On May 11, 1:45 am, "Carl" <sai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> The following article by Van Lees concerns the Biblical doctrine of the
Holy
> Trinity. It is a enlightening and informative article.
JERRY
Carl, I can't believe you recommended this. It's garbage, just silly
rationalizations without any sup****t for the claims. Let me show you
a couple of the first few paragraphs to show you why.
>
> ---
>
> THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
> by Van Lees
>
> One of the more im****tant and central doctrines of Christianity is the
> doctrine of the Trinity. The concept that there is one God that
subsists in
> three persons is essential to the Christian faith.
JERRY
Why? What is essential to Christianity is that God sent his "son," to
die for the sins of mankind. There is no need for a Trinity in order
for that to hold true. Stating that the Trinity is essential does not
make it so, nor does the text of the NT bear that out, since you can
only make the claim of the Trinity by parsing verses and using
implication and rationalization. If the Trinity and it's concept were
really "essential" to Christianity, it wouldn't be implied, it would
be clearly stated.
> Van Lees
> J. Oliver Buswell, Jr.,
> in his Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion states, "The
doctrine
> of the Trinity is indispensable for the harmony and unity of other major
> doctrines in the Christian system" (p. 126).
JERRY
So, what Van Lees is saying is, "this is im****tant because this guy
says so." And who is this guy? Is he one of the leading translators
of the text? Is he holding numerous degrees in theology, history and
ancient languages? What makes him an expert, and you need to know
that since Van Lees here is using the logical fallacy of the argument
from authority, trying to claim something is so based on the fact that
someone else whose credentials we are not told simply says so.
> Van Lees
> A good example of the
> essentiality of the doctrine of the Trinity is its relation to the
> incarnation of Christ. It would be impossible to conceive of God
becoming
> man, dying for the sins of man, and rising from the dead apart from the
> concept of the Trinity.
JERRY
Again, not at all. If God or God-through-Jesus can raise a man from
the dead, why do you need a Trinity to raise Jesus after he dies?
And in fact, the concept that Jesus is god actually cheapens the
sacrifice and makes it less. If Jesus is also God, an eternal being
who cannot really die, then he sacrificed nothing on the cross. He
could make himself feel no pain, his death is actually a sham and
there is no real sacrifice for the sins of mankind.
The sacrifice is far greater if God created his son in human form, he
comes to earth with no great powers and truly suffers, not as a god,
but as a human being in all it's frailty.
> Van Lees
> "For God (the Father) so loved the world that he gave his only begotten
Son
> (the second person of the Trinity) that whosoever believeth in him
(through
> the conviction and enabling work of the Holy Spirit, John 16:8; Eph.
2:1-8)
> should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16) (Buswell., p.
128).
JERRY
Then, to seal the deal, Van Lees interpolates the verse to make it say
what he wants it to say, not what it really says.
> Van Lees
> The doctrine of the Trinity is not an arithmetic paradox; it does not
teach
> that one equals three. The doctrine propounds that there is but one
God,
> that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is each God; and that the
> Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is each a distinct person - a
> self-conscious being. The classic definition of the Trinity is: God is
one
> in essence and three in person. The reason people usually have trouble
> understanding this is that we are accustomed to the idea that "one
person
> equals one essence." While there is mystery involved in the Trinity, it
is
> not irrational; it does not present an antinomy.
JERRY
And this is a rationalization. Show where it says such in the text of
the NT. It's not in there. Van Lees wants you to buy into the
Trinity and will rationalize any explanation that he thinks makes
sense to get you to do so.
> Van Lees
> The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly, but rather implicitly set
> forth in the Scripture.
JERRY
Boy howdy! There is nothing in the bible that says God is three.
People have to read into the verses in order to make that claim.
> Van Lees
> This format, however, in which the doctrine is
> presented does not cause it to be an unbiblical concept. B. B.
Warfield, in
> his article, "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity" states: "The
doctrine of
> the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from
its
> solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer
view
> (Biblical and Theological Studies, p. 22)
JERRY
Here you have two people saying the same thing. Van Lees says that
just because the bible doesn't specifically say anything about the
Trinity doesn't cause it to be unbiblical (well, yes it does, since
the concept of the Trinity is more about people claiming that their
interpretation of the text not only implies such a triune being, but
makes it so) and then you have Warfield saying the same thing, just
using more words.
> Van Lees
> The entire Bible is Trinitarian to the core. It is incorrect to
advocate
> that the New Testament is Trinitarian and the Old Testament is
monotheistic.
> The doctrine of the Trinity is present in the Old Testament, but it is
> enunciated more in the guise of intimation than direct revelation. Some
of
> the indications of the Trinity in the Old Testament are: the employment
of
> plural pronouns in reference to God (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8),
> repetitions of the name of God that seem to distinguish between God and
God
> (Psa. 45:6,7; 110:1), and threefold liturgical formulas (Numbers
6:24,26;
> Isa. 6:3).
JERRY
Ok, he's finally getting somewhere, however the use of words
designating "plural gods" is as much a throwback to the pagan belief
that there were many gods. Also, in the OT they believed that there
were multiple gods but that the Hebrew god was the greatest and
strongest.
>
> The Angel of God in the Old Testament is a particularly strong
indication of
> the Trinity (Gen. 16:7-13; 22:1,2, 11-18; 31:11-13; 48:15,16; Exo.
3:2-6;
> 13:21 and 14:19; 23:20-23 and 33:14; 32:34 - compare Exo. passages with
> Judges 2:1-4 and Exo. 20:1,2; Josh. 5:5:13-15; Judges 6:11-23; 13:18-22;
2
> Sam. 24:16; Zech. 12:8). In every context the Angel of God speaks and
> performs deeds as if he were God himself, but distinguishes himself from
> God.
JERRY
Or, the angel could simply be the manifestation that works and speaks
FOR god, that god speaks THROUGH the angel. Again, there is no text
to sup****t the claims made by Van Lees here, he is simply making it up
as he goes along.
And as much as I would love to have the time to really dig into this
and take it section by section and verse by verse, right now my
schedule doesn't permit me the time.
Suffice it to say, Van Lees has presented an article full of
unsup****ted claims (he gives you verses where the Angel "speaks and
performs deeds as if he were god himself but distinguishes himself
from god) but pretty much offers you his own rationalization to
sup****t his claims of the Trinity.
|
