Posted by Author Unknown, et al on 4/6/2001, 6:13 pm

Essential Terms Posted by Author Unknown on 3/21/2001, 4:56 pm One reading a statement on the Trinity will find these terms in use. They are essential to describe the doctrine. The terms, God The Son, Eternal Word, God the Holy Spirit, Incarnate, Pre-incarnate, Pre-existent Christ, Co-equal, Co-eternal, Three in One, Distinct in subsistence, God-man, and Trinity do not appear in the Scriptures. Nor do the terms Eternal Generation, Eternal Procession, First, Second, and Third Person, of the God essence. Also, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, and being of one substance with the Father are non-biblical terms. Triunity is the very latest cutting edge term to describe the Trinity. However, even this word does not appear in Scripture. No apostle, prophet, or king in the entire Bible used one of these 23 terms. Not even Jesus! THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST HAD NO TRINITARIAN TERMS The apostle Paul said: “I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ” (Romans 15:19 NIV). Yet, in Paul’s epistles he failed to use even one of the twenty three terms in use today describing the Trinity. Seeing Paul preached the full gospel back when the gospel was new without using one of those twenty three terms, could a modern minister peach the full gospel today without using the Trinitarian terms? ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 3/21/2001, 8:41 pm , in reply to "Essential Terms " A.U., I no longer have trouble with the fact that trinitarian doctrine does not confine itself to words found in the scriptures themselves. I have realized there is no command in the Bible that prohibits us from summarizing scriptural subjects in words that are not themselves found in the scriptures. I believe that accurately summarizing their meaning is more important than merely using scriptural words in one's doctrine. As I have pointed out before, an approach such as the one you suggest would really render us unable to translate the New Testament, since that requires one to constantly choose different words to represent the actual words written by the apostles. Further, the trinitarian doctrine was formulated to meet heretical challenges that arose after the apostles' lifetimes. Heretical teaching operates by giving Biblical words unbiblical meanings. Such challenges need to be met by more precisely defining and qualifying the Biblical teachings in relation to the false sense given to words by the false teachers. In other words, terms are introduced to distinguish the different senses in which the Scriptures use a word and to contrast those senses with the new senses introduced by heretical doctrines. The doctrine of the Trinity does not introduce new meanings into scriptural teaching, but narrows it to the sense in which it was originally meant, using terms which explicitly exclude unbiblical senses of key words. That is to say, one should not expect trinitarian doctrine to limit itself only to the words found in the Bible when it was developed primarily as a response to post-Biblical concepts. Disagreements arose between different theological parties, all of which appealed to the Biblical language. To accurately specify in which sense biblical words were meant, and to counter clearly unBiblical senses that were never thought of while the apostles were alive, it was often necessary to use words that are not found in the Bible itself. For example, as many commentators have observed, the New Testament does not contain statements that precisely define in what sense Jesus is God. It is content with simple references to him as God (as in Thomas confession in John 20:28) without further explanation. After the apostle's lifetime (and thus after the New Testament scriptures had been completed), men arose teaching various things about exactly how Jesus was God. Some (now referred to as Modalistic Monarchians) said he was only one mode or phase of the one God's existence. Some (now referred to as Arians) said he was a distinct person who had existed as an angel prior to his earthly existence, but that he was nevertheless a created being who was not eternal and who was not equal to the Father. Some (now referred to as Dynamic Monarchians) said Jesus was merely a man who had been specially anointed to be the Messiah and who was referred to as God only figuratively and only after a certain point in time. Some (who became the “orthodox” party) said that as The Word and as the Son of God, Jesus was eternal and equal to the Father. (In fact, it appears this party emerged first. Don's alterations of his source material in the UROG paper I discussed here not too long ago were apparently made to obscure this point—to make it appear the Modalistic Monarchians came first.) Of course, the above outline is an over-simplification and these things were not all being taught at the same time, and there were differences even within these divisions, but it became necessary for the teachers in the church to specify which sense was closest to the scripturally given sense. Thus new words were used in discourse about what the scriptures taught in an effort to more accurately describe their meaning. In time the full doctrine of the Trinity was developed. I myself have no trouble that such a process occurred, as long as it is always with reference to the Scriptural revelation, as I find was indeed done. Sincerely, Steve Born Email: srborn@seanet.com Home page: http://www.seanet.com/~srborn/ ---------- Pictures that emerge Posted by Anon.II on 3/21/2001, 11:00 pm , in reply to "Essential Terms " These terms do cause a “picture to emerge” to me that is so contrary to the overall understanding I see in God’s word, and these points illustrate one of the reasons why I love the Oneness understanding of Jesus’ nature. Its clarity and unique wording provide us with the ability to take God at His word, and not feel obligated to go against our conscience by redefining Him ourselves. It’s interesting that we can understand that Christ and the Father are one as Jesus, by recognizing HOW (to wit) God was in Christ, and HOW He accomplished reconciling the world unto himself. For HE (God) MADE HIM (Christ), who knew no sin (as a man), to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God IN HIM (Christ). We believe this is THE GREAT MYSTERY of that attitude that is well-pleasing to Him (Godliness), by understanding that THE ONE TRUE, UNORIGINATED, IMMUTABLE, ETERNAL AND SELF-SUSTAINED EXISTENT GOD, was revealed (manifest) in all that is essential to manhood, not as a combined person, but as the complete person, spirit, soul, and body (flesh), and was shown to be righteous (justified) in the breath of His resurrected body (spirit). (See Vine’s) The TYPE, as seen in the Tabernacle was not a wood that was combined with gold, but rather wood that was overlaid with gold. When we view the Tabernacle the wood is completely encompassed by gold, yet we know the wood is there, by God’s word, and it is still very wood in composition that is now seen as gold from the divine covering. Another type that allows us to know Jesus’ nature, is seen in the High priest, that as ---------- Continued Posted by Anon.II on 3/22/2001, 6:54 am , in reply to "Pictures that emerge" Another type that allows us to know Jesus’ nature, is seen in the High priest, that as men, they were able to enter the most holy place and make an offering for atonement. Their garments signify His righteousness without sin, a garment that deity does not need to put on. The white linen fence of the Tabernacle represents Christ’s sinless life that stands between God and man on the outside, showing Christ as the righteous mediator. There are many more. How could I ever go back to a 3 in 1 picture?