Hi javajoe,
No one here on earth has all the truth or understanding, we are in absolute agreement there. I too came here with some baggage left over not really exclusively from my limited church experience but even more so from all the books I read from christian Ph.D's, prophets, evangelists, etc. It takes some time to have these man made theories, doctrines and future scenarios purged from our minds. It requires perseverance and patience, two traits that were not exactly strong points for me!
But with God "all things are possible." (Matt 19:26, Mark 10:27)
Seeking and absorbing Scriptural Truth should be our focus and although we will never have a complete understanding of all things while in the flesh the Lord knows our hearts and whether we are seeking diligently or are slothful, easily accepting man made doctrine as a matter of convenience or as an idol of the heart.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Christ seems a bit rigid in this verse, "in vain" seems like something we really do not want to be doing, I know that I have come to the point where when I have an opinion or feeling about a thing I tend to put it on hold until I can find Scriptural witnesses, and even then I still find a way to screw up!
Here is a portion from Ray's "Trinity" paper that I found to be appropriate here, for both topics in this thread.
Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 2, page 480:
(quote) TRINITY. Fundamental Conception.--This conception of the Trinity is systematically developed by theologians, Greek, Latin and Protestant...The doctrine, then, is primarily religious and if we define God--as in practice religion does--as ‘That which has an absolute claim upon our obedience’ or as ‘the Supreme Object of our reverence,’ the paradoxical element in the doctrine is at least diminished...Is there, then any insuperable difficulty in the notion of a threefold personal embodiment of the one Divine Will and Character, an embodiment so complete in each case that contact with the Divine Person is contact with God:...This ultimate unity of subordination to a single principle is not necessarily identical with the unity which comes from being included within the mind of a single Divine Being. Nor is it obviously identical with the theologian’s ‘numerical unity of substance.’ The Unity, then, of the Object of our supreme reverence and trust is not plainly inconsistent with the existence of personal distinctions (in the modern sense of the word) within the Godhead. It was probably an afterthought to regard the doctrine of the Trinity as providing a more satisfactory conception of ‘personality in God’ than could grow up under a ‘uninpersonal’ theology. Yet Trinitarianism has some points of superiority over a theory which may compel us to conceive God as waking up at the Creation from ‘an eternity of idleness.’ ...It has been similarly argued that in conceiving the ‘not-self with which God contrasts Himself’ as ‘wholly internal to His essence’ while the unity (the Holy Spirit) ‘within which the relation of the two falls is not, as in us, a dark mystery at the back of our life but something which ‘proceeds from both’ we have ‘the best notion that we can frame of Being at its highest.’ Such an argument lead not merely to a plurality but to a trinity of Divine persons, and supports the Western doctrine of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. (End of Britannica quote).
Wow! What intellectual enlightenment! What an exposition of deep mysteries! What profound theological insight! WHAT A CROCK. . .!!!
I am here to tell you that the above theologian’s rendition of the trinity is nothing but a hodgepodge of unintelligible, dubious, theological, intellectual gobbledygook!! Don’t ever feel inferior or put down by the intellectual vanity of writers like this, who haven’t a clue as to what they are talking about.
I will give someone hundreds of dollars if they can explain to me the above phrase, "wholly internal to His essence." Such intellectual phraseology is wholly meaningless. It is gross nonsense. I guarantee you that the author of this Britannica article could never explain that phrase, "wholly internal to His essence" in anything resembling coherent English. Nor could he explain a dozen other similar phrases and statements in his article regarding the trinity.
Notice what Paul instructs those who would teach God’s Word:
"For if a trumpet, also, should be giving a dubious sound, who will be preparing for battle? THUS, YOU ALSO, if you should not be giving an INTELLIGIBLE expression through the language, HOW WILL IT BE KNOWN WHAT IS BEING SPOKEN?"
Does this verse need any comment? Do any of my readers think for one moment that the theologians responsible for this Britannica article on the trinity follow Paul’s instructions seriously?
God also warns against ...
"Adding to" or "taking away from" His Word (Rev. 22:18-10)
We are to rightly "divide" God’s Word (II Tim. 2:15-18)
We are to "...distinguish the things that DIFFER" (Phil. 1:10)
We are to have a "PATTERN OF SOUND WORDS" (II Tim. 1:13-14)
Also, we are to shun the "TRADITIONS OF MEN" (Col. 2:8)
and the "WISDOM OF THIS WORLD" (I Cor. 1:20 & 3:19)
If the above theologian, and most theologians throughout the world including most clergymen would follow God’s instructions on teaching, there would be millions fewer religious books. And for sure, there would not be millions and millions of words devoted to the futile exercise of trying to prove the one plus one plus one equals ONE trinity of God theory.
Is the Word of God only understood by plowing through tens of thousands of pages of theological speculations as with this Britannica article on the trinity?
By the way, did you catch the phrase, "...the PARADOXICAL element in the doctrine [of the trinity] is at least diminished...?"
Amazingly, even though the doctrine of the trinity is conceded by theologians themselves to be a "hypothesis" that is "illogical," (to which we can now also add "paradoxical"), and let us not forget the most important of all, "non scriptural," one can nonetheless find himself ridiculed and ostracized for not paying homage to this Christian idol of the heart.
I will give just one example of what I mean. I went to the Internet and searched for "trinity doctrine." The first web site I selected from the first grouping was entitled: "Doctrine of the Trinity" By Dr. Ed DeVries, President of the School of Biblical & Theological Studies. His first paragraph makes the following statements:
"Since the word Trinity IS NOT FOUND ANYWHERE IN THE RECEIVED TEXT or in its offspring (the Authorized Version and other biblical translations derived from the received text), many argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT A BIBLICAL ONE. However, when a person comes to understand the THEORY [yes dear readers, we are back to that word "theory" again] that is embodied in the terminology they can NOT HELP BUT FIND PROOF OF THE TRINITY THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE. The doctrine of the Trinity is believed by ALL Christian groups. Some groups profess to be Christian and DO NOT believe in the Trinity, however, NONE OF THESE GROUPS ARE TRULY CHRISTIAN..." (Emphasis mine--of course).
Did you get all that? Notice that in order to "find PROOF of the trinity THROUGHOUT the Bible," all one has to do is come to "understand the THEORY that is EMBODIED in the TERMINOLOGY."
What am I missing? Why does my brain not work like that? Am I an intellectual dunce? I’ll tell you the way my brain works. If I wanted to "find proof of the trinity throughout the Bible," I would not first try to come to "understand the theory that is embodied in the terminology." No, I’m sorry, but I would not do that.
Here is what I would do if I wanted to "find proof of the trinity throughout the Bible," I would... LOOK IN THE BIBLE!!! That’s what I would do. But, I have already done that, and the trinity ‘ain’t’ there! And that my friends is why we are told to we must "understand the THEORY that is EMBODIED in the TERMINOLOGY."
Please understand and believe me when I say that I am not poking fun directly at such teachers as this. I am not, but I am poking fun at their stupid, stupid teachings! God inspired the proverb that teaches us to:
"Answer a fool according to a fool," and to "...expose those who contradict" (Titus 1:9, Concordant Literal New Testament).
Can anyone imagine our Lord saying something like this in Matt. 11:24,
"...for Thou hidest these things from the wise and intelligent and Thou dost reveal them to those who come to understand the theory that is embodied in the terminology."? No, I think not. Jesus said
"Thou dost reveal them to babes [Gk: minors]."
Does anyone really think that the average person would ever tolerate a bank statement that used terminology like the above? Would anyone in their right mind sign a contract using terminology like the above? Would anyone accept a doctor’s diagnosis using the kind of terminology above? But, as I have often said, "When it comes to religion, anything goes."
The above teacher says that one can come up with a term, then develop a theory based on the term [not on truth, not on law, not on the Scriptures, but based on the "term" you have come up with], and finally, when you come to understand the theory embodied in the term, you will then be able [the author doesn’t say whether it is first necessary to say ‘abracadabra’] TO FIND THE TRUTH OF THAT THEORY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF THE BIBLE!? I say that this author raises intellectual foolishness to a level heretofore unknown in the annals of speculative theology.
Listen dear friends; if the "truth" of the trinity could be found not only "throughout the Bible," but ANYWHERE in the Bible, it wouldn’t have to be called a hypothesis or a theory! It is far past time for such ridiculous teachings to be exposed for all to see.
Just a couple more quotes from the above article: "The CONCEPT [is that something like a "theory" or a "hypothesis," a "speculation" or a "conjecture," a "guess"?] of the Trinity is the very CONCEPT OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, and since God reveals himself to his children, it only makes sense [if this "makes sense" I would give a dollar and thirty-five cents to know what "doesn’t make sense" to this man] that ALL Christian churches would believe in and DEFEND [I reckon some could be persuaded to go to war over this unscriptural teaching] the DOCTRINE [‘doctrine?’ isn’t it amazing how quickly theologians can turn a "theory" and a "concept" into a "DOCTRINE" ?] of the Trinity."
When a man with a Doctor’s degree tries to tell me (well not specifically me, it’s just that I was unfortunate enough to bump into his web site) that the very "existence of God" is a "CONCEPT," maybe it is time to log out and disconnect. And to add insult to injury, this "very CONCEPT of the existence of God" is based on his "concept of the Trinity." Let me assure my readers and Dr. DeVries that: TWO "CONCEPTS" DO NOT MADE A "BIBLICAL TRUTH"!!
His Peace and Wisdom to you Brother,
Joe
Author
Topic: 100 To 1 (Read 7966 times)