark on a piece > of paper is not unity. It is nothing more than a singularity. The Hebrew God > cannot be who he is, if two of the three participants are not involved and > not eternal. All he is then is just an idea, a mark on a piece of paper. The > early fathers knew that something must be done to preserve this > Hebrew/biblical one - ness reality of God. > > The question was, how was the church going to convince a man who believed > the Bible that he was wrong about what the Bible taught? How were they going > to convince his followers that he was wrong. The church did the only thing > it could do; it developed ways of clarifying and defending and talking about > biblical truths about the Godhead and the incarnate Son. Hence we have the > doctrines of the Trinity and personhood. > > The answer now, it seems to me, is not to trash the language -- as if that > will make the controversy go away -- but to learn how to speak it in a way > that is both historically and biblically accurate, while meaningful and > true. > > Thanks, > Bill Taylor > > > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity > > >Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 18:14:57 EST > > > > > >In a message dated 3/9/2004 1:55:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > > > > > > we get in to in these "Trinity" discussions arise not because of the > > > > threeness idea of the Trinity but because of the oneness idea we have > > >about "God." > > > > > >Another new guy on the list. Hi. > > > > > > I am thinking that such discussions arise because we insist on speaking > > >in > > >non-biblical terms. "Trinity" is our word. "Godhead" is the biblical > > >word. > > >With "Godhead" there is little doubt that a bunch of first century flat > > >foots (the 12 apostles) would see a problem that was anywhere close to > the > > >first > > >century issue of considering Christ to be God. Let's not forget that in > > >Old > > >Testament scripture, God Almighty and the Spirit of God are everywhere > but > > >the > > >Jews only thought in terms of oneness. There were no "dualist" nor > > >"trinitarians" in the Pentecost crowd the day of the first Christian > > >sermon. > > > > > > > > >A second reason for the confusion (as I understand it) is that God did > not > > >chose to explain Himself to us. Without "official" explanation, we have > > >only > > >conjecture. Each of the three are there, in the inspired text. I am > > >afraid that if we try to explain what has not been fully revealed, we > give > > >the > > >enemy another target. > > > > > >John Smithson > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Store more e-mails with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage - 4 plans to choose > from! > > http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/ > > > > ---------- > > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may > know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a > friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
