(If you haven't read my introduction, go to the orientation section and do so please, that way I won't seem like a stranger.)

Okay gang, here's my question for everyone.

After thinking about the United Pentacostals, and the fact that I'll probably be doind a research paper that will involve some of the early Christian creeds this question has popped up in my mind.

I believe in the Trininity, I accept it, and can see it's references in scripture. But if I can play devil's advocate here, believing in the Trinity almost sounds like an attempt to reconcile away contridiction.

It's an important thing to consider when you try to contrast Christianity with the illogical premises of New Age Relativism. I also have heard its one of the things that Islam uses to attack Christianity.

Hey Jin... a logical contradiction is that "A" cannot be "not A" in the same way at the same time. The Trinity does not posit such a situation as we do not say that there are three Gods and one God, but that there is One What (the Being of God) and Three Whos (persons formed and completed on the basis of relationship within the One God).

Abstract? Yes.
Difficult? Yes.
Without exact parallel? Yes.

Contradiction? No.

I understand that much. Let me flesh out the Devil's Advocate arguement.

Shifts into major Devil's advocate mode.

"The Old Testament refers to one God who has always been God and recognizes no other gods (Duet 6, Isaiah 44), yet in the New Testament we start to see three seperate beings (Matt 3) as well as frequent references to "The Father Son and the Holy Spirit" --all of which are divine. This is completely unheard of in the OT. By saying "three personalities = one God" isn't that just trying to explain away to conflict between the one entity the prophets described and the three entities the Apostles talke about?"

shifts out of major Devil's Advocate mode

-edited for grammar

But from a different angle.

The problem posed is that in the O.T. God is one God and in the N.T. He is suddenly three persons, correct?

I would say that poses no problem to the idea of the Trinity. What if God simply had not revealed himself fully in the O.T.? Just because God is never revealed to be three persons (as we would describe it) in the O.T. (although I think it's hinted at), does that mean additional revelation concerning His nature is then contradictory?

Turn on Devil's Advocate mode again; it's cool. :rockon:

~Matt

Turn on Devil's Advocate mode again; it's cool.

Okay, since you've asked... :p
Devil's Advocate mode again.

I would say that poses no problem to the idea of the Trinity. What if God simply had not revealed himself fully in the O.T.? Just because God is never revealed to be three persons (as we would describe it) in the O.T. (although I think it's hinted at), does that mean additional revelation concerning His nature is then contradictory?

But could such a thing be percieved as true without the bias of the Bible being inerrant?

Back to normal

(for the record I do think the last responce to the Devil's Advocate challenge makes a qualified answer)

Dawning the angelic cap...wait...nm...

Jin-Roh:

Okay, since you've asked... :p
Devil's Advocate mode again.


But could such a thing be percieved as true without the bias of the Bible being inerrant?

Back to normal

(for the record I do think the last responce to the Devil's Advocate challenge makes a qualified answer)

(Noted.) :)

Such a thing could certainly be perceived as true even IF one considers the Bible to be errant! (Which I'm inclined to believe.) If the Old Testament is not perfect in it's revelation of God, the errant position of the Trinity certainly gains more support; the fully revealed revelation of God in Jesus Christ is the full picture of God, as opposed to partial picture sinful prophets gave us in O.T. Scripture. (Such issues as if God would've allowed the death of children in 1 Samuel 15--I think it's there--can then be reconciled with Jesus who would've never killed anyone.)

So, no, I don't think it's based on the bias that the Bible is inerrant.

Let me know what you think (and your Devil's Advocate side too),
~Matt

both my evil (Devil's Advocate) and Good (normal) side say the same thing this time.

Such a thing could certainly be perceived as true even IF one considers the Bible to be errant! (Which I'm inclined to believe.)

You're inclined to believe the Bible to be errant? If that's so, how do you know what parts are true or not? If one part can be errant, can't any part (including the plan of salvation) also be errant? Where is the line drawn in this matter?

Jin-Roh:
both my evil (Devil's Advocate) and Good (normal) side say the same thing this time.



You're inclined to believe the Bible to be errant? If that's so, how do you know what parts are true or not? If one part can be errant, can't any part (including the plan of salvation) also be errant? Where is the line drawn in this matter?

Please take note that I want to avoid the notion of loosely being able to pick and choose what we want to believe. (Just wanted to clear that up, incase anyone out there was thinking otherwise.)

The the simple jist of errancy is that the Bible is not perfect in it's accounts (and this goes beyond simple mathematical discrepencies) but very close.

With that in mind, having to choose between two conflicting ideas (a very rare event) the standard for Biblical truth is found in the accounts of Christ, the full revelation of God.

Anyway...

Sorry...didn't mean for this to go way off topic. If you'd like to get back to the Trinity, we can do/should do that.

Thanks for listening,
~Matt

Sorry...didn't mean for this to go way off topic. If you'd like to get back to the Trinity, we can do/should do that.

Nah... That conversation will get boring now.

Please take note that I want to avoid the notion of loosely being able to pick and choose what we want to believe.

I understand then. Just as long as you're not among the liberal-protestant camp.

The the simple jist of errancy is that the Bible is not perfect in it's accounts (and this goes beyond simple mathematical discrepencies) but very close.

I've actually read that discrepencies in the details of certain events by diffrent people (the Gospel accounts) actually helps build the case for Christianity. If several witnesses in a court of law all reported the same event, but all the way down to the smallest detial, it actually is cause for suspision. Perfect details from imperfect memories usually means fabrication among the witnesses.

Oh well. Yeah that's off subject.... blah blah

Jin-Roh:
I understand then. Just as long as you're not among the liberal-protestant camp.

Pray for me if I ever become one...

I've actually read that discrepencies in the details of certain events by diffrent people (the Gospel accounts) actually helps build the case for Christianity. If several witnesses in a court of law all reported the same event, but all the way down to the smallest detial, it actually is cause for suspision. Perfect details from imperfect memories usually means fabrication among the witnesses.

Oh well. Yeah that's off subject.... blah blah

Hehe... blah blah talk can be quite interesting actually!

Oh, one more thing that you should know is that the discrepencies in the Gospel are cool (hey, they support errancy!) and that it's mainly the incompatability between some OT and NT ideas (very few, at that) which drive the errant, er, "campaign" (for lack of a better term).

All in all, I don't think true errancy will change any Orthodox doctrines. (But that's just my uninformed speculation...)

Speak with you later,
~Matt

Actually, errancy is what brought about throwing out such texts as I Timothy 2.

Jaltus:
Actually, errancy is what brought about throwing out such texts as I Timothy 2.

I don't mean to takeover Jin-Roh's thead here...but I read 1 Timothy this morning (was sitting around before class) and I was wondering:

What in particular was thrown out? Was it just the whole passage or a doctrine behind it?

Thanks,
~Matt

Specifically, this section was thrown out:

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Jaltus:
Specifically, this section was thrown out:

I think I'll raise a question about that in a new thread...

Thanks for the clarification!

~Matt

If the so-called "law of non-contradiction" is a standard by which the most profound Theological truths are judged, then let us be clear about what we are doing..........
We are, in fact, placing the law of non-contradiction on a higher level of trust than the concept of truth itself; truth is now subject to the law of non-contradiction.
Logic, (as we presently have it), should be subject to the truth of God's revelation, not the other way round.

J G M

Back on topic here: I used to (until about a week ago) be a sound believer of the trinity, but then I saw a thread, I thought about it, reached a conlusion: This doesn't make sense! This is
NOT supported by scripture!

The trinity is contradictory, we have THREE that are ONE in the same time! If you say that it is ONE God and THREE persons I have to ask you, what does that mean? One person, one mind, capable of making decisions, events, being INDEPENDENT. Yet at the same time he is a part of another being/person/entity/whatever, how? In what way is he still ONE with the other "persons"? He may be in their likeness, cooperating and acting as one, but he is still not ONE with the other persons. Summary: In what way are they ONE?

Specifically, this section was thrown out:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Yes, that sounds about right, fiddle or throw out Gods word, because our feminist views are more importent,. Yay 60's and liberalism!