Cynic

Trefor wrote, "I don't think that all biblical unitarian positions deny Christ's pre existence. "Wierwille did but that did not make him an Arian as Arius did not deny pre existence. I believe that denial of this is called Socinianism." ***** Quite correct. Although both Arianism and Socinianism deny the eternal existence of the Son, Socinians (e.g. Wierwille, CES' principals, various GS posters) hold that Christ had no existence prior to his earthly conception, while Arians (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses) hold that Christ was the first creature created by God.

Trefor, Jolly good post! Wierwille and others' charge that the doctrine of the Trinity entails some logical contradiction requiring that 1+1+1 = 1 is, of course, fallacious. The refutation would work if Trinitarians held that that there were both a singular and a plurality of essences in God, or held that God were both tri-personal and unipersonal. As indicated above, however, Trinitarians hold that God is singular in being (or essence) and tri-personal. Informed, orthodox and intellectually functioning Trinitarians do not assert that God is one and three in the same sense. Such a charge of logical contradiction against the Trinity, therefore, impeaches neither the logical validity nor the soundness of the doctrine. The charge ostensibly involves incredible ignorance or a mere disguised brute denial of the ontological and personal categories that Trinitarians use to communicate a biblically necessary and warranted understanding of God.

DMiller, Informed and orthodox Trinitarians do not maintain that the Father and the Son are the same person. They generally maintain that the being or essence of God is singular and indivisible, and that the being or essence of God exists fully in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit. They equally maintain that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are personally distinct from one another. What they maintain is made necessary by some propositions and indications of Scripture, and is consistent with all others. There is one God -- one uncreated, self-sufficiently existing deity. There are three divine persons -- existing eternally on the Creator side of the Creator/creature distinction. Thus, informed and orthodox Trinitarianism recognizes a singleness of being or essence and a plurality of persons in God. What does all this mean? It means, as D. A. Reed and some others maintain, that in the triune God there are three who's and one what. There is no adequate analogy concerning absolute singleness of undivided being (or essence) dwelling in and among a plurality of particulars that could be gleaned from any of the kinds of existents in this creation to which men's thoughts are bound. ***** “But this God must be what he declares himself to be: the tri-personal, self-subsisting God. Any attenuation at the outset is fatal. ‘The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are each a personality and together constitute the exhaustively personal God. There is an eternal, internal, self-conscious interaction between the three persons of the Godhead....Each is as much God as are the other two....The diversity and the unity in the God-head are therefore equally ultimate; they are exhaustively correlative to one another and not correlative to anything else.’ This Trinity is called the ontological Trinity. By the use of the adjective Van Til, following Reformed theology in general, intends to set off the concept of God ad intra, or as he is in himself, from the concept of God ad extra, or as he produces effects outside of himself. When, therefore, we talk of the ontological Trinity, we contemplate God apart from the cosmos over which he presides.” -- Cornelius Van Til (quoting John Vriend). The Defense of the Faith

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot oversaw statist movements that were based on an economic, social and political worldview that was rabidly and consciously anti-theistic. George does not escape historical facts involving those atheists, their particular states and Marxism's significant and directed anti-theistic scheme by defining devotion to anti-theistic collectivism as merely another form of theism. ***** As for Danny, A polemical antichristian named Jim Walker, at the site to which Danny linked, qualified Hitler as a Christian on the basis that "A Christian is simply a person who believes in God and Jesus in some form or manner." ( http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm ) Such loose a definition of a Christian was made necessary by some statements attributed to Hitler -- the authenticity of which, of course, Walker first attacks -- in which Hitler denounced Paul as, among several things, a falsifier of Jesus' doctrine and a proto-Bolshevik, and characterized Jesus as a populist whose activism was directed against Jewish capitalism. It is not unusual for non-Christians to claim to be the legitimate followers of Jesus. There are Muslims who enter Christian groups on PalTalk and post that Jesus was a Muslim or that Islam was the religion Jesus taught. Thomas Jefferson preened as a Christian on the basis of professed esteem for Jesus' ethical teachings. Jefferson, however, denied the Trinity and the Virgin Birth of Christ, and denounced Jesus' disciples as fabricators for their accounts of Jesus' miracles. John Dominic Crossan of "The Jesus Seminar" does not openly condemn Jesus when he speaks to the media, but he has rejected the biblical revelation of Jesus and has offered his alternative version -- all speculatively construed and made palatable to impenitence and unbelief. Walker's question, "If Hitler did not see himself as a Christian, then why doesn't he condemn Jesus?" could be used in support of an argument that Muslims who speak flattering words about Jesus are self-consciously Christian. Christianity is a strong religious, social and intellectual reality that some false religionists, some tyrants, some revolutionaries and some peddlers of apostasy have faced with platitudes and redefinition rather than with direct public opposition. Rather than overtly deride Jesus and risk provoking too-immediate a response from Christians, some will get up and say a few positive words about Jesus and invoke a redefined version of him. They utterly reject him, however, in their rejection of and/or variance from the biblical revelation of who he is. I'm no Hitler scholar, but Hitler's ultimate commitment seems to have been to some grotesque illusion he held concerning himself.

The atheists Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were such exemplars of tolerance and compassion.

Refiner wrote, "I utterly reject any notion of a conscious God, a person, a thinking supreme being." ***** Refiner, Are you an atheist? An agnostic? A devotee or quasi-devotee of some impersonal force or abstraction you and others deem to be ultimate?

Refiner, WW was obviously referring to this forum's quite shameless Wierwilldolater, who holds there is a doctrinal deficiency about all English Bible versions, in contrast to written PFAL materials which he maintains were inspired and inerrant. He once retorted to a forum opponent that Jesus will begin teaching out of Weirwille's PFAL book when he returns. You're in the right place, Refiner. You seem to be a wandering connoisseur of miscreance. While you're sampling TWI and ex-TWI strains of it, you might try Christian Educational Services -- whose ex-Wayfer principals are among the more ambitious and aggressive peddlers of pseudo-biblicist Unitarianism and Socinian Christology, and who have added Open Theism to the core of dogmas they have retained from Wierwille. You might also sample Anthony Buzzard--a never-TWI figure to whom ex-Wayfers having an anti-Trinitarian itch to be scratched seemingly have gravitated. Buzzard advances the presumptive interpretive authority of a speculatively construed ancient Jewish mind through which to filter interpretations of various biblical passages to oppose the doctrine of the Trinity and promote denial of the eternal existence and deity that Scripture unequivocally declares of Christ. The forum's never-too-friendly resident Trinitarian and Calvinist cudgel, Cynic

Oldiesman wrote, "I would add that another reason why he had these books was religious, wanted us to know or at least be aware that the Jews are not 'God's Chosen People' and that even the Jews must go through Jesus Christ to come to the Father ... " ***** That the demand of faith in Jesus Christ rests uncompromisingly on Jews, as it does upon all, is known by the testimony of Scripture. It is authoritative to those having a normative view of Scripture on the basis that what is asserted by Scripture is asserted with God's authority. Whatever Wierwille's motives, the scriptural point that Jews have no exemption from God's demand of faith was neither demonstrated, expounded on, nor advanced by Wierwille's peddling of one-world-government paranoia and pseudo-histories characteristic of Anglo-Israelism and Holocaust revisionism. Whatever Wierwille was promoting by such things is not identifiable with the gospel of Christ. For something written by a more reflecting German, I recommend: "A Witness Remembered."

“In speaking of the God of the Bible it is, I believe, of the utmost importance that we speak of him first as he is in himself prior to his relation to the created world and man. Reformed theologians therefore distinguish between the ontological and the economical Trinity, the former referring to the three persons of the Godhead in their internal relations to one another, the latter referring to the works of this triune God with respect to the created universe. With respect to the ontological Trinity I try to follow Calvin in stressing that there is no subordination of essence as between the three persons. As Warfield points out when speaking of Calvin’s doctrine of the Trinity ‘ … the Father, the Son, the Spirit is each this one God, the entire divine essence being in each.’” -- Cornelius Van Til. The Defense of the Faith-First Edition ***** Both the Book of Genesis and John’s gospel begin their narratives speaking of internal and external relations of the triune God. Genesis begins with what Van Til has called the “economical Trinity.” It begins with the triune God acting in creation. It attests that God created the heavens and the earth. It affirms that Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters. It reveals that God acted: creating light, an expanse, oceans, land, vegetation, heavenly bodies, fish, birds, animals. It then declares that God spoke within himself, to the plurality within himself, and proceeded to make man in his own image (Genesis 1:26-27). John begins his gospel speaking of that which was prior to creation. John attests that the Word existed at the precipice of creation. He affirms that the Word was with God, thereby indicating the Word was correlative to God, and not at all correlative to creation. John proceeds to state that the Word was God, indicating the Word was in being the very being of God. Having spoken of the Word’s existence, the Word's correlativity to God and the Word's deity before and apart from creation, John continues. He speaks of the Word in the Word’s relation to all created things, asserting that the Word’s creative instrumentality extended to every particular of creation (John 1:3). Rather than revealing the Word to have been some impersonal abstraction, John declares that the Word was the unique Son of God who became flesh (1:14). John’s gospel continues resonating with Jesus Christ’s pre-Incarnate existence. It reveals the Lord as having descended out of heaven (3:13), as having come down out of heaven (6:33,38,50,51,58). It records John the Baptist contrasting himself to the Lord by indicating that wheras he is of the earth, the Lord came from heaven (3:31). It reveals Jesus Christ having cognizance of the prior existence he had with the Father, and speaking to the Father of the glory that he had with him before the creation of the world (17:5). Jesus Christ's existence and relationship with God the Father was prior to creation. Jesus Christ had glory with his Father prior to anything existing outside of the ontological Trinity.

Inequality, Equality, Relation, Ontology Scripture indicates: the Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28); the Son is equal to God (John 5:18); the Word (the Son) was with God, thus distinct from God, in the beginning (John 1:1); the Word (the Son) was God in the beginning (John 1:1). Orthodox and informed Trinitarianism commonly uses a nature-being/persons-relations distinction to speak of the Triune God and the persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It can, thereby, recognize all the above statements to be unequivocally and simultaneously true. How can all such statements be true? Such statements are true if: the Father is greater than his Son in some aspect (relation/function); the Son is equal to his God and Father in some other aspect (divine nature); the Son is distinct from God in some aspect (person/relation aside his personal/relational Father and God); the Son is identical with God in some other aspect (himself existing in the nature of God and having all the fullness of the single, undivided being of God). In the dogmas of Arians and Socinians all these things that Scripture indicates could never really be true. Among such people, some of these statements whereby Scripture attests of Christ must be deconstructed. ***** Whom did Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1-5, 8-10; John 12:37-41) see? He saw Christ, whom he identified him (Isaiah 6:5) by the single divine name, "Jehovah."

To establish TWI's illegitimacy, Pat has invoked Trinitarianism as a fundamental belief for legitimate Christian theism. Somebody pinch me.

I'm leery of pulpiteers who spit out analogies of themselves and/or their churches to biblical figures and events. As VP, LCM, setting false religion over against orthodox Christianity, heresy, seemingly making one's sense of importance one's controlling commitment, and analogies to a biblical figure go, however, Jeroboam the son of Nebat comes to mind. 1 Kings 12:26-31

Mark Sanguinetti wrote, "However, Pat would have prevailed on "the Way of Christ". ***** Maybe Pat would have prevailed. A case involving use of the words "The Way" in the name "The Way of Christ Ministry," however, would have involved questions about the use of a phrase that is quite more arguably generic than the phrase "The Way International." Not only does the phrase "The Way International" less mistakably (than the phrase "The Way") have the New Knoxville group as its referent, the domain www.thewayinternational.com has, in limit and extent, the exact wording of the heretical sect's trademark (less spacing and capitalization).

Pat, Check out the legal bout between Jews for Jesus and a guy named Brodsky who set up a domain using the organization's name. Also check out the battle between Jerry Falwell and a guy who registered www.JerryFalwell.com. Despite having support from the ACLU, the fellow apparently relinquished registration of the domain after Falwell's folks discovered Falwell's name had registration as a trademark. Take note that TWI's site shows the little trademark registration symbol beside The Way International. I'm no lawyer, but I figure your legal chances of holding onto www.thewayinternational.com are somewhat analogous to the chances your cryogenically preserved sperm would survive a boiling in spermicidal jelly.

And yours?

To inform. And warn.

A belief that there are many gods but only one should be worshipped is henotheism, rather than monotheism. Mormon dogma denies that God existed eternally and self-sufficiently, and teaches that he was a contingent being who was preceded by other gods.

EWB, How long have you attended a PCA church? Several people in and a book (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, by Loraine Boettner) I bought from the bookstore of a PCA church I attended were the seminal instruments of my transformation from a nice, pietistic adherent of a superficial and errant systematic theological system to the nasty Calvinist SOB I am today. Although I think he was in several respects atypical among the denomination's clerics, the TE (teaching elder) of the PCA church I attended was the most capable minister of God's grace that I have met.

Damn! It went through.

The reason for my abrupt abandoning of posting to this thread is that Pawtucket intervened "to moderate" my posts. This means that I can no longer post to Grease Spot forums without my posts first being held for review. I will not, of course, attempt to continue an argument under these conditions. It looks like I'll possibly be setting up my own website, where, among other things, I might critique some things that have been (and will be) posted to the Grease Spot forums--though I do not intend to let commentary about Grease Spot posts or figures become more than a very minor part of the substance of the site. If I set up the site, whatever commentary I make should eventually be accessible through search engines. Adieu.

Linda Z. wrote, "Cynic, can you prove to me that the verses on homosexuality in the Bible were God-breathed and unaffected by any man's influence? ***** Garthella Z., Your questioning of the authenticity of various biblical passages is seemingly a way of maintaining and wielding plausibility for some unscriptural viewpoint concerning homosexuality. The issue you raise is speculative and is more intellectually autobiographical than historical. From an evangelical viewpoint, a detestable thing about the affirming revisionism practiced by some church folks is that such revisionism denies both Law and Gospel. Ministering such a thing as affirmation to a homosexual in his sin is an act against both the condemnation and the grace that is ministered through the Scriptures. There is no conviction concerning sin ministered where the sinner is affirmed and his sin denied. There is no need for the atonement and forgiveness that is in the Gospel for a person who refuses to repent from affections and practices that are not sin.

Linda Z wrote, "What is 'spirated,' because I can't find it in any American English dictionary." ***** According to http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christia...ogy-philosophy/ , "breathe forth." It is a word I came across some years ago in a theological handbook written by a guy who apparently used it for its stronger semantic character than equivocally used words such as inspired or inspiration.

The Ten Commandments do not, of course, constitute all OT commands

Trefor wrote, "Culture changes, the understanding of the bible changes and marriage occurs in cultures that have not been biblically influenced. What you are saying is that because we have always done something a certain way based upon a set of beliefs influenced by society that nothing should be amenable of change. The fact that they have been 'historically viewed as aberrant' does not mean that this view was ever right. Again I challenge you to look at the bible from another viewpoint. Dr Truluck is a biblical scholar and there are many other scholars who have reached the same or similar conclusions. It might be shocking for you to discover that this 'historical view' is in fact wrong but nevertheless the possibility is indeed there." ***** Trefor, I have looked at Mr. Truluck's site. It is not exegesis or biblical theology that informs his arguments. He does victimology, self-pity, loudmouthed denunciations, heresy and some spoof-texting. He is a manipulator. Again, why should ideas about equality and liberty form a controlling basis for evaluating whether a government should offer recognition for homosexual relationships, yet not form such a basis for evaluating whether a government should do the same for a wide range of aberrant relationships that occur or that might occur among adults?

Garth, [This message was edited by pawtucket on February 07, 2004 at 10:49.]