“Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.”
Thursday, August 23, 2012
St. Thomas Aquinas
“Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.”
Alvin Plantinga Knocking Down Atheist Objections
http://closertotruth.com - PBS' Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviews Dr. Alvin Plantinga (often named as the most important living philosopher of religion today) about typical arguments made by atheists against the existence of God.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Facts on the Ressurection
Extracts from the full presentation, which can be viewed at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iyxR8uE9GQk "The Evidence for Jesus's Resurrection" by Dr William Lane Craig. This lecture, followed by audience Q&A, was held in Southampton during the UK Reasonable Faith Tour (October 2011).
Moral Code or Just Moral Opinions?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org - William Lane Craig addresses a question from the audience about the Moral Argument for the existence of God. Is it a moral code we follow or is it merely a moral opinion as some atheists may contend? What difference does it make if morals are just "opinion?" In this clip, Dr Craig answers these questions.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=8D03B649B2EC2A78 - To view the entire lecture on Arguments for the Existence of God & the New Atheists click the above link.
A Christian Perspective of Hinduism
In this boraodcast of Giving An Answer, H.C. Felder interviews Prem Isaac who talks about the origin, beliefs, and practices of Hinduism and how they differ from Christianity.
Category:
Monday, August 20, 2012
No Compromise Ever
No Co Ever: Episode 1 from No Compromise Radio on Vimeo.
No Co Ever: Episode 1 from No Compromise Radio on Vimeo.
Excellent video with some very respected leaders looking at the numerous problems with the "Elephant Room" and some of the guests as well as the questions that were asked to certain guests.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
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.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
'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).
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Theology Matters Radio show with Myself and my Wife Melissa
.jpg)
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-visible-conservative-christians-unleashed/2012/08/16/theology-matters-with-the-pellews
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!
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
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 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??
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.
(Galatians 3:16-18 ESV)
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 That God can "change" or undergo differing modes
Lamarie Austin I believe it's the same God.
Lamarie Austin personhood is a confinment/restriction of omnipresence in how God reveals himself to men
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 Never leaving Heaven bankrupt
Devin Pellew I understand they are both God
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....
Devin Pellew Your theology itself puts you in a corner
Devin Pellew Define what you mean by personhood?
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?
I will post the 3rd and final part of the debate this weekend.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
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
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!
Guard Yourself and Test All Things
ou want to know something? He’s right. He’s right. Want to know something else? Doctrine divides. People say, “Oh doctrine divides…doctrine divides.” I say, “Amen, preach it, doctrine divides.” You know what it does? It confronts error. It separates true from false. It makes judgments. Today’s climate, however, of unity in the priority of relationships, that’s not tolerable."
~John MacArthur
Monday, August 13, 2012
Dr. Doug Geivett vs Dr. John Shook Part 1
Very exciting debate! This is part one of a three part debate. There are many atheists in the crowd and Dr. Shook is a formidable opponent. Enjoy!
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!
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?
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
Great discussion my friend and I hope that helps :)
I will post part 2 of the debate Wednesday!
Arminianism (Dr. Michael Brown) vs Calvinism (Dr. James White)
Very good debate between to competent scholars!
Do the Gospels Have Contradictions?
Sunday, August 12, 2012
To Him Be Glory Forevermore
Our Focus: The Glory of God
So we will focus today on the glory of God. Here’s the plan: First, I will try to do the impossible and define the indefinable, the glory of God; second, we will look at the words “to him be glory” in Romans 16:27, and ask what it means to say “glory be to something.” And third, instead of a systematic treatment of Paul’s understanding of the glory of God, we will start with chapter one and simply walk through the entire book and see the role that the glory of God plays in the book of Romans as a whole. My prayer is that you see and love the glory of God for what it is.
Case For Christ
Based upon the Gold Medallion award-winning best-seller, The Case for Christ documents Lee Strobel's journey from atheism to faith through his two-year investigation of the Bible and the life of Jesus Christ. Strobel, the former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, draws upon his investigative skills to examine the historical accuracy of the Gospels, the personal claims of Jesus and His resurrection from the dead. Is there evidence to confirm that Jesus of Nazareth was, indeed, the son of God and the savior of the world? This remarkable film features interviews with 10 leading Biblical scholars from North America and England, cutting-edge apologetics, and a compelling original music score.
At the Bottom of this Blog I have several others videos like this dealing with science, the Bible, etc. Please take time to check them all out.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
The Gospel
Watch this video of these people who hear the gospel for the first time and go ecstatic to find out that Jesus Christ died on the cross and His blood will save His elect from their sins
No cool band with "skinny jeans". No strobe lights and electric guitars. Just the gospel of Jesus Christ! They celebrated for over two hours straight!!! Oh that we would fall in love with the gospel and that we would see that it is more than enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)