|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Trinitarianism
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."
I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
Christianity.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."
I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
You would lose the profound concept of God, in the nature of his very being, living in eternal indivisible community.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."
I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
Christianity.
You're not selling it to me...
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
You would lose the profound concept of God, in the nature of his very being, living in eternal indivisible community.
Again... why must it be a trinity to give me that?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But it's the wrong question. "What do we lose without the Trinity?" is Bulveristic. We don't believe in the Trinity because of all the wonderful benefits we accrue therefrom. We believe in the Trinity because we think it makes the best sense of all the data.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
Yes. What you would miss out on is an accurate assessment of reality.
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."
I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
Christianity.
You're not selling it to me...
No. I'm not surprised.
One thing that may be helpful here is to ask youself what/who you think Jesus is in relation to God.
Trinitarian theology is tightly linked to Christology.
The Holy Spirit is usually a later look in and never the main focus in disucssions.
So ask yourself what/who you think Jesus is and then the whole trinitarian thing might become clearer.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Historically, I think trinitarian theology is inevitable in relation to liturgy. One of the first things I learned in seminary is that classical Christian theology begins with the liturgy of the Church. The theological rationale follows as justifications or explanations of the worship of the Church. The Trinity was not an idea that suddenly popped up in a single church father's head.
The early Church did worship Jesus Christ. Now of course we could debate about whether or not early Christians "really" believed that Jesus was equal to the Father. There were patristic writers, later deemed orthodox, who probably veered towards subordinationism, hesitating reluctantly to equate Jesus Christ to Theos. Yet, I think that if the Church Fathers were adamant that Jesus was not divine, they would have stomped on any slightest sign that veered in that direction. Christianity emerged out of Judaism with its staunch monotheism, it would not be out of the ordinary to simply proclaim that Jesus was "just a man."
But they didn't. They ascribed the term "Lord", a term traditionally ascribed to YHWH, to Jesus. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus exercised several functions of YHWH, principally forgiveness of sins and control of the natural world. In the Johannine literature, Jesus is called "Word of God", "Bread of Life", "Light of the world", titles denoting divinity. In the Book of Revelation, the writer ascribes terms like "Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last", titles ascribed to YHWH in Isaiah to Jesus. Revelation specifically mentions God and the Lamb sharing a single throne, indicating equal honor and due veneration to both.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@PaulTH
There's a difference between seeing Trinitarianism as essential to Christianity and seeing it as saying that the essence of God is knowable.
How the Cappadocian Fathers produced the Trinitarian paradigm requires a fair bit of historical reading but they were certainly all Orthodox in the sense of believing that God is unknowable in His essence.
I appreciate that's pretty abstract. Part of the problem is that Trinitarian belief does not define God; rather it provides a framework of wonder about the ways He has made Himself known.
It arose out of deep contemplation ("theoria") rather than profound logical analysis (leading to "theory"). Sometimes I think that Western Christianity has been confused about that distinction ever since.
I promise to get back to further unpacking when back from holiday!
[ 08. November 2012, 08:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
In the Johannine literature, Jesus is called "Word of God", "Bread of Life", "Light of the world", titles denoting divinity.
John also has Jesus frequently saying "I Am" in a manner that is clearly intended to indicate more than simply a current state of being. This is especially clear in John 8:54-55, where Jesus says "Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am." That his hearers heard this as equating himself with YHWH is made clear by their reaction: gathering rocks to stone him.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabbas62:
There's a difference between seeing Trinitarianism as essential to Christianity and seeing it as saying that the essence of God is knowable.
I agree, and have no problem with this. My natural instinct has always been to believe that in His essence, God is ONE, simple Spirit. From the Lateran Council IV, as quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (202) we have
quote:
We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.
"One essence, substance or nature entirely simple." I am perfectly compatible and comfortable with this explanation.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The Trinity is the consequence of believing the Bible is true.* The Church reads in the Bible that the Son of Man has power to forgive sins, and that the Word was God, and knows that Jesus is God. Yet it also reads of Jesus praying to the Father and being with the Father in the beginning, and it knows that there must be a relationship between the Father and the Son.
This is all a Mystery, it cannot be denied. We can hardly say how both can be true. But that doesn't mean there is nothing to say at all, so we have this word as a sort of place holder- Trinity- which allows us to maintain both these assertions we find in the Bible. Think of it as "X" in an unsolved (and unsolvable) algebraic formula. We KNOW the formula obtains, even if we don't know what X is.
*Which is to say that one believes that the apostles have really (and truly) experienced Jesus and faithfully handed that experience on to the Church.
[ 09. November 2012, 02:43: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
If it is a metaphor, then it is not true, but a useful picture.
If it is true, then we have only a limited understanding of what the Trinity is.
My preference is to see it as a metaphor. The trouble with that for me, is that I don't know what is being used as the metaphor. It should be something more than the clover-leaf IMO.
Perhaps I should move to it being true that God is a Trinity, and that some pictures give us a little bit of insight into what that might mean. It is very elusive. Words fail to explain it IMO. It is better to ponder it than to fight over it.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Quizmaster
Quick quipper
# 1435
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Historical Christianity has been confirmed as essentially Trinitarian since the 4th/5th Century Councils settled the issue out of controversy.
This is where the Romans decided to tell people what to think instead of allowing discussion and interpretation. Many people have been telling others what to think ever since.
In the modern day the Chinese and North Korean governments tell their people what to think. Most of us would support the free thinkers who do not conform.
[ETA Codefix, DT, Purgatory Host]
[ 09. November 2012, 18:00: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
The more questions I ask the more I ask fewer questions.
OR=========================================
The wise person does not know all the answers, but always asks the right questions.
Posts: 3326 | From: Exeter, Devon | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
At the risk of sounding like a broken record.......read Larry Hurtado's 'Lord Jesus Christ'. He literally blows the argument that the Trinity was an invention of the Christian councils out of the water. He is incredibly thorough, well researched and and as far as I can see presents the best and most water tight argument since Christianity began. If you read him as an historian, it's fascinating and enlightening. If you read him as a Christian his material is inspiring and faith changing. If you read him as a curious atheist he presents a certain challenge. He's horribly overlooked as a scholar, but really well worth the effort and easy to understand. There are moments when you read him and you think to yourself - 'Well thats been staring me in the face all these years, why haven't I noticed that before'. I've gushed about him before on....well, pretty much every Trinity thread since I boarded and I've outlined some of his arguments in some detail so I won't bore you again; but in essence he makes an incredibly strong case for a Trinitarian understanding of God in the Christian tradition and he takes a very different angle from the notion that it was a Christian council invention. Rarely should one ever say such things, but that book changed a lot of my own faith and I think if it had a wider readership it would certainly help to tighten up the weakness of Trinitarian theology in western Christian traditions.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The line between metaphor and mystery is that we (in Catholic Christianity) assume that God's relationship to humankind in the Bible actually reflects the inner life of God. That's the problem with the modalist heresy. It sees three persons in the Bible, but then says "Well, that's what God looks like to us, but that isn't what God is really like."
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Zach
Where precisely does it say " Three persons in the Bible"?
Sorry ignore that. I misread you.
[ 09. November 2012, 10:53: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Fletcher Christian:
read Larry Hurtado's 'Lord Jesus Christ'
I've read this book by Hurtado, and it was a major stepping stone on my way to accepting the Trinitarian position, which I'd previously found difficult. Among other things, he demonstates that worshipful devotion to Jesus as God , was there from the first days of Christianity, and wasn't something that developed over a period. I would agree with FC that Larry Hurtado is an underrated theologian who deserves to be read more, and I couldn't recommend this book more highly.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
IMO Trinitarianism is an essential component of Christianity, because it rests on the proposition that "he who has seen me has seen the father." It provides a ballast to Christian theological speculation: that statements about God that are not compatible with the God revealed in Jesus Christ, however true they might prove to be, are not Christian. Unitarianism, for example, is not Christianity.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Good point Kwesi.
From my point of view all Trinitarian statements have one value which is to induce a sense of awe, wonder and mystery. Worship without these is pathetically inadequate and hardly possible.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The God revealed either side of Jesus, Son and Spirit at least and above Jesus in the Father's wrathful penal substitutionary atonement is not compatible with the God revealed in Jesus Christ.
(Which of you guys was it? This year or last, mortified at my pragmatic defense of that very God the Killer?)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I agree with fletcher christian about the historic roots of Trinitarian belief i.e. that they go back a long way and most certainly pre-date the councils.
What is also true is that there were lots of variations of understanding in the early church and much controversy about whether these were consistent with the teaching of the Apostles. No doubt also that John's gospel is key very early evidence of belief in the divine personhood of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
The early evidence (pre-dating the councils by a couple of centuries) that the variations were regarded as misleading and injurious to faith is found, most obviously in "Against Heresies".
What is clear from the second century writings of Irenaeus (you can certainly spot it in Against Heresies) is that he saw Jesus and the Holy Spirit as divine persons, saw the profound importance of John's gospel in the apostolic inheritance. I just don't think he "joined up the dots" (as the Cappadocian fathers did later, for example.) His trinitarian understanding, though implicit, was not fully articulated.
So for these reasons, and others, I think it is wrong to see Trinitarianism as a fourth century invention. It was a clarification after profound reflection - but the building blocks were there from very early on.
It seems also proper to argue that these arguments over truth and meaning became part of various struggles over power and authority within the church; that battle certainly was part of the backdrop to the work of the councils.
As I said earlier, studying early church history (rather than caricaturing it) can illuminate this subject rather well.
I plan to write another post on the abiding value of the belief for worship and understanding.
[ 11. November 2012, 07:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
As far as I recall there are third century documents that use the word 'Trinitas' which is more than simply joining up the dots I think.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."
I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
Christianity.
You're not selling it to me...
It's not there for me to sell it to you, or anyone else. It's for you to accept, freely, like everything else He offers.
(btw, I never thought a trivial dig at the JWs would start this. Must be more careful with throwaway lines in future)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A promised post.
On current value for worship, the terms we use for expressing how God has made Himself known to us;
Father of Creation;
Son, Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord
Spirit; the Lord, the Giver of Life; the indweller
provide a wonderful, rich and varied source of worship. The God who made the Heavens and the earth. The God who made us. The incarnate God who shows us how to live and is with us to the end of time. The crucified and risen God who is for us. The God who is in us, who teaches and convinces about "all things".
Trinitarian belief serves as a reminder of of all the above, saying further that it is the same God who brings us awe and wonder in these different "expressions" of Himself. When we worship the Three in One in Spirit and in Truth, we worship God in His fullness - and know that we do not know it all.
By doing this, our worship becomes both richer and better balanced than it would be if we focused primarily on one of these three "expressions". Somehow saw one as more important than the others. That has often been a failing in visible congregations. The Transcendent dominates the Incarnate and Indwelling. The Incarnate dominates the Transcendent and Indwelling etc. Or you get "two out of three" combinations.
So far as understanding is concerned, Trinitarianism keeps us, necessarily, humble. A reminder that it is both stupid and blasphemous to think we have God all figured out. In all its paradoxes it is a constant reminder that God is "above and beyond our understanding" (thinking of a line from a song by Tim Hughes), hidden in entirety from us "only by the Splendour of Light" as a much older hymn puts it. To know that we really do know in part, but that which we do know is awesome and wonderful produces a humble reverence. Not only for God in worship. This reverence may then spill over into reverence and respect for life, for the world, the universe. For one another.
I am not saying that these benefits are based on a precise interpretation of the meaning of the Trinity; nor that some of them, maybe all of them, might not be arrived at by different considerations. That would be assuming far to much. But I am saying that Trinitarian belief has, within itself, the power to guide us in these very helpful and fruitful ways. It is as rich and creative in its content today as it ever was.
[ 12. November 2012, 17:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's not there for me to sell it to you, or anyone else. It's for you to accept, freely, like everything else He offers.
Even if freely offered it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what I'm accepting.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's not there for me to sell it to you, or anyone else. It's for you to accept, freely, like everything else He offers.
Even if freely offered it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what I'm accepting.
What you are accepting is the Truth revealed to us by the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Even if freely offered it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask what I'm accepting.
The scriptures. There is this perception that the Trinity is a foreign doctrine imposed on the Bible by Greek philosophers. This isn't the case. It was a doctrine the developed to draw out the propositions that Church discerned in the scriptures.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
While we may be accepting something we may find in the scriptures, that is not the same as accepting the scripture (and what that means, I am sure, varies enormously among shippies that call themselves Christian).
Conversely, not accepting the trinity does not mean that the scriptures are not accepted (again with the proviso that there are various understandings of this.)
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
While we may be accepting something we may find in the scriptures, that is not the same as accepting the scripture (and what that means, I am sure, varies enormously among shippies that call themselves Christian).
Conversely, not accepting the trinity does not mean that the scriptures are not accepted (again with the proviso that there are various understandings of this.)
All of that is only true if the scriptures are absolutely subjective.
Cue argument about subjectivity versus objectivity.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I don't think that's true, Zach82. In the Arian controversy, the Arians demonstrated an excellent understanding and interpretation of scripture. Here's an excerpt from an online article.
quote:
Homo Ousion (same substance) vs. Homoi Ousion (like substance):
The sticking point at the Nicene Council was a concept found nowhere in the Bible: homoousion. According to the concept of homo + ousion, Christ the Son was con + substantial (the Roman translation for the Greek, meaning 'sharing the same substance') with the Father.
Arius and Eusebius disagreed. Arius thought the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were materially separate from each other, and that the Father created the Son.
Here is a passage from a letter Arian wrote to Eusebius:
"We are not able to listen to these kinds of impieties, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full God, the only-begotten, unchangeable. Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest."
Link to article
I'm with those who believe that you cannot find a scriptural reason for preferring "Homo Ousion"(same substance) to "Homoi Ousion" (like substance).
It's possible to see Arians simply as unorthodox Trinitarians of course.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The point of contention of the Arian heresy was whether the Son was a creature or not. Which is something we can look to the Bible to discern.
The Arians didn't like the word homoousias because it meant that everything that applied to the Father applied to the Son- including being eternal. Most of the proponents of homoiousias joined the Catholic party when homoousias was clarified to exclude modalist interpretations.
[ 12. November 2012, 19:25: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
No need to re-run the Arian controversy here, Zach82. It's not particularly germane to this thread, but it is germane to a view that scripture per se can be said to determine the fully developed Trinitarian Creed. Separate thread, if you like?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I really have no desire to debate the Arian heresy- I am arguing for a particular relationship between dogma and scripture, and was showing how the Arian controversy played in to that. If the Bible shows us that Jesus is God, what conclusions must we accept from that? The Arians, for all their biblical proofs, really failed to own up to those conclusions.
[ 12. November 2012, 20:46: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
All of that is only true if the scriptures are absolutely subjective.
That's a non-sequitur.
(And I am not interested much in historical niceties about Arian or other purported "heresies".)
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Well, your use of scare quotes around the word heresy explains why you find the proposal that there might be objective content in the bible a non sequitur. Your lack of interest in heresy makes me wonder why you post in a thread about the Trinity at all.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
[blue hat]
It's interesting how very frequently you introduce other topics or re-express others' statements with a slant to allow you make a pejorative comment.
So: quotes have to be scare quotes; metaphors you turn into subjectivity; you make a narrow deduction that the use of '"heresy"' implies a belief that there can be no objective content in the Bible.
I'm used to this black or white approach from some of the fundamentalist evangelicals I grew up with, it's just a surprise to see it here on the ship from an RC.
[/blue hat]
[ 13. November 2012, 00:40: Message edited by: Latchkey Kid ]
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I really don't know what you are talking about. I didn't bring up Arianism, I didn't connect subjectivity to metaphor, and scare quotes really were used.
I suppose they could have just been pointless quotation marks, though. My bad if that was the case.
Edit: Oh, and I'm an Episcopalian.
[ 13. November 2012, 00:51: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I plead guilty to bringing in Arianism. Wish I hadn't!
(I'm sure Zach's view re Arianism and scripture isn't right BTW, but it derails the thread to continue the debate here.)
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
(I'm sure Zach's view re Arianism and scripture isn't right BTW, but it derails the thread to continue the debate here.)
I am sure you are wrong, but I won't bring it up either. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I really don't know what you are talking about.
and scare quotes really were used.
It seems like intentional misunderstanding.
Not all of us get scared by quotes. Some of us see them as conveying some other meaning.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
It seems like intentional misunderstanding.
Not all of us get scared by quotes. Some of us see them as conveying some other meaning.
Shall I take it from the way you edited my words that the other charges are dropped? Blue hat and all that.
You know best why you used quotation marks, and instead of accusing me of maliciously misinterpreting you why don't you explain what you meant?
It seemed to me that you put heresy in quotation marks because you didn't want to accept that terminology yourself. Which is, by the by, what scare quotes are.
Did you even know what scare quotes were before you accused me of intentional misinterpretation?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
wstevens
Apprentice
# 17424
|
Posted
I have been a Christian of one form or another for about 17 years and I have never understood the doctrine of the trinity and cannot honestly say that I believe it. I can accept it as a hypothesis, but cannot go further than that and cannot use the word 'believe' to describe my attitude towards it. I take a generally critical and questioning approach to other doctrines too, but of them all the doctrine of the trinity is probably the one I doubt the most. I think doctrine is a lot less important than "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and working out how to put that into practice. The Nicene Creed (which I don't say) always makes me wince because it doesn't contain anything about that.
Referring to the original question "What does one miss out on by rejecting trinitarianism"
In my opinion the main thing missed out on would be close fellowship with those Christians who can't or do not want to have fellowship with non-trinitarians. My church attendance during the time that I have been non-trinitarian has been in rural middle-of-the-road churches, Quaker meetings and liberal Anglo-catholic churches and I have not found it to be a significant problem in any of those.
Posts: 8 | From: Wiltshire, UK | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wstevens:
I have been a Christian of one form or another for about 17 years and I have never understood the doctrine of the trinity and cannot honestly say that I believe it. I can accept it as a hypothesis, but cannot go further than that and cannot use the word 'believe' to describe my attitude towards it. I take a generally critical and questioning approach to other doctrines too, but of them all the doctrine of the trinity is probably the one I doubt the most. I think doctrine is a lot less important than "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and working out how to put that into practice. The Nicene Creed (which I don't say) always makes me wince because it doesn't contain anything about that.
If the only thing that matters is practice, I wonder why you would bother with this church thing at all. It seems to me you would fulfill your understanding of the Gospel far better by working in a soup kitchen on Sunday morning.
[ 13. November 2012, 18:44: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
You obviously need to do more work to understand wstevens and realise why your seeming misses the mark.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
You obviously need to do more work to understand wstevens and realise why your seeming misses the mark.
Latch, could you be a lamb and bugger off while we discuss the topic of this thread? Your baseless accusations of malice and ignorance aren't helping anything.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
wstevens
Apprentice
# 17424
|
Posted
A good question Zach82.
The reasons that I can come up with to explain why I go to church at all, given that I think practice is more important than doctrine, are:
1. Because church provides reminders or hints that "loving thy neighbour as thyself" is worth doing - i.e. that the universe is set up so that love is somehow foundational. I see the resurrection (assuming that it happened) as a validation of that.
Taking a precautionary approach, I would rather err on the side of behaving as though love is foundational than behaving as though it isn't. I think I am probably less likely to regret (or face judgement for, if there is such a thing) behaving in the former way than in the latter way.
2. To learn from like-minded people (some of the parables are consistent with the idea that practice is more important than doctrine).
3. To make friends and for mutual support - I am not naturally inclined towards selflessness and it helps to have encouragement and expectations.
4. To support it so that future generations know about the Gospel.
I currently attend a liberal Anglo-catholic chuch - it was a close decision between them and the Quakers.
(I didn't claim that practice is the only thing that matters, only that I think doctrine is less important - and this is because I find it difficult to see how we can know anything with any degree of certainty (except scientific knowledge where we can sometimes come close to certainty - e.g. we know what water is, what birds are etc...)).
Posts: 8 | From: Wiltshire, UK | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
Welcome to the Ship, wstevens!
I like something Seeker963 posted a few years ago in regard to the ideal relationship between doctrine and love:
quote:
And I believe that the purpose of doctrine is to elicit love, not the other way around as so many people would seem to have it.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wstevens:
A good question Zach82.
The reasons that I can come up with to explain why I go to church at all, given that I think practice is more important than doctrine, are:
1. Because church provides reminders or hints that "loving thy neighbour as thyself" is worth doing - i.e. that the universe is set up so that love is somehow foundational. I see the resurrection (assuming that it happened) as a validation of that.
Taking a precautionary approach, I would rather err on the side of behaving as though love is foundational than behaving as though it isn't. I think I am probably less likely to regret (or face judgement for, if there is such a thing) behaving in the former way than in the latter way.
2. To learn from like-minded people (some of the parables are consistent with the idea that practice is more important than doctrine).
3. To make friends and for mutual support - I am not naturally inclined towards selflessness and it helps to have encouragement and expectations.
4. To support it so that future generations know about the Gospel.
Thank you wstevens, well put - these are pretty much my reasons too (and the fact that I love the people there)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
