Heresy?

[Benjamin Hobbs]

So, you agree with Dennis' article yet you still insist that Malachi is making ontological claims? I don't get it. I am not suggesting that you have to agree with Dennis, I am sure that there are many who don't. You are free to think that Malachi is making ontological claims as to God's nature. I happen to agree with him, but then his view of inspiration and mine are similar.

I agree with the premise that any form of cultural eisegesis is a bad thing.

How little I have read of Dennis I find him to be much less trustworthy than others in his field. Again, my little exposure to him may be skewing my views, but his conclusions sound familiar to the "well, we must find something different than traditional views" slant. Regardless whether the conclusions are sound or stand upon a Biblical worldview.

I have to ask what then is your view of inspiration? Do you accept the entire Bible as authoritative or not?

No one, Randy included, has made any claims to there being any other God/gods than the one true God. I, personally, don't think that Randy's view does any violence at all to the notion of Trinity. I know that you see Randy as trying to make Jesus a separate god, but I just don't happen to see it that way. I do not think that that is necessarily a necessary outcome of his position.

If Jesus did not always exist, that makes him a created being. God is not a created being and thus is separate in being from Christ. We are warned not to worship the created instead of the Creator.

And YES, the Trinity affirms equality of the persons. Randy clearly does not. By the definition of the Trinity he has ousted himself as a non-Trinitarian.

I second Ben's request that you, who has asked for another's, state your position and education.

I am a layperson in the church with some leadership responsibility. I have had formal education in Bible history, hermenuetics, systematic theology, ancient Mediterrenean history, ECFs and Roman culture. I have had formal education in Arabic, Classical Latin, French and Koine Greek.

I'm currently taking classes for ordination and for an Mechanical Engineering degree.

Satisfied?

[Benjamin Burch]

The accusation, whether intended or not, was that while Randy does not interpret via the ecumenical creeds I and others do. This seems to be a misunderstanding on my part.

If you had simply said that Randy rejected the creeds I would have had no objection to your information.

I think Paul is right regardless. I do not think the Scriptures naturally lend themselves to an understanding of the Trinity as you have put it and, the fact that you seem to think they do, is evidence that -- whether you know it or not -- you are, in fact, reading Scripture through the lens of the creeds. This is a good thing.

I would even suggest that Randy (and Arius) rightly had their finger on some of the ways in which Scripture was trying to come to terms with the reality of what the earliest Christians believed about Jesus.

The Nicean-Constantinople Creed is in no way an articulation of what Scripture plainly states. In fact, it isn't even a pretense of describing what the Scriptures communicate about Jesus. Instead, they are a theological position arrived at by Christ's Body which best deals with the big questions of salvation, how humanity and God interact in that, and how to make the best sense of both (a) what the Church believes about Jesus and (b) what the Scriptures say about Jesus.

It is a theological development which the Scriptural writers had not come to yet and, as such, there are Scriptural authors who do not articulate it and might even lend themselves more closely to what Randy has said. When viewed as historically contingent and contextual documents, this is not troubling in the least. Why should first century thinkers have a 4th century Christology? They shouldn't.

We believe not that the Scriptures plainly teach what the Creed says. We believe that we have more questions that impinge upon the discussion of Jesus, God, and the Incarantation than just "what does the Bible say about Jesus' divinity and humanity?" We have many more questions and Scripture says many things answering all of these different questions.

In order to make it all work and make sense, the Nicean-Constantinople Creed is what we have come to believe.

[Benjamin Burch]

I have to ask what then is your view of inspiration? Do you accept the entire Bible as authoritative or not?

This seems to be the wrong forum for such a question, at least with the way you seem to have posed it. Make sure you read this thread.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

I think Paul is right regardless. I do not think the Scriptures naturally lend themselves to an understanding of the Trinity as you have put it and, the fact that you seem to think they do, is evidence that -- whether you know it or not -- you are, in fact, reading Scripture through the lens of the creeds. This is a good thing.

Except that I have and never will interpet the Bible through the creeds. Simply I am a Trinitarian because I believe all of the Bible.

I would even suggest that Randy (and Arius) rightly had their finger on some of the ways in which Scripture was trying to come to terms with the reality of what the earliest Christians believed about Jesus.

Except that Arius also rejected portions of scripture. Something which Randy has dodged several times.

The Nicean-Constantinople Creed is in no way an articulation of what Scripture plainly states. In fact, it isn't even a pretense of describing what the Scriptures communicate about Jesus. Instead, they are a theological position arrived at by Christ's Body which best deals with the big questions of salvation, how humanity and God interact in that, and how to make the best sense of both (a) what the Church believes about Jesus and (b) what the Scriptures say about Jesus.

It is a theological development which the Scriptural writers had not come to yet and,

This is an unfounded declaration. Not a historical fact.

as such, there are Scriptural authors who do not articulate it and might even lend themselves more closely to what Randy has said. When viewed as historically contingent and contextual documents, this is not troubling in the least. Why should first century thinkers have a 4th century Christology? They shouldn't.

When the word "trinitas" was use prior to the 4th century (as it was) your argument starts to fall apart.

Simply put, the Nicean creed put into official language that which had been articulated since the first century. No one suddenly came up with that Christology in the 4th century, it was simply put into official form to defend against Arius.

We believe not that the Scriptures plainly teach what the Creed says. We believe that we have more questions that impinge upon the discussion of Jesus, God, and the Incarantation than just "what does the Bible say about Jesus' divinity and humanity?" We have many more questions and Scripture says many things answering all of these different questions.

In order to make it all work and make sense, the Nicean-Constantinople Creed is what we have come to believe.

Then what of the earlier Caeserean Creed? What of the Carmen Christi in Phil 2:6-11 (considered by scholars to be a 1st century hymn)?

The Nicean creed is nothing more than the official form of beliefs held long before the 4th century ecumenical councils.

[Benjamin Burch]

Except that I have and never will interpet the Bible through the creeds. Simply I am a Trinitarian because I believe all of the Bible. Except that Arius also rejected portions of scripture. Something which Randy has dodged several times. This is an unfounded declaration. Not a historical fact. When the word "trinitas" was use prior to the 4th century (as it was) your argument starts to fall apart.

Simply put, the Nicean creed put into official language that which had been articulated since the first century. No one suddenly came up with that Christology in the 4th century, it was simply put into official form to defend against Arius. Then what of the earlier Caeserean Creed? What of the Carmen Christi in Phil 2:6-11 (considered by scholars to be a 1st century hymn)?

The Nicean creed is nothing more than the official form of beliefs held long before the 4th century ecumenical councils.

Sorry, maybe I articulated my position poorly.

Yes the Church, at times, in places, and even much of it, had believed, in some form, what the Nicene Creed articulates. It is, however, not the unanimous position of the NT, nor the clear position of the NT, and is most assuredly the product of theological development. Good theological development.

You can claim you don't read it through the creeds, and more power to you for believing that, but I simply think you are dealing in self-deceit. The idea that a 21C Christian in orthodox Christianity can be completely free of the influence of the creeds is, to me, nonsensical. Believe it if you wish, and more power to you. I'd prefer to at least admit that I rely on the wisdom of 2,000 years of Christianity to help me deal with more difficult parts of Scripture.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Sorry, maybe I articulated my position poorly.

Yes the Church, at times, in places, and even much of it, had believed, in some form, what the Nicene Creed articulates. It is, however, not the unanimous position of the NT, nor the clear position of the NT, and is most assuredly the product of theological development. Good theological development.

The problem is that you are arguing akin to "since there were no firefighters in the first century, there obviously weren't alot of fires".

One only has to remember that in the 1-4th centuries the Church was still being persecuted and had little to no unified leadership (aside from a small council in Jerusalem which existed for a time). And that up until the point of Lucian of Antioch (2-3rd century) no one had been recorded as believing anything other than the full diety of Christ, short of the Gnostics, Marcion and Montanus (all which had other major issues). There simply was no reason to defend the idea of the Trinity in any formal way, until a thread arose.

You can claim you don't read it through the creeds, and more power to you for believing that, but I simply think you are dealing in self-deceit. The idea that a 21C Christian in orthodox Christianity can be completely free of the influence of the creeds is, to me, nonsensical. Believe it if you wish, and more power to you. I'd prefer to at least admit that I rely on the wisdom of 2,000 years of Christianity to help me deal with more difficult parts of Scripture.

Absolute monotheism, three persons, and equality of those persons are quite clear in scripture. It doesn't take a history lesson to read the Bible and come to that conclusion. I debated my way into Trinitarianism and only became aware of the creeds in college.

[Benjamin Burch]

Absolute monotheism, three persons, and equality of those persons are quite clear in scripture. It doesn't take a history lesson to read the Bible and come to that conclusion. I debated my way into Trinitarianism and only became aware of the creeds in college.

Well, I believe that you believe you did.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Well, I believe that you believe you did.

With your continued assertions of the like is it equally absurd for any Post-Modern theologian to believe he can interpret what the OT writers "really" meant without his Postmodernism getting in the way?

[Hans Deventer]

From the thread "So what's this forum about?"

Dennis, I've struggled to find the proper words. And I'm very open to any improvement. What I meant was that this would be a place where one can discuss theology that might be different from what people are used to, without having to enter into the 897th instalment of a discussion that will never produce anything. So yes, this forum is off limits for the folks who cannot accept people who think differently, or consider themselves to be appointed by God to challenge any idea they think is contrary to their very own idea of orthodoxy.

[Benjamin Burch]

With your continued assertions of the like is it equally absurd for any Post-Modern theologian to believe he can interpret what the OT writers "really" meant without his Postmodernism getting in the way?

It is a worth-while endeavor. Do I think it entirely possible? No, I do not. Your situation here is slightly different.

[Steven Martinez]

This is a Host Post

It is important to remember what this forum is about. This forum exist to explore Christian theology in the post-modern world free from modern critique and/or rules. This does not imply that every thought is Orthodox or even Christian. This is just a safe place to explore without being drawn and quartered. So lets just move on with the original topic. Leave Randy alone and either explore the boundaries of Christian thought or go to the other pool (general theology forum). People here tend to swim in the deep end and there is a risk of drowning but no one has drowned yet.

Church History has shown us that often the Orthodox position is not fully developed, or at least not clearly articulated until the heretical position is defined. I also remember a former professor who quipped that he would rather be a heretic than a blasphemer. Heresy is always subject to the current state of the Church while blasphemy is eternal separation from the identity of God. Luther was deemed a heretic once upon a time. So lets be more courteous when flinging the label around.

Thanks
Steve Martinez
Post-Traditional Theology Forum Host

[Benjamin Hobbs]

It is a worth-while endeavor. Do I think it entirely possible? No, I do not. Your situation here is slightly different.

How is it any different? I had never heard of the creeds nor had I known anything about ecumenical councils. I simply debated with those who believed in the Trinity and studied for myself.

It seems more absurd that postmodern thinkers have any better standing on which to reach a non-biased conclusion.

[Hans Deventer]

It seems more absurd that postmodern thinkers have any better standing on which to reach a non-biased conclusion.

Benjamin, it is actually an integral part of post modernism to acknowledge one's bias, even to the extent that some take it so far as to believe no true knowledge can be reached at all.
It is the modern era that had hoped for objective knowledge.

[Benjamin Burch]

How is it any different? I had never heard of the creeds nor had I known anything about ecumenical councils. I simply debated with those who believed in the Trinity and studied for myself.

Without any context for your "debate" this doesn't mean much.

It seems more absurd that postmodern thinkers have any better standing on which to reach a non-biased conclusion.

I never said they did. I certainly never zeroed in on postmodernism. That was you.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Without any context for your "debate" this doesn't mean much.

I had long conversations, email correspondence and ....--you know what? Forget it. You want to doubt my ability to accurately and firmly declare my own history, GO AHEAD. Call me a liar, call me whatever.

I never said they did. I certainly never zeroed in on postmodernism. That was you.

Pointing out the absurdity of something certainly never caused anyone to lose their mind. But your lack of recognition to the point has exposed your argument as inconsistant. And "the sign of a failed argument is inconsistancy."

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Benjamin, it is actually an integral part of post modernism to acknowledge one's bias, even to the extent that some take it so far as to believe no true knowledge can be reached at all.
It is the modern era that had hoped for objective knowledge.

Thank you, I am quite aware.

I hold that postmodern thought is mostly bankrupt because of the lack of any objective knowledge.

[Benjamin Burch]

I had long conversations, email correspondence and ....--you know what? Forget it. You want to doubt my ability to accurately and firmly declare my own history, GO AHEAD. Call me a liar, call me whatever.

I'm not doubting your history at all, nor your ability to articulate it. I'm doubting everyone's (and therefore your) ability to consciously recognize everything which helped bring us to our decisions. I also never called you a liar. I specifically said that I believe you believe what you've said.

Pointing out the absurdity of something certainly never caused anyone to lose their mind. But your lack of recognition to the point has exposed your argument as inconsistant. And "the sign of a failed argument is inconsistancy."

I wasn't inconsistent at all. I said it was a worthwhile endeavor which was not entirely possible. How is that inconsistent with the fact that I don't find it entirely possible that you arrived at a position of orthodox Christology without the help of the Church? There is nothing inconsistent about that.

Now, as to your more specific frustration and question:

How is it any different?

Whenever someone does a bunch of research in a field where scholars have had lively debate and not had a unanimous conclusion, yet finds that the "correct" and "clear" answer is the answer that is supposed to be the correct answer, yet claims that the fact that it is supposed to be the correct answer had absolutely no bearing on their realization that it is the correct answer.... that's pretty suspect. It is certainly different than people finding that what was supposed to be the right answer really might not be.

Btw, I think your question would have made more sense if you were talking about modern theologians, not postmodern ones. That is, it is the modern ones which claim to get to what the OT authors "really said", not the postmodern ones.

[Randy Wise]

Do you accept the entire Bible as authoritative or not? If Jesus did not always exist, that makes him a created being. God is not a created being and thus is separate in being from Christ. We are warned not to worship the created instead of the Creator.

Yes, the fulness that was pleased to dwell In Jesus wasn't created. It was given to the Firstborn. A Jesus apart from that fullness doesn't exist. We are to honor Son per the Fathers command. Every knee shall bow... And as I read in the book of Rev. Jesus was found worthy of such Glory by God.

R.

[Hans Deventer]

Thank you, I am quite aware.

I hold that postmodern thought is mostly bankrupt because of the lack of any objective knowledge.

Yeah. And postmoderns know that modernism is bankrupt for the illusion of being able to reach objective knowledge at all, while even in a field like physics it has become clear that it does not exist. Go the very small for instance, and all our so called laws don't work anymore and everything becomes unpredictable.
It is amazing how people keep defending positions that haven been proven to be untenable. It's like arguing for a pre-Copernican solar system.

Anyway, if you're here merely to attack post modernism, you are definitely at the wrong forum. This forum was especially created NOT to have THAT kind of discussions. I think you should know by now.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Yeah. And postmoderns know that modernism is bankrupt for the illusion of being able to reach objective knowledge at all,

This is again, opinion pretending to be fact.

while even in a field like physics it has become clear that it does not exist. Go the very small for instance, and all our so called laws don't work anymore and everything becomes unpredictable.
It is amazing how people keep defending positions that haven been proven to be untenable. It's like arguing for a pre-Copernican solar system.

Anyway, if you're here merely to attack post modernism, you are definitely at the wrong forum. This forum was especially created NOT to have THAT kind of discussions. I think you should know by now.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Yes, the fulness that was pleased to dwell In Jesus wasn't created. It was given to the Firstborn. A Jesus apart from that fullness doesn't exist. We are to honor Son per the Fathers command. Every knee shall bow... And as I read in the book of Rev. Jesus was found worthy of such Glory by God.

R.

You have ignored all other scripture which condemns your position, have you noticed that? The Carmen Christi and other passages have made it quite clear that Jesus IS God and was not "given" some "fulness".

Kenosis or emptying is what happened, quite opposite of your assertion of "giving"

"Image of the eternal God" (says nothing about any fulness)
"who although, existed in the form of God, did not find equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied himself" (again, kenosis)

[Benjamin Burch]

You have ignored all other scripture which condemns your position, have you noticed that? The Carmen Christi and other passages have made it quite clear that Jesus IS God and was not "given" some "fulness".

Kenosis or emptying is what happened, quite opposite of your assertion of "giving"

"Image of the eternal God" (says nothing about any fulness)
"who although, existed in the form of God, did not find equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied himself" (again, kenosis)

You see, this, to me, is a bit of an overstep. That is, I have no doubts that Paul is, in some way, equating Jesus with God and at the same time making a very strong distinction between Jesus and the Father.

However, to say that this in any way is a clear representation of what is expressed in the Nicene Creed is just not true.

[Paul DeBaufer]

The accusation, whether intended or not, was that while Randy does not interpret via the ecumenical creeds I and others do. This seems to be a misunderstanding on my part.

If you had simply said that Randy rejected the creeds I would have had no objection to your information.

I don't know that he rejects the creeds that's why I couldn't say that. As to what I did say it was an assumption on my part. Sorry for any confusion I may have insinuated into the conversation.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I have to ask what then is your view of inspiration? Do you accept the entire Bible as authoritative or not?

I think that God reveals Godself to and within communities of faith. These faith communities then wrestle with that revelation and attempt to communicate it to their posterity and other communities of faith. Finally, someone or some group collected the stories of faith, the testimonies to God's revelation of Godself within the communities, compiled and redacted them together into what made up the texts included in what we today call the Bible.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Yeah. And postmoderns know that modernism is bankrupt for the illusion of being able to reach objective knowledge at all, while even in a field like physics it has become clear that it does not exist. Go the very small for instance, and all our so called laws don't work anymore and everything becomes unpredictable.
It is amazing how people keep defending positions that haven been proven to be untenable. It's like arguing for a pre-Copernican solar system.

Anyway, if you're here merely to attack post modernism, you are definitely at the wrong forum. This forum was especially created NOT to have THAT kind of discussions. I think you should know by now.

Thank you for being patient with me Hans. I admit now that my preconceptions of what NazNet was were completely incorrect and have been rightfully dashed to pieces.

As it is, NazNet does not seem the place for me, specifically because I do not see the benefit for the existence of such a meandering board. I can no longer think of a board anywhere that (excuse me) isn't filled to the brim by heretics or jerks, if you know of one please point me there. This is no insult, but rather a personal opinion.

Thanks again.

[Benjamin Burch]

Thank you for being patient with me Hans. I admit now that my preconceptions of what NazNet was were completely incorrect and have been rightfully dashed to pieces.

As it is, NazNet does not seem the place for me, specifically because I do not see the benefit for the existence of such a meandering board. I can no longer think of a board anywhere that (excuse me) isn't filled to the brim by heretics or jerks, if you know of one please point me there. This is no insult, but rather a personal opinion.

Thanks again.

Filled to the brim? One person has espoused heresy this far. That is all. From there, I have yet to see anyone be a jerk to you.

[Gina Stevenson]

As it is, NazNet does not seem the place for me, specifically because I do not see the benefit for the existence of such a meandering board. I can no longer think of a board anywhere that (excuse me) isn't filled to the brim by heretics or jerks, if you know of one please point me there. This is no insult, but rather a personal opinion.

Awww, come on, Benjamin ... no insult? In spite of being only "opinion," and not necessarily fact, we all understand that when you are on a board and indicate you know of none without "jerks and heretics," that it does indeed insult those on that very board on which you are posting this. Let's "play nice," and cut the name-calling, OK?

[John Kennedy]

IIt would be well if those responsible for setting up the stakes and for fuel gathering be notified when it looks like this heresy thread is about to wind up. There's absolutely nothing on earth worse than having a heretic on one's hands while we're dealing with infrastructure and supply issues.
Thank you.

[Cam Pence]

Thank you for being patient with me Hans. I admit now that my preconceptions of what NazNet was were completely incorrect and have been rightfully dashed to pieces.

As it is, NazNet does not seem the place for me, specifically because I do not see the benefit for the existence of such a meandering board. I can no longer think of a board anywhere that (excuse me) isn't filled to the brim by heretics or jerks, if you know of one please point me there. This is no insult, but rather a personal opinion.

Thanks again.

I am almost afraid to ask which one I am

[Lucas Finch]

I am almost afraid to ask which one I am

Do you want my opinion?

[Cam Pence]

Do you want my opinion?

As the self proclaimed "biggest ego" on Naznet....I am sure that I have nothing to fear

[Hans Deventer]

Thank you for being patient with me Hans. I admit now that my preconceptions of what NazNet was were completely incorrect and have been rightfully dashed to pieces.

As it is, NazNet does not seem the place for me, specifically because I do not see the benefit for the existence of such a meandering board. I can no longer think of a board anywhere that (excuse me) isn't filled to the brim by heretics or jerks, if you know of one please point me there. This is no insult, but rather a personal opinion.

Thanks again.

You're welcome!

[Steven Martinez]

I think we are done here.