Sorry. I thought you said :
BY that logic, if it doesn't say "Bible", "abortion", or "immutable" then those are just as implied because you can't redefine terms.
"Consistent" is not a subjective term. You can't just make up your own definitions.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Doctrine of the Trinity - Stated or Implied?
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
"Consistent" is not a subjective term. You can't just make up your own definitions.
[Insults edited] God bless
What are you talking about?
How is it different?
You say the Trinity is implied, not stated in Scripture because the Bible does not say "Thus is the trinity..."
Yet you complain when I say this is like saying the Bible is implied to be God's Word because the Bible does not say "the Bible is the God's Word". Same with abortion "the Bible doesn't use the word "abortion" and immutability. It is EXACTLY the same.
If not, then explain how it is different. There is no need to insult me. I simply don't see the distinction you are making.
I think you'll find it does. 2 Timothy 3:16.
This does not say "The Bible is..." . That's the argument I am facing.
I believe words hold meaning. They are symbols for the things they represent. We all know the Bible was not completed when Paul penned those words. But just like the Trinity, Scripture states the Bible is God's Word.
I was merely pointing out the inconsistently of requiring specific words.
I notice that you have shifted your ground subtly from 'explicit' to 'direct.
Acts 5:3-4 is a great verse for proving the deity of the Spirit, but
1. It does not explicitly say that the Spirit is God. We may rightly deduce from the fact of His personality that He is God, but the text does not say that 'directly.'
2. Acts 5:3-4 says nothing about the deity of Christ, so it does not prove the Trinity.
[Edited: off topic]
The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly stated in Scripture [Edited: off topic]
Please try not to be snide. I hoped we had agreed to try to be civil to each other.
The problem is you seem to think Scripture has to have all of those truths in one place. This simply is not true. Scripture directly states, directly confirms, the Trinity. It is not implied. Your inability to see this in God's Word, that "It is written", has no bearing on Scripture itself.
This is not being snide. It is simply disagreeing with you. The Triune God is not theory. Scripture testifies to Him through out, directly stating that God is One, Father. Son, and Spirit being God. This is different from theories of the atonement and end time theories.
I did not mean my comment to be snide, but rather to address what you posted concerning what Scripture states about the Holy Spirit.
What you are essentially arguing is Biblical Theology against Systematic Theology. I am trying to explain that the latter rests upon the former. We gather truths about a subject throughout Scripture and develop doctrines. We ask "what does the Bible say?" about a subject and compile these truths. And then we reason out these truths into broader teachings.
I am saying that the Bible states that God exists and the Godhead comprises Father, Son, and Spirit; yet God is One. From these stated truths we develop doctrine. But we need to be aware of what Scripture says and our reasoning out of Scripture. We have to ALWAYS go back to what Scripture directly states to test doctrine. This is called Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone).
Praise the Lord! It's like pulling teeth, but I think we're getting somewhere. Of course you don't need to have all of God's truths in one place!!!!! But when I have taken hours assembling all the texts that point to PSA, you have utterly refused to engage with my post and demanded a single killer text. Shall I now put my posts up for a third time and will you engage with them if I do?
[false accusation removed]
I am far from a theologian, I'm sure you will agree, but I do hold a Masters degree in systematic theology. You may therefore assume I know that these doctrines are developed systematically.
The difference is what forms the basis of these doctrines. Is it Scripture or is it something men see as implied in Scripture. What we see implied is called subjective. It is influenced by our traditions, worldviews, and circumstances. If you study historical theology you will see this very clearly.
What I am trying to communicate to you is that Scripture states the doctrine of a Triune God, the doctrine of the Trinity. From here theories are developed to deal with what Scripture presents (different ideas of how the Members operate, etc.). When we look at the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement we have a different basis because it is founded upon an external context through which Scripture is interpreted. This alone does not make it wrong, but this is the reason PSA remains in the realm of theory, along with other theories of atonement.
The difference is what forms the basis of these doctrines. Is it Scripture or is it something men see as implied in Scripture. What we see implied is called subjective. It is influenced by our traditions, worldviews, and circumstances. If you study historical theology you will see this very clearly.
What I am trying to communicate to you is that Scripture states the doctrine of a Triune God, the doctrine of the Trinity. From here theories are developed to deal with what Scripture presents (different ideas of how the Members operate, etc.). When we look at the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement we have a different basis because it is founded upon an external context through which Scripture is interpreted. This alone does not make it wrong, but this is the reason PSA remains in the realm of theory, along with other theories of atonement.
Well we do agree on one thing.
But just as there are obvious texts showing the nature of the Trinity, so there are equally obvious texts showing that Christ suffered for us the death punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.
And as Penal Substitution is intimately tied to the doctrine of Justification, it is no surprise to see that doctrine coming under attack in our time. If the one falls, so, in time, will the other.
As far as I know, no one is denying that Christ suffered for us the death punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. Who are you suggesting denies this?
You. This is the definition of P.S. that I have used over and over again. If you agree with it, why haven't you 'agreed' all my posts?
I never disagreed that Christ suffered for us the death punishment and curse due fallen humanity as the penalty of sin. You must have misunderstood.
And this thread is about the Trinity.
See here (as I tried to show in other threads) is a communication problem.
The suffering messiah did not suffer as SOME PS folk desire - because of the “wrath of God poured out upon Him by the Father.”
No one, that I know, has argued that our Lord did not suffer.
What I argue is that the suffering (purely from the standpoint of events) was common for all who were crucified. The nails, the wood the mocking, the signage, the bartering... and even the events of whipping(s) and all other mean treatment were not significantly different then any other put to death by crucifixion.
What I argue is that the focus of the cross is two major events. 1) the suffering was identifiers to signify the actual messiah from all who claimed to be the messiah. The prophets wrote specifically about these identification signs and the messiah. 2). The life laid down (not taken) was validation that full reconciliation was made, hence the single word “teleo” - finished, paid, accomplished.
I did not agree with many (not just your posts) because some want to embellish the suffering as the “wrath of God” rather then submit to the Scriptures that there was no “wrath from God” evidence from the OT type and statements, the historical events recorded in the Gospels, the NT letters, and that scene of heaven in Rev. 5.
Such expressions of wrath are just not based upon Scripture, not even implied by Scripture, and cannot be sustained as Scriptural.
The blood, the suffering, the death, the resurrection are all meaningful.
What is not meaningful is the over exuberance that in some manner the suffering was retribution payment from God. Such thinking is not Scriptural nor found in Scriptures.
I have a few questions relative to let's say both Trinity and PS.
I believe the wrath of God was poured out upon Jesus the Son of God and therefore we will not have to suffer that rath.
I believe the Son of God suffered our penalty.
Now where I am different is; The wrath was poured out upon him when the Father, "laid on him the iniquity of us all ". The Son cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The Son then gave his life for our sins. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
The spirit being his life.
I believe the Son of God was then dead, without Spirit, life. I believe he was dead, for three days and three nights.
If what I believe to be true. Did the Son of God need the grace of life from God the Father? Did he on whom the zwrath of God was poured and who gave his life need, require, grace from God the Father? Did that grace come through Spirit life by receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father?
Scriptures
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7
This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. “Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.Acts 2:32,33
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 1 Peter 3:18
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 1 Cor 15:45.46
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Hebrews 1:2 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. Romans 8:17 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
For one to hold to the “wrath of God poured out on the Son” one must find such wrath both in type and prophecy in the OT as well as confirming statements of such wrath being poured out on the Son in the NT.
Such is never even alluded anywhere in the Scriptures, but just the opposite is found.
Last edited:
First, I will admit that i am not sure just what the wrath of God entails.
And I probably should have put it this way, that the wrath of God needed satisfaction and was so satisfied in the obedient death of the Son of God. In the pouring forth of, the soul of the flesh in the blood, Lev 17:11.
However would that require - All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. - being he was sinless?
Do I understand that you and @JonC now accept my definition of Penal Substitution?
So how do we deal with Romans 2:8? 'But to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness-- indignation and wrath.' So the penalty for sin is indignation and wrath from God. If Christ has 'suffered for us the death, punishment and curse due fallen humanity as the penalty of sin,' then He must have suffered the 'indignation and wrath' of God. This is what the Westminster Confession calls 'good and necessary consequence', and the 1689 Confession calls being 'necessarily contained' in Scripture.JonC said:
You are partially right. I believe Christ bore our sin in his flesh, suffered and died by God's predetermined plan at the hands of Godless men, became a curse for us, is the propitiation for the sins of mankind, offered himself as a sin offering, and was obedient to the Father even to death. And I believe he was raised on the third day, vindicated, conquering sin and death, and is glorified by the Father who has given him a name above every name.
But I do not believe God was wrathful to Christ when he suffered and died, taking upon Himself the penalty of sin on behalf of mankind that all who believe would have life in Him.
We affirm the same passages, the same Scripture, but I do not hold your presuppositions.
It is not, of course, a presupposition, and it will not be such however often you claim it is.
It is the necessary consequence of your own beliefs as described above. Here we are again:-QUOTE="JonC"] I never disagreed that Christ suffered for us the death, punishment and curse due fallen humanity as the penalty of sin[/QUOTE]
If indignation and wrath are God's settled position against sinners (Romans 2:8) then that indignation and wrath is due to fallen humanity, and Christ must suffer them on our behalf.
There is nothing new in this. I have been quoting Psalm 7:11 to you for a couple of years but you haven't seen the necessary implications of verses like these.