tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3918714811185371284..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The "Jesus as Yahweh heresy"Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5268318498343521182017-03-15T00:46:50.964-04:002017-03-15T00:46:50.964-04:00I say you're not a Christian by the authority ...I say you're not a Christian by the authority of Scripture, since you deny the cardinal doctrines of God, Christ, and the Spirit.<br /><br />In addition, you're confusing words with concepts. it isn't necessary for the Bible to call the Trinity "God" for the Trinity to be God, any more than it's necessary for Scripture to call Abraham or Joseph a patriarch for us to classify them as patriarchs. This is just a question of what the Bible says individually about the Father, Son, and Spirit, then putting that together. For that matter, where does the Bible call itself "the Bible"? It doesn't. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68353265583939705262017-03-14T08:03:46.257-04:002017-03-14T08:03:46.257-04:00I am a Christian who denies the Trinity. By what ...I am a Christian who denies the Trinity. By what authority do you say that I am not a Christian, Steve?<br />Also, you helpfully distinguish between the different possible uses of 'God'. But where in the Bible is 'God' used as a proper name referencing the Trinity? Where in the OT? Where in the NT?David Kemball-Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13098892760208988484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-96016439564610902017-03-10T14:20:26.321-05:002017-03-10T14:20:26.321-05:00David, I'm well aware of the fact that the Nic...David, I'm well aware of the fact that the Nicene Creed and patristic theology in general affirm the eternal generation of the Son. So what? That's not my standard of comparison. I think it lacks adequate exegetical justification in Scripture. And I'm hardly alone in that. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71870821688599585512017-03-10T13:06:01.385-05:002017-03-10T13:06:01.385-05:00==The source of what? God is the source of creatio...==The source of what? God is the source of creation. That doesn't mean God is the source of the Son. And that doesn't mean the Father is the source of the Son (or the Spirit).==<br /><br />Interesting take, given the fact that such a view runs contrary to the teachings of the pre-Nicene, Nicene and a good number of post-Nicene Church Fathers. It also runs contrary to the express teaching of the original Nicene Creed. Even Augustine takes issue with the above view; note the following:<br /><br />Partly then, I repeat, it is with a view to this administration that those things have been thus written which the heretics make the ground of their false allegations; and partly it was with a view to the consideration that <b>the Son owes to the Father that which He is</b>, thereby also certainly owing this in particular to the Father, to wit, that He is equal to the same Father, or that He is His Peer (<i>eidem Patri æqualis aut par est</i>), <b>whereas the Father owes whatsoever He is to no one</b>. (<i>On Faith and the Creed</i>, 9.18 -NPNF 3.328-329 - bold emphasis mine.)<br /><br /><i>Just as the Father has life in himself, so he has also granted the Son to have life in himself</i> (Jn. 5:26). As he had, as he gave; what he had, he gave; he gave the same king he had; he gave as much as he had. All the things which the Father has are the Son's. Therefore, the Father gave to the Son nothing less than the Father has. The Father did not lose the life he gave to the Son. By living, he retains the life he gave by begetting. The Father himself is life, and the Son himself is life. <b>Each of them has what he is, but the one is life from no one, while the other is life from life</b>. (<i>Answer to Maximinis the Arian, II.7 - The Works of Saint Augustine</i>, vol. 1.18, <i>Arianism and other Heresies</i>, p. 284 - bold emphasis mine.)<br /><br />Thus, then, the Son according to nature (<i>naturalis filius</i>) was <b>born of the very substance of the Father</b>, the only one so born, subsisting as that which the Father is, God of God, Light of Light. (<i>On Faith and the Creed</i>, 4.6 -NPNF 3.324 - bold emphasis mine.)<br /><br />Only one natural Son, then, has been <b>begotten of the very substance of the Father</b>, and having the same nature as the father: God of God, Light of Light. (<i>On Faith and the Creed</i>, 4.6 - <i>FC</i> 27.323 - bold emphasis mine.)<br /><br />Being Son by nature he was <b>born uniquely of the substance of the Father</b>, being what the Father is, God of God, Light of Light. (<i>Faith and the Creed 4.6 - LCC, Augustine: Earlier Writings</i>, p. 357 - bold emphasis mine.)<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9106742914366691512017-03-10T10:40:25.144-05:002017-03-10T10:40:25.144-05:00Quite a helpful post, Steve. People will learn a l...Quite a helpful post, Steve. People will learn a lot from this. http://trinities.org/blog/10-practical-tips-for-becoming-a-worse-apologist/Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.com