Theology Matters

Take time to listen to our last podcast. We deal with some of the reasons apologetics is so important as well as started a new series on how we got the Bible.

Listen to internet radio with The Invisible Conservative on Blog Talk Radio

Great Discussion on Calvinism/Arminianism

The Exchange - For/Against Calvinism from Ed Stetzer on Vimeo.


Michael Horton vs Roger Olson in a discussion on Calvinism!

William Lane Craig Interviewed on PBS

Uploaded by drcraigvideos on May 16, 2011


PBS' "Closer to Truth" conducted the best interview Dr. William Lane Craig ever had. Host and scientist Robert Lawrence Kuhn asks all the right questions about philosophy, religion, and science with him. You will get a nutshell of Dr. Craig's thoughts in this interview (although his views on the resurrection of Jesus is absent from this interview). Hopefully, it will lead you to pursue more research on the topics. Dr. Craig is quite simply a philosopher's philosopher.

'New Kind of Christian'

Responding to Brian McLaren and the 'New Kind of Christian' (Ron Rhodes)



Ron Rhodes speaks on controversial figure Brian McLaren. Presented at the Veritas Apologetics Conference on May 6, 2011 at Mt. Airy Bible Church (mabcmd.org) in conjunction with Veritas Seminary (veritasseminary.com).

Trinity vs Oneness Part 2

Here is the second half of my discussion with my friend. The conversation is unedited and moves very quickly so please forgive the grammatical errors.   Thanks again to Lamarie for the good discussion and thoughtful questions!

Lamarie Austin Okay, still reading, so Devin, here's another question/observation-where does the concept of omnipresence factor in to the personhood concept of the Trinity teaching-specifically, if we believe that God can be all places, all things, to anyone anywhere simultaneously, why confine Him to the person terminology? The only place in scripture where I see any reference to the terminology of personhood was Jesus as the Son in Hebrews 1:3. Again, not speaking of Father Son Spirit, trying to flesh out the modes vs. persons disagreement. Sabbelianism/Trinitarianism

Devin Pellew Right, when I say "person" I am reffering to the metaphysical sense. NOT a body. We would all agree that God has Mind, Will and Emotions. This is to differintiate from a JW for example who will say the Holy Spirit is not personal but rather a forcelike electricity

Devin Pellew So when I say a person I am not meaning in a physical sense as in a body. Just as Man is a body/soiul unity and we have an immaterial aspect

Lamarie Austin foreclike electricity?!! what???? sorry that one made me crack up!

Devin Pellew Oh yeah, that is what JWs believe regarding the Holy Spirit. That it is God's active force. I would also point out scripture refers to all 3 persons as "He" and "Him" using "person" language

Lamarie Austin I think the personhood issue trips alot of people up! so what about the omnipresence-what about modalism is wrong in light of ominipresence and God's ability to be multiple whatever simultaneously??? Does God really ever have to be seperated into persons to do anything if He is omnipresent?

Devin Pellew Omni presence has nothing to do with The Trinity. Even Muslims and Judaism believe that. You are confusing His "unity" which is His essence with "tri-unity"

Lamarie Austin how so?

Devin Pellew because even Judaism who is unitarian and denies the Trinity believes God is omni present

Devin Pellew Tri unity has to do with how many persons make up the one God. Not the classical attributes

Lamarie Austin but the Jews will come to the faith in the Lord Jesus according to Revelation, a good bit of them will. And Christianity/Judeo Christianity builds on the Jewish teaching of the Old Testament. If Jews are unitarians, how did Crhistians become tri-unitarians??

Devin Pellew You are bringining in new topics to the question. The jews who reject Christ now will not be going to heaven.

2-The Trinity was revealed in the OT and more light was given and more fully revealed in the NT

Devin Pellew Even Abraham believed in Christ, though did not fully understand the doctrine.

Devin Pellew Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
(Galatians 3:16-18 ESV)

Lamarie Austin It's all the same topic, just branching out a bit-No, I don't think Jews who dont receive Jesus are going to heaven. I do believe many who are blind now will not always be blind. And we are seeds of Abraham, so I disagree with this last claim about Him not fully understanding the doctrine. He knew God. His unitarian God. He just did not live long enough to see His unitarian God wrapped in human flesh as the atonement for our sin. So I don't know about fully understanding the doctrine, because we are the seed of Abraham and if Abraham had some different doctrine than we've got, we have a fundamental problem.

Lamarie Austin So, I'm still trying to understand how you are affirming Jews are unitarians/which would make the OT unitarian, right? and how we go from unitarianism to tri-unitarianism.

Devin Pellew All 3 persons are all called God, and we are told there is one God. The Father and Son are not the same person. And the Holy Spirit is NOT the same person as the Son.

The Father sent the Son. The Son did not send the Father. (John 6:44; 8:18; 10:36; 1 John 4:14)
John 5:37, “And the Father who sent Me, He has borne witness of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form."

Jesus came down from heaven, not to do his own will, but the will of the Father.
John 6:38, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."

They are not the same person in differeing modes. The text is clear on this

Devin Pellew The jews reject Jesus is God correct? Unitarians believe That there is not more than one person in the God head

Devin Pellew Or

Devin Pellew That God can "change" or undergo differing modes

Devin Pellew Lamarie, is it your view that the Father and Son are really the same person with different titles?

Lamarie Austin I believe it's the same God.

Lamarie Austin Ominipresence I still see as a factor

Devin Pellew So when the Son is praying, he is praying to himself?

Lamarie Austin personhood is a confinment/restriction of omnipresence in how God reveals himself to men

Lamarie Austin the Son is praying to the father, Jesus says this in the bible.

Devin Pellew So the Father and son are not the same person?

Devin Pellew You are defining person only as physical and thats where the problem is coming in at

Devin Pellew So the Father and son are not the same person?

Lamarie Austin I'm not, I'm trying to understand why we need the terminology of personhood in reference to an Omnipresent God. Who can be as much and as varied as He wants all at the same time.

Devin Pellew Because scripture uses terms like "He and "him"

Lamarie Austin Who can be Father and Son and Spirit all in Human Form, at the Same time....

Lamarie Austin Never leaving Heaven bankrupt

Lamarie Austin Right, He can be Omnipresent, can He not????

Devin Pellew Hold on, trying to see what you are saying

Devin Pellew So does the Father and Son exist at the same time?

Lamarie Austin I think So, Yes. And exact same God, because He can Be Both Father Son, Comforter, everything All at One time

Devin Pellew Lamarie, who is Jesus talkink to when he is praying?

Lamarie Austin He says the Father!

Devin Pellew If you are saying that Jesus IS the Father, then Jesus is praying to himself

Devin Pellew ECACTLY :)

Lamarie Austin what????

Devin Pellew You are saying the Son and the Father are the same person right?

Devin Pellew I understand they are both God

Devin Pellew I get that

Lamarie Austin you're trying to back me into a theological corner again! lolol Seriously though, back to the confinement of personhood and the Idea of Omnipresence....

Lamarie Austin personhood and Omnipresence?

Devin Pellew Your theology itself puts you in a corner

Devin Pellew Ok, what is the problem?

Devin Pellew Define what you mean by personhood?

Devin Pellew Do you think that to have personhood one MUST be physical?

Lamarie Austin that's what I'm asking you-If God is Omnipresent and Can be in multiple places doing multiple things all at once, why do we need to use the term person at all?

Devin Pellew Because he has the characteristics of what we describe as personhood. God has a Will, God has a mind, right He is not a supercomputer. He interacts with us and is personable correct?

I will post the 3rd and final part of the debate this weekend. 

Does God Know The Future?

This discussion is very good as it shows the importance  of knowing philosophy as well as good theology!  This was a friendly dialog that happened on Facebook and is unedited.  If you are enjoying the dialogs please let me know.  I post these because I want people to see how apologetics and sound theology relate to everyday discussions and how to respond.  I am not a theologian or anything special but I do enjoy the dialogs and hope you do as well!

The discussions move rapidly so there are going to be spelling and grammatical errors so I apologize!



Tressa Washington-Adabo
I have a question to pose for many of you on here especially Darrell Zamora who states that God already knows who's saved and his omnipotence and omnipresence means that He's some mythical, magical creature that is just sitting on the throne playing with folks on earth for His enjoyment because hey he already knows what's going to happen to us all anyway.
Explain Genesis 3:20-22:20) And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21) I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know. 22) Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord.
If God knows all and see all why did He come down to earth to confirm what He had HEARD? If he had to hear and confirm it then is it not right to suspect that God doesn't really know everything like some people say?

Devin Pellew ‎

Great question! I would say that there are a few things we need to look at.

The Bible is clear that God knows all things:

1- (Isaiah 46:9-10 ESV)
"remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,"

The text says He declares the end from the beginning.He tells us for example how we can know a the true God vs a false god

2- (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 ESV)
"But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’—when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him."

For God to know the future means He has to be omniscient. He is not just guessing but telling us we know He is the true God because He is telling us the future


3-The numerous prophecies foretold hundreds of years before the events actually happen. Only a being that is omniscient can do that. Look at Pslam 22 which is written around 800 years before Christ took on a human nature and the dead sea scrolls were carbon dated showing that this was written that far before the events happened

(Psalm 22:16-18 ESV)
"For dogs encompass me;
a company of evildoers encircles me;
they have pierced my hands and feet—
I can count all my bones—
they stare and gloat over me;
they divide my garments among them,
and for my clothing they cast lots."

Now as for the scripture you raised we need to look at the study of hermenudicts which is the art and science of Biblical interpretation. The scripture you posted is "anthropamorphic" language which is where we ascribe human characteristics to God. For example we know God is immaterial and does not have a physical body (Luke 24:39) yet we see other texts that say the "Eyes of the Lord" and the strong "arm" of the Lord. But we know God does not have eyes, legs, etc. The language is anthropamorphic and is easily explained in light of scripture as a whole>

Thirdly scripture says God has chosen His elect BEFORE the foundation of the world

(Ephesians 1:3-6 ESV)
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved."

Jesus who Is God did know exactly the hearts of men

Matthew 9:4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?

John 6:64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

John 13:11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

I hope this helps answer your objection and I think it is a very thoughtful question

Tressa Washington-Adabo ‎Devin Pellew, I do believe that the scripture uses Anthropomorphic expressions and God visited Sodom & Gomorrah to really find out what happened but to prove to man that the judgement that was to come upon them was coming from God himself. God always tries to turn others from sin before sending judgement. However, I differ with you on the God's physical make up. The Bible also said that Jesus sat down at the right hand of the father so does that mean we must also conclude that Jesus is sitting down beside an "essence" called God? Genesis also states that God walked in the garden of Eden. He sat down eat and drank with Abraham prior to the visit. Must I imagine this is just imagined? I'm sorry but when the Bible says we were made in God's image, I take that to mean while God has not a natural physical body he has a spiritual body that has all the characteristics we do. Therefore he has eyes, arms, legs,etc. I applaud you Brother Pellew for giving scripture references to prove your point unlike some folk on here who expect others to be gullible enough to believe them based solely on the fact it came from their mouth.

Devin Pellew ‎

Again, very excellent questions! Hopefully my response will at least make you think about the issues.

You said

"However, I differ with you on the God's physical make up. The Bible also said that Jesus sat down at the right hand of the father so does that mean we must also conclude that Jesus is sitting down beside an "essence" called God? "

1-God does not have a physical make=up

John 4:24 says God is Spirit. Luke 24:39 A Spirit does not have flesh and bone.

So to put it in argument form

1-God is Spirit

2-A Spirit does not have flesh and bone

3-Therfore God does not have flesh and bone

Based on simple deductive arguments and scriptures it is very clear that God is not made up of physical parts but He is rather an immaterial being.

You also said

"Genesis also states that God walked in the garden of Eden. He sat down eat and drank with Abraham prior to the visit. Must I imagine this is just imagined?"

I think it is clear that just as the "Angel of the Lord" in the OT was God and had taken on a form, the same thing is going on in the passages you mention. God taking on a form though is not saying that form is essential to His nature. Again, scripture is clear that God is not made up of parts. The argument I gave above would clear that up.

Next you said

" I'm sorry but when the Bible says we were made in God's image, I take that to mean while God has not a natural physical body he has a spiritual body that has all the characteristics we do. Therefore he has eyes, arms, legs,etc"

To take that we are made in God's image as being physical would be in error. Scripture is clear we have some of the communicable attributes such as love, justice, goodness, etc. However the incommunicable like Holiness, pure actualty, aseity, etc only a being that is non-temporal, non-physical and timeless can fit the description of the God of the Bible.

We have both scriptural and philosophical reasons to reject that God is a physical being

Scripture

Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through?"

1 Samuel 15:29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind."

1 Tim. 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation

Philosophical arguments

1-The fact that the universe is not eternal and that space, time and matter came into existence means necessarily that God can not be spatial, material, and in time because before creation there was no space time and matter. Thus the cause could not be material and in time because matter and time did not exist

2-A God who is infinite and made of parts, would mean God has an infinite amount of parts. There are numerous ways to show that an ACTUAL infinite can not exist in reality.

3-Immutability (Unchangeability). In his epic Summa Theoligica (1a.9.1), Aquinas offers three basic arguments in favor of God's unchangeability. The first argument is passed on the fact that a God of Pure Actuality ("I-Am-ness") has no potentiality. It follows, therefore, that God cannot change (Exodus 3:14). Whatever changes has to have the potential to change. But as pure Actuality, God has no potential, so He cannot change.

The second argument for God's immutability follows from His simplicity. Everything that changes is composed of what changes and what does not change. God cannot change because an absolutely simple being has no composition. If everything about a being changed, then it would be an entirely new being. In fact, it would not be change but annihilation of one thing and a creation of something entirely new. Now if, in every change in a being something remains the same and something does not, then it must be composed of these two elements. So an absolutely simple being with no composition cannot change.

The third argument for God's unchangeability argues from His absolute perfection. Whatever changes acquires something new. But God cannot acquire anything new, since He could not be better or more complete. Therefore, God cannot change. If He did, He would not be God for He would have lacked some perfection.

Aquinas also argues that God alone is immutable (Summa Theologica, 1a.9.2). All creatures exist only because of the will of the Creator. His power brought them into existence, and it is His power that keeps them in existence. Therefore, if He withdrew His power they would cease to exist. Whatever can cease to exist is not immutable. Therefore, God alone is immutable; everything else could cease to exist.

4-God is pure actuality in that he has no potential to change because a being that has infinite knowledge can not grow in knowledge or learn anything new. Yet a god who is made up of physical parts is limited and changing, thus denying an essential attribute of

5-Simplicty (Indivisibility). Since God is not composed in His Being, but is Pure Existence, Pure Actuality with no potentiality; it follows that He is simple and indivisible. A Being that by nature is not composed cannot be decomposed. One that has no parts cannot be torn apart. Hence, God has absolute simplicity with no possibility of being divided. He is literally indivisble.

Likewise, a God of Pure Actuality with no potentiality cannot be divided. For if it were divisible, then it would have the potential to be divided. But Pure Actuality has no potentiality in its Being whatsoever. Hence, it must be absolutely simple or indivisible.

God's indivisibility follows also from His immutability. For if God could be divided, He could change. But God is unchangeable by nature. Thus He cannot be divided. He must be absolutely simple in His nature.
http://www.ovrlnd.com/Apologetics/NatureOfGod.html

That is just a few of God's attributes that demonstrate God can NOT be a physical being or composed of parts.

Hope this helps you see that it would be against the plain teachings of scripture as well as his attributes.

Great questions, God Bless!

Trinity vs Oneness

Here is a discussion I had with a dear friend from Facebook.  She had some questions on the Trinity and the need for the historic councils. Here is the full conversation unedited.

The dialog is quick and moves fast so at times there is spelling and grammatical errors (especially from me).

Lamarie Austin i hope I'm not being to intrusive here Devin and Norm, but I'd like to chime in here. The council of Nicea 325 AD, some almost 300 years AFTER thhe resurrection of Jesus. Here's a few points I've always had an issue with this. First, because the council implemented the Doctrine of the Trinity, setting the terms of Christian Orthodoxy, going forward, anyone NOT UTILIZING THE TERMINOLOGY THEY DECIDED ON are AUTOMATICALLY BRANDED HERETICS. Now, here's my question on this point-NO ONE used this doctrine or terminology in coming to Faith in Jesus at Pentecost. There is not one recorded Account of this ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE. Which leads me to infer that the early church, founded on the Apostles and the Prophets with Christ as the cornerstone, THIS CHURCH, The one the gates of hell could not prevail against, WAS PERFECTLY CAPABLE to come to faith in the Lord Jesus, and to be LASTINGLY established, without this doctrine in place. So, if everyone after 325 AD is a heretic for not using the term Trinity in referencing the Godhead, Are you/this council claiming the early Christians/Apostles were HERETICS TOO?????




Lamarie Austin because if after this meeting non-trinity terminology using makes one a heretic, then before this meeting the same standard should apply, right?

Lamarie Austin Issue Number 2, this passage Comes from the second Catholic Encyclopedia-“As a colleague, then as guide of the bishops, the emperor felt he had a vocation to lead all men to unity in honoring the divinity within the Christian Church (Vita 2:65:1). In the Scriptures, Constantine found justification for his idea of the Church as a peace-bringing house of truth, the unifying element of the state as a kingdom of God (Vita 2:56,67). He respected the decisions of the bishops in synod, particularly the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, and considered all further theological dispute as nugatory. Hence his policy hardened toward pagans and Jews as time wore on. Although he employed pagan terms in speaking of the 'divinity,' 'the highest god,' and 'divine providence,' he had in mind the unique God of the Christians, the creator and judge of all who saved fallen man through His Son....In dealing with heretics and in his policy toward pagans, he exercised astute forbearance. There can be no doubt that he was a convinced Christian, whatever may have been the limitations in his understanding of the full significance of that faith.” (NCE, volume 4, page 182) Notice midway down what they say about Contstantine-ALTHOUGH HE EMPLOYED PAGAN TERMS IN SPEAKING OF DIVINITY-whoooooaaaaaa!!!! I don't care about their assessment of him, Look what they admit about the mans profession-He uses PAGAN TERMINOLOGY?!? Same Constantine who brought in these idolotrous holiday traditions that we are rooting out the Christian church now. Same Constantine over the Council of Nicea, same Pagan terminology using emporer now gives ANOTHER TERM TO DIVINITY, THIS TIME IT'S TRINITY. Why doesn't  anyone else see this as problematic??? Would a Christian Pastor Allow a Hindu to come into their meeting and set the terms for how their church should be run and how God should be taught doctrinally??? NO, absolutely Not! Yet, this council of Bishops let's a PROFESSING PAGAN do this at Nicea! I have an issue with this!

Lamarie Austin Devin, I'm a believer in the bible. I believe the Scripture CLEARLY speaks of the Godhead expressed in Father, Son, And Holy Spirit all over the place!! The bible clearly says that in Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form. I believe the Son is the Only way to the Father. I'm not denying a belief or affirmation of SCRIPTURE. I am discussing Constantine and my problem with this Compromised Paganism that He CLEARLY brought to the church. We still have all these pagan holidays now because of That time in History. COMPROMISE. And him and his leaders get to set a new RULE in Orthodox Christianity. It's suspect to me bro, the terminology, NOT SCRIPTURE.

Lamarie Austin Third point, which piggy backs off my first point, this council did not meet or decide on the new orthodox Christianity term UNTIL AFTER ALL THE EYEWITNESSES OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION AND THEIR DIRECT DISCIPLES WERE DEAD. Everyone knows, that by the 3rd or 4th generation of followers, COMPROMISE slips in. What we don't do in excellence, the next generation won't do in mediocrity. That's how it always works. SOOOOO, No trinitarian term required for first generation, ARGUABLY some of THE MOST RADICAL IN THE CHURCH! I mean, when's the last time you've heard of anyone being healed by your shadow or the sweat off your handkerchief?!?. First generation Church warning all over the epistles of apostacy, false teachers slipping in unaware and bringing in damnable teaching that denies the Lordship and deity of Jesus, this generation. Raising up a next generation-one that will commit the testimony to faithful men. No trinitarian term passed down anywhere in the epistles to the second generation. NO WHERE IN THERE. they pass down to their disciples, hey, Constantine may be 5th or 6th generation of folks my point is, why did it take so long for this terminology to show up, if it's that authentic, shouldn't the WITNESSES WHO WALKED WITH JESUS HIMSELF AND WERE WITH HIM DIRECTLY, shouldn't they if anyone have given us the terms to believe in Him??? Did they not already???? And who authorized the changing of the terminology????

Lamarie Austin Term change always denotes a spiritual shift, does it not???

Devin Pellew Put up your Dukes Lamarie :)

Let me say up front that me and Lamarie are good friends and I would not try and insult her or be nasty to her. This is two friends having a theological discussion. That said I will be pressing her and holding her feet to the fire :)

Let ma make a few points that will hopefully clarify the issues.

You said in your first post

" Here's a few points I've always had an issue with this. First, because the council implemented the Doctrine of the Trinity, setting the terms of Christian Orthodoxy"

This is simply not true. The councils do not "determine" a doctrine but rather put forth what has already been "discovered" in the texts of scripture. They did not "invent" the Trinity anymore than they "invented" the deity of Jesus. The doctrines are already revealed through out the scriptures. The creeds put the scriptures in a systematic form to clarify what has already been taught. So a lot of what you say from here on collapses because it is based on a false premise of what the creeds do.

Next you said

" anyone NOT UTILIZING THE TERMINOLOGY THEY DECIDED ON are AUTOMATICALLY BRANDED HERETICS"

One must understand church history and understand the NUMEROUS heresies that were arising. You had the Arians (Modern day Jehovahs Witnesses) claiming Jesus was a created being as well
 as other numerous heresies. With the Trinity you had Sebalious who denied the Trinity and taught that God instead appeared in three different modes, rejecting that the Father, Son and Spirit are co-persons ,co-equal and co-eternal. Thus even today we see MASSIVE confusion in the church over this issue thus when the Athanasian creed (Most detailed creed on the Trinity) they are making the distinctions that MUST be made to separate Saballeianism and Trinitarianism.

If one does not want to use the term Trinity, my question would be why? To say one affirms the Trinity is to make the distinction between orthodox Christianity and outright heresy. To say that because the word "Trinity" is not used in the Bible, is to miss the point. The word "Monotheism" (Only one God) is not used in the scriptures either but the concept is taught, and that is how we derive our doctrines. Nor whether the paticular word is there. As protestants we all affirm the 5 solas of the reformation and why the terms are not used the concepts are.

Next you said

"Now, here's my question on this point-NO ONE used this doctrine or terminology in coming to Faith in Jesus at Pentecost. "

I would completly disagree with you that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught implicitly through the scriptures. If you want to say the "word" Trinity was not used then I agree, but to say the doctrine is not there is completly false in my view. Just as the word (Monotheism) was not used the doctrine is taught all through out scripture. Again the "word" does not have to be there, but rather the question is if the "concept" is taught.

Next you said

"So, if everyone after 325 AD is a heretic for not using the term Trinity in referencing the Godhead, Are you/this council claiming the early Christians/Apostles were HERETICS TOO?????"

Who said those who do not use the term "Trinity" is a heretic? If one denies that the Father, Son and Spirit are co-equal-co eternal and co-persons then I would affirm one is a heretic. If they deny the word "trinity" that does not make one a heretic, to deny the "doctrine" would be heretical. Just as if one does not use the term monotheism they are not a heretic, however to deny the doctrine of Monotheism Would be a heresey.

You brought up a second issue and quoted out of the Catholic Encyclopedia and after quoting it you said

"Notice midway down what they say about Contstantine-ALTHOUGH HE EMPLOYED PAGAN TERMS IN SPEAKING OF DIVINITY-whoooooaaaaaa!!!! I don't care about their assessment of him, Look what they admit about the mans profession-He uses PAGAN TERMINOLOGY?!?"

Again this is all irrelevant to the doctrine Lamarie. This actually would commit the "genetic-fallacy" in logic where you are attacking the source of the term used rather than the merits of the doctrine found in scripture.

The question is whether or not the doctrine is found in the scriptures, not who came up with what they eventually name it.

Secondly, Constantine DID NOT first use the term Trinity but rather he employed the term which had already been around

"This word is derived from the Greek word trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Latin trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine."

http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/trinity.html

This being said your second objection fails because

1-It commits the "genetic-fallacy"

2-The term Trinity had been used before Constantine was even alive!

Part 2 is coming to address the rest of your objections

Great dialog

Devin Pellew Actually looking at your third point is was already addressed in your first point. The term is irrelevant, it is the doctrine or substance is the key issue. The doctrine IS taught through scripture. If one wants to uphold the doctrine but not use the term "Trinity" then I am ok with that.

Great discussion my friend and I hope that helps :)


I will post part 2 of the debate Wednesday!

In the Dark - Answers to Critics - Frank Turek

Dr. Turek does a great job equipping Christians, with answers to give a reason for the hope that lies with in us!

RUN !!!

(Matthew 7:13-27 ESV)

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

Silencing the Devil

Lecture 4, Is God or Man Sovereign?:

How do we reconcile God’s sovereignty with man’s free will? Unfortunately, many in the church have offered answers that do not stand up to logic. While many others have charged that either God’s sovereignty negates human freedom, or that human freedom overrides divine sovereignty. So which is it, Is God or man sovereign? Dr. Sproul and Dr. John Gerstner have a mock debate over this, in this message entitled “Is God or Man Sovereign?”

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/silencing_the_devil/is-god-or-man-sovereign/

The Mystery of Trinity - Monotheism - R C Sproul [Lecture 1]

The Mystery of the Trinity

Many of us, when asked about the Trinity, unknowingly offer heretical answers. Yet a proper understanding of this doctrine is essential to the health and welfare of the church.

In this series, Dr. R.C. Sproul gives a sweeping overview of this important doctrine, explaining difficult concepts, exploring biblical teaching, and defining what the term mystery means.

The Cross of Christ: 2006 Fall Conferences

Message 10, Justification by Faith Alone:

This Message is from the Conference The Cross of Christ: 2006 Fall Conferences.

About the Conference, The Cross of Christ: 2006 Fall Conferences

As the Good Shepherd, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ willingly laid down His life for the sake of His sheep (John 10:11). All of history revolves around this event, so we must strive to understand its significance.

In this collection from the 2006 fall conference series, R.C. Sproul, along with Ligon Duncan, Derek Thomas, and Albert Mohler, examines Christ’s work on the cross and remind us that it is the centerpiece of God’s redemption. Beginning with man’s need for atonement, they discuss the identity of those Jesus came to save, look at how He ransoms us from God’s curse, and answer common questions about the meaning of the crucifixion.

Does the Truth Matter Anymore? Part 1

This is based off of Dr. Macarthurs book "Ashamed of the Gospel, when the church wants to be like the world"

Dr. RC Sproul Faith Alone Part 1

The doctrine of justification was central in the Reformation. The Roman Church asserted that justification is by faith with the addition of works. The Reformers asserted that justification is by faith alone

The State of Evangelicalism Today and Christless "Christianity"

R.C. Sproul and Michael Horton

*This video is posted with expressed permission from the White Horse Inn. Go to http://www.whitehorseinn.org to learn more about this great show. You may also find past shows there.

On this edition of the White Horse Inn, Michael Horton talks with R.C. Sproul, Chairman of Ligonier Ministries and author of numerous books including The Holiness of God, The Truth of the Cross, and Knowing Scripture. Mike & R.C. discuss many of the themes relating to the year-long WHI theme, "Christless Christianity," and evaluate the overall health of Evangelical Christianity.

http://www.whitehorseinn.org

Why Apologetics?

First Peter 3:15 tells us that we are always to be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks us for a reason for the hope that is in us. But what exactly does a Christian Apologist do?

From the series: Defending Your Faith: An Overview of Classical Apologetics

www.ligonier.org

A Christian Evaluation of Mixed Martial Arts by: Pastor Mark Driscoll

http://pastormark.tv/2011/11/09/a-christian-evaluation-of-mixed-martial-arts

CLICK HERE

I know many Christians disagree with MMA or full contact fighting. However I think Mark Driscoll does a good job refuting many of the straw men that are used to argue against the sport.

Elephant Room

In this special episode we break from Luke to bring you content from the Elephant Room, or “the conversations you never thought you’d hear” between seven influential pastors. This conversation—from March 2011, moderated by Pastor James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel, Chicago—addresses loving the gospel vs. sharing the gospel.

Dr. James Mcdonald moderates a discussion between Greg Laurie and Mark Driscoll

Elephant Room

This conversation—from March 2011, moderated by Pastor James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel, Chicago—addresses culture in the church vs. church in the culture. How far is too far? What should you reject, receive, redeem?

Dr. James Mcdonald moderates this discussion between Pastor Perry Noble and Pastor Mark Driscoll

How did the people of God recognize which books were inspired?

Dr. Geisler explains how the people of God recognized what books were to be in the cannon of scripture. Here are three tests;

1-Was the book written by a prophet of God

2- Was the message confirmed by acts of God

3-Does the book tell the truth about God