TWI,, putting words into the mouths of others...

[nandon]

I remember people saying that Bullinger MUST have come to the conclusion that the trinity didn't exist.

This was based upon his Compaion Bible and the fact that TWI used it so much, and EW was 'right on' in so many other areas (like the 4 crucified).

that was an odd assumption... putting words into EW's mouth or was it true... ?

anyone have any other instances where any one in TWI put words into the mouths of others?

[Jim]

I seem to recall a sort of backhanded comment that Martin Luther might not have believed in the Trinity, but that he went as far as he could given the times. I've read a little of Luther's writings and haven't found anything to back up VPW's comment.

[TrustAndObey]

If Luther might not have believed in the Trinity, then he must have had a different reason for attacking all those who didn't believe it, writing as many letters as he did against the unitarians of hat time.

[E. W. Bullinger]

Dear Nandon:

The reason that they said that Bullinger did not believe in the trinity was that as he got older in his writings he appears to contradict himself with regard to some scriptures about who is God. Loy boy said that this was because he was on the verge of embracing Unitarianism. A good friend of mine who has deeply studied Bullinger believes that E. W. B. was tired of all the controversy his writings caused in the church. As he got older his health declined and he did not publish anything on this topic because he did not have the energy to defend his position. It sounds quite plausible to me.

I am a huge Luther fan and I have not read or seen anything that he believed in Unitarianism.

E. W. Bullinger

[markomalley]

Before trying to make some leap of logic in regards to what Luther did or did not believe, let us take a look at some of his writings.

CLXXXI.

In the gospel of St John, chap. iii., is plainly and directly shown the difference of the persons, in the highest and greatest work that God accomplished for us poor human creatures, in justifying and saving us; for there it is plainly written of the Father, that he loved the world, and gave to the world his only begotten Son. These are two several persons - Father, and Son. The Father loves the world; and gives unto it his Son. The Son suffers himself to be given to the world, and "to be lifted up on the cross, as the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness, that whosoever believed in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." To this work comes afterwards the third person, the Holy Ghost, who kindles faith in the heart through the Word, and so regenerates us, and makes us the children of God.

This article, though it be taught most clearly in the New Testament, yet has been always assaulted and opposed in the highest measure, so that the holy evangelist, St John, for the confirmation of this article, was constrained to write his gospel. Then came presently that heretic, Cerinthus, teaching out of Moses, that there was but one God, and concluding thence that Christ could not be God, or God man.

But let me stick to God's Word in the Holy Scripture, namely, that Christ is true God with God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost is true God, and yet there are not three Gods, nor three substances as three men, three angels, three sons, three windows, etc. No: God is not separated or divided in such manner in his substance, but there is only and alone one divine essence, and no more.

Therefore, although there be three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, yet notwithstanding, we must not divide nor separate the substance, for there is but only one God in one only undivided substance, as St Paul clearly speaks of Christ, Coloss.i., that he is the express image of the invisible God, the first born of all creatures; for through him all things are created that are in heaven and on earth, visible, etc., and all is through and in him created, and he is before all, and all things consist in him.

Now what the third person is, the holy evangelist, St John, teaches, chap. xv., where he says: "But when the Comforter is come, which I will send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me." Here Christ speaks not only of the office and work of the Holy Ghost, but also of his substance and faith; he goes out or proceeds from the Father, that is, his going out, or his proceeding, is without all beginning, and everlasting. Therefore the holy prophet Joel gives him the name, and calls him, "the Spirit of the Lord."

Now, although this article seem strange or foolish, what matters it? `tis not the question whether it be so or no, but whether it be grounded on God's Word or no. If it be God's Word, as most surely it is, then let us make no doubt thereof; He will not lie; therefore, let us keep close to God's Word, and not dispute how Father, Son, and Holy Ghost can be one God; for we, as poor wretches, cannot know how it is that we laugh; or how with our eyes, we can see a high mountain ten miles off; or how it is, that when we sleep, in body we are dead, and yet live. This small knowledge we cannot attain unto; no, though we took to our help the advice and art of all the wise in the world, we are not able to know the least things which concern ourselves; and yet we would climb up with our human wit and wisdom, and presume to comprehend what God is in his incomprehensible majesty.

Source: The Table Talk of Martin Luther (published 1566)

I. The First Article: On Creation

I believe in God the Almighty Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth.

Q. What does this mean?

A. I believe that God created me, along with all creatures. He gave to me: body and soul, eyes, ears and all the other parts of my body,my mind and all my senses and preserves them as well. He gives me clothing and shoes, food and drink, house and land, wife and children, fields, animals and all I own. Every day He abundantly provides everything I need to nourish this body and life. He protects me against all danger, shields and defends me from all evil. He does all this because of His pure, fatherly and divine goodness and His mercy, not because I've earned it or desrved it. For all of this, I must thank Him, praise Him, serve Him and obey Him. Yes, this is true!

II. The Second Article: On Redemption

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate,was crucified, died and was buried, descended to Hell, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended to Heaven and sat down at the right hand of God the Almighty Father. From there He will come to judge the living and the dead.

Q. What does this mean?

A. I believe that Jesus Christ is truly God, born of the Father in eternity and also truly man, born of the Virgin Mary. He is my Lord! He redeemed me, a lost and condemned person, bought and won me from all sins, death and the authority of the Devil. It did not cost Him gold or silver, but His holy, precious blood, His innocent body -- His death! Because of this, I am His very own, will live under Him in His kingdom and serve Him righteously, innocently and blessedly forever, just as He is risen from death, lives and reigns forever. Yes, this is true.

III. The Third Article: On Becoming Holy

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian Church, the community of the saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and an everlasting life. Amen.

Q. What does this mean?

A. I believe that I cannot come to my Lord Jesus Christ by my own intellegence or power. But the Holy Spirit call me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, made me holy and kept me in the true faith, just as He calls, gathers together, enlightens and makes holy the whole Church on earth and keeps it with Jesus in the one, true faith. In this Church, He generously forgives each day every sin committed by me and by every believer. On the last day, He will raise me and all the dead from the grave. He will give eternal life to me and to all who believe in Christ. Yes, this is true!

Source: Luther's Small Catechism (1528)

Treats of the Sublime Articles Concerning the Divine Majesty, as:

I.

That Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three distinct persons in one divine essence and nature, are one God, who has created

heaven and earth.

II.

That the Father is begotten of no one; the Son of the Father; the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son.

III.

That not the Father nor the Holy Ghost but the Son became man.

IV.

That the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was

born of the pure, holy [and always]Virgin Mary. Afterwards He suffered, died, was buried, descended to hell, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of God, will come to judge the quick and the dead, etc. as the Creed of the Apostles, as well as that of St. Athanasius, and the Catechism in common use for children, teach.

Concerning these articles there is no contention or dispute, since we on both sides confess them. Therefore it is not

necessary now to treat further of them.

Source: The Smalcald Articles (1537)

Note the dates of each extract. Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517 and was excommunicated in 1520. He died in 1546.

So, although I hardly agree with Luther (being one of the few token Catholics on this board), it's obvious that he was not an Arian in any fashion. If somebody could post something written later that contradicts this, I'd be happy to read it, but until that point, it sounds to me that, as was the norm, VPW and TWI was forming a conclusion based on no objective evidence.

[TheEvan]

Oh, my post on the other thread belongs here...

(nandon @ Dec 21 2006, 04:59 PM)

This reminds me of somthing...

I remember people saying that Bullinger MUST have come to the conclusion that the trinity didn't exist. This was based upon his Compaion Bible and the fact that TWI used it so much, and EW was 'right on' in so many other areas (like the 4 crucified).

that was an odd assumption... putting words into EW's mouth or was it true... ? maybe this could be a thread..

The way my foggy brain remembers is VP surmising that if EW had lived another x years, he'd a figured out the Trinity was bogus.

!

Did you catch the implication?

That VP's "special knowledge" of the Godhead was deeper and beyond Bullinger's accumulated Bible knowledge.

That's not just a gutsy (and unprovable) claim, it strikes me as another calculated "listen to me keeeds, Ah gawt the deeeepest knowledge of all" designed to set up exclusivity and dependence.

Edited December 22, 2006 by TheEvan

[George Aar]

And all of that presupposes that Bullinger was some sort of indisputable paragon of Biblical scholarship.

To which I could only ask - according to who?

[WhiteDove]

I think that most Academic Catalogs regard Bullinger as a Biblical Scholar.

[Ham]

Seems to me, the only two ways you could really know what was in Bullinger's mind (or Luther, etc) would be one of two ways:

1. You knew said person, personally.

2. You've somehow channeled their spirit from the afterlife or something.

What does THAT say about those who seem to be in the know?

oh yeah, the old "God showed me".

right. God's in the business of telling me what dead people believe(d).

[Cynic]

Concerning problems with Luther's Christology, the following is from http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/christol.htm :

But Luther taught that the doctrine of the "communication of attributes" (communicatio idiomatum) meant that there was a mutual transference of qualities or attributes between the divine and human natures in Christ, and developed this to mean a mutual interpenetration of divine and human qualities or properties, verging on the very commingling of natures which Chalcedonian Christology had avoided...

Calvin also approved of the orthodox Christological statements of the church councils. He taught that when the Word became incarnate he did not suspend nor alter his normal function of upholding the universe. He found the extreme statements of Lutheran Christology guilty of a tendency toward the heresy of Eutyches, and insisted that the two natures in Christ are distinct though never separate...

There is here a divergence between the Lutheran and Reformed teaching. The Lutherans laid the stress upon a union of two natures in a communion in which the human nature is assumed into the divine nature. The Reformed theologians refused to think of an assumption of the human nature into the divine, but rather of an assumption of the human nature into the divine person of the Son, in whom there was a direct union between the two natures.

Luther's alleged (I haven't read enough of Luther to offer an independently informed synopsis) and apparently quite serious Christological problems involved departure from what was aptly and formally recognized at Chalcedon (451 AD) -- not a departure from recogition of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity per se.

Recommended Reading: The Definition of Chalcedon

Edited December 22, 2006 by Cynic

[WordWolf]

On a different subject entirely,

I read a different Christian (Tim LaHaye addressing a pre-Tribulation Rapture)

mention this gambit.

He considered it a particularly cheap ploy: to claim that noted proponents for one

position made a deathbed conversion to the opposite position,

known only to one person, and never anyone close to that.

He gave an example where one theologian was claimed to have changed his belief

in one position, and the only proof was an off-hand comment supposedly made to

a near-total stranger, years before he died, whereas he actually continued to teach

his PREVIOUS position for several more years, and even his family heard him to

hold it til his death.

It's an old gambit, to claim soneone SECRETLY held a position different from one

he publickly has held, and there is no documentary evidence for,

to have him support your position from his grave.

[TrustAndObey]

I could have sworn a little birdy told me so... lol..

[nandon]

On a different subject entirely,

I read a different Christian (Tim LaHaye addressing a pre-Tribulation Rapture)

mention this gambit.

He considered it a particularly cheap ploy: to claim that noted proponents for one

position made a deathbed conversion to the opposite position,

known only to one person, and never anyone close to that.

He gave an example where one theologian was claimed to have changed his belief

in one position, and the only proof was an off-hand comment supposedly made to

a near-total stranger, years before he died, whereas he actually continued to teach

his PREVIOUS position for several more years, and even his family heard him to

hold it til his death.

It's an old gambit, to claim soneone SECRETLY held a position different from one

he publickly has held, and there is no documentary evidence for,

to have him support your position from his grave.

cool point wordwolf..

I've heard some of my gay friends do this...

they'll say "xxxxxx is so good looking he must be gay" (i just shake my head and say.. sure..)

Same basic tactic that you outlined... i think...