- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
hoghead1…..IF wehave the scriptures ourselves today,why shuold we even care what other past church leaders have said., I tend toagree with Nick on this, if a person has the spirit of truth in them why should they care about past church doctrinal infusions, it should make no difference to them, while it can give some historical understands of others, who cares? I have studied about many of them over the years and books written that were not included in our present bibles, none of that makes any difference, so what if this person believed this way or that way, that only makes a difference to people who are dominated by the churchs they attend, or to church historians.
When we boil it all down, it is the “TRUTH” that counts, and those led by the spirit of truth that abides in them are “taught” by it. Just as it is written, John 2:27, ” but the anointing which you have recieved of him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and “is” truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in him”.
And again, in John 14:26, JESUS tells us the samething.
hoghead1 there is no end to books and accounts and “opinions” given by thousands of past “church” believers, but who needs it, it’s only good for historical information regarding church history, but serves no other good regarding the truth of God, “personally” IMO.
peace and love to you and yours. …….gene
Hi hoghead1:
It is not the church fathers that should determine Christian doctrine, but the scriptures themselves.
God has said, speaking to the Nation of Israel:
Exodus 20:3-6 ESV
“You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
And Jesus stated in speaking to the Samaritan woman in John 4:
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
The established church that claims to be Orthodox in their doctrines worship Jesus as God. He is due all praise, glory, and honor, and no one can come to the Father but by him, but he is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, not God himself. That is what God our Father has revealed to us through the Apostle Peter in Matthew 16:
Jesus said:
John 17King James Version (KJV)
17 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
We as children of God, from the head of the church down to he who is the very least in the body of Christ should worship our Father as the scriptures state “in Spirit and in truth”.
I would say that the to worship anything or anyone as God other than the “One True God” fits the definition of idolatry.
Love in Christ,
MartyHello, Nick,
I don’t follow you on the Trinity and the Babylonian one. Babylonian what? Bible? I don’t know of any Babylonian Bible. The word “Trinity” is not found anywhere in Scripture. As I said many times earlier, Scripture strongly implies a Trinity, but does not spell it out in any detail, as Scripture is not a book of systematic theology or metaphysics. Hence, the Trinitarian doctrines are generally extra-biblical in nature.
Hello, Gene,
I’m not sure I’m quite getting my point across, so let me try this. You don’t have to be a Constitutional attorney to be a good American and live a rich, full life. However, you should have some at least knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and welcome the opportunity to gain more, if the opportunity presents itself. If we are going to get anywhere, we need to know our roots as best we can. The more we learn, the richer our lives become. Our goal should be to feel more deeply into ourselves and to feel more deeply into others. Studying past is a key step here. Identifying with the emotional lives of our ancestors is essential for us to feel more deeply into ourselves and others as well. Now, of course, that doesn’t mean we should all become major, tenured history professors, like Shelby Foote, who is an expert on the Civil War, or spend hours and hours looking at documentaries made by Ken Burns. Well, yes, I do, but that’s me, and another story. But, I mean, one should at least make some effort to know the about the Civil War. I am a member of the operations crew and past president of an all-volunteer (wish we’d be paid) historical rail society that rebuilt and operates a historic 19th-century steam locomotive. We give rides, lectures, turns of the engine, you name it. Great fun. Also, we get state and local financial help. In fact, the state built us a railroad museum, which we operate. Many tourists ride with us and just enjoy riding. They don’t ask many questions about the engine, etc. That’s OK, too. However, the knowledge base is there for people who want to learn more about this major chapter of American history. That’s the important thing. We’re not Stalinist Russia, where railroads were considered top secret, you weren’t even allowed to have a model train set, definitely not allowed to photograph trains, ask questions, or get any information about them, period. We don’t operate that way in the free world. Now, just as you don’t need to become a Shelby Foote or past president of a steam railroad, you don’t need to become a theologian or biblical scholar, either. However, the more knowledge you gain, the richer your experience becomes. So it is important that some members of the society become deeply imbued in these matters. You and other members here have joined a theology discussion group. In so doing, you do express interest in studying and learning more about theology, church history, biblical studies, etc. So I am surprised at the lack of interest here that some of you express.
It is also important to remember that many past ideas and traditions are alive and well and living with us today. Much of the SOP of modern-day trains is a carryover from the steam era, for example. So you can’t just sluff off church history, by saying, “Oh, well, that’s back then. That’s all passé today. Nobody thinks that way any more. We don’t need it. Let’s just forget it.” As I said before, with someone like Calvin or other major Reformers or even the earlier fathers, many of their concepts are still followed today, for better or worse. Not everything they said should be engraved in stone, and not everything they preached should be just forgotten about either. I wish I had a nickel for every time someone tried to tell me, “Look, I’m getting such-and-such an idea directly from the pages of Scripture ,” when in point of actual fact, that idea came most directly from the teachings of the fathers, tradition, etc., and may or may not accurately represent Scripture. For me, it’s not enough for someone to say, “I know I’m right. I read the Bible and the Spirit moved me to say such-and-such.” As I said before, that is what every kook and fanatic in the book claims. I need to see a solid case made, a solid argument presented on the basis of as many factors as you can work in; theology, biblical studies, philosophy, you name it. The Reformation centered on developing a better, real “check-it-out” attitude. Problem is, many today just want to go Bible dipping and skip check-it-out part. Religion is a communal experience, and so yes, you should get input from others. After all, you did join a discussion group, didn’t you?
Hello, Marty,
I am inclined to agree with you, provided a number of necessary qualifiers are put into place. Now, I’m not trying to kill everything here, with a million qualifiers. But truth is, some very important qualifiers must be brought into play. First, many key issues faced are not at all directly dealt with by Scripture . One telling example is the Trinity, where Scripture implies a Trinity, but does not work it out in any real detail. Scripture is not a book of metaphysics, dos not tell us much about how God is build, largely provides but snap shots that often conflict. Hence, it is up to us to put all these pieces together , if we can, into a meaningful whole. Second, the Bible is subject to more than one interpretation. An interesting example is marriage and polygamy. Many Christians automatically assume polygamy is to be ruled out. But the OT encourages it. Luther encouraged Prince Philip to take more than o ne wife, this to stop a scandal. When asked how he could do that, Luther said he couldn’t forbid a man from having more than one wife, as Scripture dos not do so. Thirdly, we fist have to de4rmine what is canon and what not. Largely, that has been a matter of teh church fathers, which is why Protestant Bible dropped teh Apocrypha, whereas Catholic Bibles retained it. The early Jewish community itself was divided over what constitutes the canon. In addition, there have been three basic models of authority handed down and available in Christianity. There is church-type Christianity, where the church is the ultimate authority. There is sect-type Christianity, where the Bible is ultimate authority. There is mystical-type Christianity, where the individual’s own experiences are the ultimate authority. All can be shown to have a definite biblical basis. Which are you going to choose? Christianity is not a monolithic religion, just all one way. Christianity has always represented a rich plurality of divergent viewpoints. Fourthly, divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible is still the product of a prescientific, sexist, racist culture, and therefore contains many laws and principles we would be very uncomfortable with today. Remember, the Bible sanctifies slavery (see Exod. 21), wh9ich was a major rationale the old South used, specially Jefferson Davis.
Hi Hoghead,
One man’s possible implications are nonsense to another.
Find your trinity taught in scripture or you are just another who offers the words of a stranger.
Hello, Nick,
I already addressed this issue with you. I do not like repeating myself. I would suggest you read over more carefully my earlier posts to you.
hoghead1….. I have studied many, many, many, historical acounts of different teachings and how they effected the Churches teachings over the years, over many years, and while they provided me with some “church” history, they also provideed me with the understanding of how the truth of GOD was corrupted through their false teachings. I also learned how the waters of truth were muddied by them, that is all I got out of them. You seem to want to make a case of right trinitarian perceptions, when in fact the trinitary doctrine is pure IDOLATRY.
Why should anyone want to dig into the rational of false teachers, and see if they can find grounds for agreement with them? what does the truth have to do with falsehood? IT is simply a waste of time a person to seek to justify a false teaching as the trinity, no matter how subtile those formers wove it into the fabric of the the church of God. The driving force behind it was satan himself.
“O” by the way seening you are a studious person, have you read “THE ORTHODOX CORRUPTION of SCRIPTURES” written by Bart D. Ehrman, also his book on “MISQUOTING JESUS”, you should find them quite enlighting.
Bottom line without the spirut of truth in a person he will be lead into all kinds of misunderstandings and confusion by trying to find a place for the truth in a man, no matter if he is a “church father”. I like to keep it simple , “we have “ONE” TRUE GOD”, and ‘ONE” MEDIATOR, between that God and man “THE MAN” Jesus Christ, no need to complicate it by bringing into play the “possible” theologies of men. IMO
peace and love to you and yours. ……….gene
Hi hoghead1:
You say:
I am inclined to agree with you, provided a number of necessary qualifiers are put into place. Now, I’m not trying to kill everything here, with a million qualifiers. But truth is, some very important qualifiers must be brought into play. First, many key issues faced are not at all directly dealt with by Scripture . One telling example is the Trinity, where Scripture implies a Trinity, but does not work it out in any real detail.
Although there are scriptures which we may need to study with prayer to get the proper interpretation, the following scriptures do not subject to interpretation but are statements of fact.
Matt. 16:
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(This is what our Heavenly Father has revealed to us. He did not say that Jesus is “God the Son”.)
John 17King James Version (KJV)
17 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
1 Co. 8:
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
And so, when we seek to understand John 1 our interpretation must line up with what Jesus has stated here. God is not the author of confusion. The church teaches the “Trinity doctrine” and it can’t even explain it. And many Jews and Muslims will not come to the faith when the church teaches that Jesus is God.
That men different understanding of various scriptures is true, and that is evidenced by the various denominations in the so called Christian church, but that does not mean that God meant to say one thing to you and another to me by the scriptures. The Apostle Peter stated the following in 2 Peter
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
That men in the OT had more than one wife is true, but according to Jesus that is not what God intended, neither in Genesis 2 or Matt. 19:
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
You say:
Christianity is not a monolithic religion, just all one way. Jesus prayed that we would be one in John 17:
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Is there more than “One True church”?
Jesus stated the following in Matthew 16:
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Ephesians 4:10-14King James Version (KJV)
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 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;
Love in Christ,
MartyGene,
Have you read Bart Ehrman’s Orthodox Corruption of Scripture or Misquoting Jesus? Ehrman certainly doesn’t support your views either.
Hello, Marty,
I beg to disagree. The passages you brought up are subject to more than one interpretation. Also, you failed to bring up biblical passages that strongly imply the Trinity, such as the prologue to Jn., among others. You have to remember that the Trinitarians are aware of these and other passages, and have included them in their final analysis. That’s why I encourage members to carefully review the literature on the Trinity.
Sorry, Gene, I have to call your bluff here. I honestly don’t think you have done a particularly careful study at all of the history of doctrine, most especially the Trinity. You appear to have done some reading. Fine. But I am thinking from the standpoint of a serious academic study. That’s OK. Certainly not every one has the time to do something like that. I’m just stating honestly that you do not have a solid enough informational base to make your conclusions stick in any definitive way. Also, You claim you want to avoid the theologies of men, but that’s exactly what you have brought in and insisting upon here: Your own homespun theology of the Trinity. As such, it is subject to criticism.
Nobody says you have to agree with the fathers or traditions. I know I don’t. I think the classical model of God was way too lopsided and unrealistic to be of any real use today. I also think the substance metaphysics of the classical model is what has caused all sorts of problems with the Trinity. However, I fist began by thoroughly grounding myself in the traditional teachings, so that I could very carefully lay out their rational and then offer a solid, rational rebuttal point by point. As yet, you have failed to demonstrate anything near that. Hence, your posts come across as largely lusty slavos of inflammatory rhetoric aimed at casting aspersion on the character of Christians who hold with the Trinity. As such, your posts fail to contribute anything constructive to the discussion at hand. Sorry, but they really don’t.
Also, as already noted, Ehrmans does not blatantly deny the Trinity, as you do.
ANDREWAD…..Yes I have read them, and as far as his personal points of views, I really don’t know, but his books bring out a lot of truth i believe espically on the way some scriptures “got” corrupted. I really don’t see where he is in disagreement to what i have said but mabe he is,i don’t know AndrewAD.
peace and love to you and yours. …….gene
Hi hoghead1:
If your interpretation to the prologue to John 1 or the other scriptures that you say imply the “Trinity doctrine” do not line up with what Jesus said in John 17:3 and what the Apostle Paul stated in 1 Co. 8:5-6, and what God has revealed to us that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” in Matt. 16:16-17, then your interpretation is not correct.
You are free to disagree with me if you wish, and I pray that God will bring us into unity.
Love in Christ,
Martyhoghead1….You have a right to your opinions of me and others here, but to say i haven’t done any serious study about the TRINITRY is untrue, i have and am in agreement of many well known teachers , as i have listed, it appears to me and others here it is you who haven’t done any “serious” critical studies of the trinity, but only have tried to view it from the point of orthodox christanity. ANYONE who believes Jesus is a GOD, somehow in a exclusive triune complex relationship. Has in my opinion bought into the biggest LIE ever fostered on humanity. I HAVE “ONLY’ “ONE” “TRUE” GOD , those arn’t my words by the way , Jesus said them, i only just repeated them, so it boils down to, who do you believe, Jesus or your own “historically” influenced reasonings gathered from the reasoning of men who support IDOLATRY.
Like i said before there is not end to books and teaching of others, i have concluded i have no need for any of them, i trust in GOD AND HIS WORDS, and he said there is “no” GOD BESIDES HIM, and i really think that is simple and clear, anyone who can read should be able to clearly understand that, no need for “serious” studies of people who try to avoid those clear word. IMO
peace and love to you and yours. …….gene
Gene,a s I suggested earlier, you maybe should tone it down a bit. All this name-calling, calling Trinitarians all liars, is pure yellow-dog journalism that has no place in serious theological discussion. That doesn’t you have to agree with everything, just that you should skip all this hollering and present a solid case. You say you are just going on Scripture, not the opinions of others. But see, you aren’t. It seems you are largely influenced by major contemporary thinker such as Ehrmans, who is an atheist, by his admission, and anti-Trinitarian. Now, that’s OK. However, you should be at least point out out what contemporary sources you are relying on and also present their case. You, like everyone else, are looking at Scripture through a lens. We all have to do that. That’s OK as long as you point out your lens.
Can y0u explain to me, Marty, why you believe the biblical passages you cited do not square what I said abut Jn.? You just say they don’t. OK, fine. But that’s not enough. Why do you say that? After all, the fathers were also aware of these same passages and they saw no problem. What are you seeing that you feel they have overlooked? I need to know that if I am going to give a meaningful response to your post.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
