Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[rewriter]

I understand that the Triunity was not clearly taught in the NT, which is why I asked whether you thought I used my editing gift well by sewing various verses together in the explanation I shared. You agree with the early church and a writing called the Didache, but do you agree that my explanation is about as correct as we can get per the NT?

Regarding your concern about apotheosis, please share the Scriptures you have in mind and explain your question.
Thanks.

Yes, I agree with our explanation.

As for apotheosis, the Transfiguration is one point. Booths were erected to worship God. Why were the disciples willing to erect booths for Jesus, Moses and Elijah? And the episode of the witch at Endor is another. She sees a god coming and it is Samuel. If she was familiar with spirits, as implied, she would know the difference between a normal human spirit, a demonic spirit and a deity. Why did she refer to a "god"? Finally, Mark would have had some perceived acceptable model for his original style in order to be accepted. Now there is evidence that Mark was edited from its original, but even so, it seems plausibly based on Augustus's Res Gestae, which justified Augustus's apotheosis.

 

[Blue155]

@GWH, @studier,
How’s this for an answer to the question, “Why would God allow someone to be born knowing they would be evil?”

“Because God wants us to see that even the most evil and reprobate individual (while their actions are sinful) is still is made in His image as a human, and God loves them enough to offer them forgiveness and salvation, proving that the gospel is for all”

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Yes, the divinity of Jesus and triunity of God is taught in Scripture, and it is good when both early witnesses and councils and later believers and statements of faith agree with GW, which teaches that God is one and relates to believers in three ways or as three persons simultaneously: as the Father, as the Son and as the Holy Spirit.

The Father/Parenthood of God is indicated in Jesus’ model prayer (Matt. 6:9), throughout the Gospel of John (John 3:35, 5:17-18, etc.), and in the epistles of Paul (Rom. 4:11, 8:15, Phil. 2:11). God the Father and Christ’s Sonship are discussed in Hebrews 1:1-4. The Son of God also is mentioned by John (John 1:14, 3:16, etc.) and by Paul (Rom. 1:4, Gal. 2:20, 1Thes. 1:10). The Holy Spirit is mentioned in three successive chapters in John (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13), frequently in the book of Acts (Acts 1:5, 2:4, 9:17, 13:2, 19:2), and in many of Paul’s letters (Rom. 8:4-26, 1Cor. 6:19, Eph. 4:30) as well as in some of the other epistles (2Pet. 1:21, Jude 20).

In order to understand the Trinity, it is helpful to discern which aspect or person of the triune God is the subject of various biblical statements. They may be distinguished by role: God the Father as creator or initiator (Gen. 1:1), God the Son as Messiah or mediator (1Tim. 2:5), and God the Spirit as indweller (Rom. 5:5). For example, 1 John 4:7 says love comes from (is initiated by) God (the Father), Galatians 5:22 says that love is a fruit of the (indwelling) Spirit, and Ephesians 3:18 speaks of the (mediating) love of Christ (Rom. 5:8, Eph. 2:18).

We can denote these distinctions per Scripture by the use of three prepositions: God the Father is over all creation (Eph. 4:6), God the Son is Immanuel or with humanity (Matt. 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is within all believers (Eph. 1:13). A single passage that comes closest to indicating this distinction is Eph. 3:14-19, in which Paul prays to the Father that through His Spirit of love Christ would dwell in believers’ hearts (also see 1Cor. 8:6). A single verse in which all three persons are mentioned and identified with grace, love and fellowship respectively is 2Cor. 13:14.

Do you agree with this?

I believe in the classic view of the Trinity. This view holds that the Lord our God is one God numerically, and yet He also exists eternally as three distinct persons: the Father, the Word, and Holy Ghost (Note: The Word = The Son or Jesus).

This is not Modalism, which teaches that God is one person who merely appears in different modes or manifestations at different times. Oneness Pentecostals hold to this Modalist view. In contrast, the Trinity affirms that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are truly distinct persons, not simply different roles or appearances of the same person.

Nor is the Trinity Tritheism, which is the belief that there are three separate gods. This is what Mormons effectively believe, despite using Trinitarian language. The classic Trinitarian view insists that there is only one God, not three.



.....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The issue is not whether or not Jesus was recognized as divine, but at what point in time he was. Was it a case of apotheosis or preexistence. The Arian position was more widely accepted pre-Nicaea than is commonly recognized and does not rule out apotheosis.

The true Bible does not teach Arianism. Sorry. But the fake Modern Bibles do.


....

 

[GWH]

Yes, I agree with our explanation.

As for apotheosis, the Transfiguration is one point. Booths were erected to worship God. Why were the disciples willing to erect booths for Jesus, Moses and Elijah? And the episode of the witch at Endor is another. She sees a god coming and it is Samuel. If she was familiar with spirits, as implied, she would know the difference between a normal human spirit, a demonic spirit and a deity. Why did she refer to a "god"? Finally, Mark would have had some perceived acceptable model for his original style in order to be accepted. Now there is evidence that Mark was edited from its original, but even so, it seems plausibly based on Augustus's Res Gestae, which justified Augustus's apotheosis.

"our" explanation - I like that

Re apotheosis: I do not understand your concern/question/point, assuming we agree that there is only one incarnation of God Himself, who is Jesus. All others are unjustifiable/false.

 

[GWH]

@GWH, @studier,
How’s this for an answer to the question, “Why would God allow someone to be born knowing they would be evil?”

“Because God wants us to see that even the most evil and reprobate individual (while their actions are sinful) is still is made in His image as a human, and God loves them enough to offer them forgiveness and salvation, proving that the gospel is for all”

I thought the question on the table was this:

"Oh, you cite one of the more problematic passages, akin to Matthew 21:22. These references to prayer should be compared with those in Matt. 6:10 and 26:39&42, after which one is confronted with the choice of believing God will do our will or we should agree with God's will. I think the latter is obviously correct. However, I also think harmonization of GW is correct, so my immediate question is "How can both be true?" (both-and) Do you agree with my thinking and want to answer first?"

Regarding your answer to “Why would God allow someone to be born knowing they would be evil?”: I think your answer is correct,
and another part of that is the realization that God is grieved by sin, so He suffers while evil souls reap justice in hell. That does
indeed show His love for His enemies (Matt. 5:40)!

 

[GWH]

I believe in the classic view of the Trinity. This view holds that the Lord our God is one God numerically, and yet He also exists eternally as three distinct persons: the Father, the Word, and Holy Ghost (Note: The Word = The Son or Jesus).

This is not Modalism, which teaches that God is one person who merely appears in different modes or manifestations at different times. Oneness Pentecostals hold to this Modalist view. In contrast, the Trinity affirms that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are truly distinct persons, not simply different roles or appearances of the same person.

Nor is the Trinity Tritheism, which is the belief that there are three separate gods. This is what Mormons effectively believe, despite using Trinitarian language. The classic Trinitarian view insists that there is only one God, not three.
.....

I see that you agree God is One and yet exists as three "persons".
I also understand that you do not agree with modalism.
I also understand you disagree with viewing the same person as having different roles.

Therefore, I do NOT understand why your answer to my question was/is not simply "yes".

 

[studier]

@GWH, @studier,
How’s this for an answer to the question, “Why would God allow someone to be born knowing they would be evil?”

“Because God wants us to see that even the most evil and reprobate individual (while their actions are sinful) is still is made in His image as a human, and God loves them enough to offer them forgiveness and salvation, proving that the gospel is for all”

Makes sense to me. I think the ultimate value of human volition has to be clearly factored in also. In the end a volitional creature in His image who determines who and what to love and be faithful to seems to be the ultimate of goals. Add to that the fact that this creature can think and reason and come to such conclusions when given Truth and determine that willing submission to Him is the best course within reality.

 

[rewriter]

I believe in the classic view of the Trinity. This view holds that the Lord our God is one God numerically, and yet He also exists eternally as three distinct persons: the Father, the Word, and Holy Ghost (Note: The Word = The Son or Jesus).

This is not Modalism, which teaches that God is one person who merely appears in different modes or manifestations at different times. Oneness Pentecostals hold to this Modalist view. In contrast, the Trinity affirms that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are truly distinct persons, not simply different roles or appearances of the same person.

Nor is the Trinity Tritheism, which is the belief that there are three separate gods. This is what Mormons effectively believe, despite using Trinitarian language. The classic Trinitarian view insists that there is only one God, not three.



.....

"our" explanation - I like that

Re apotheosis: I do not understand your concern/question/point, assuming we agree that there is only one incarnation of God Himself, who is Jesus. All others are unjustifiable/false.

If all others are "unjustifiable/false" would you care to explain why they are recorded in scripture? I know many people will find reasons to claim that "Elohim" refers to something other than deity in some cases, usually because to leave it as God or gods implies something other than monotheism but that becomes an assumption driving the conclusion, not evidence doing the driving.

From my studies, I see far more evidence of actual henotheism than monotheism even into the 1st century CE based on both Dead Sea Scrolls and Talmud, as well as more ancient records. Henotheism allows for apotheosis while not taking any dignity or preeminence away from the ultimate godhead.

And as for the triune godhead, I trust that you know that for a time it was so widely accepted that it was enforced by imperial decree, well after Nicaea by the way. Knowledge of history can be so troubling to some assertions.

 

[GWH]

If all others are "unjustifiable/false" would you care to explain why they are recorded in scripture? I know many people will find reasons to claim that "Elohim" refers to something other than deity in some cases, usually because to leave it as God or gods implies something other than monotheism but that becomes an assumption driving the conclusion, not evidence doing the driving.

From my studies, I see far more evidence of actual henotheism than monotheism even into the 1st century CE based on both Dead Sea Scrolls and Talmud, as well as more ancient records. Henotheism allows for apotheosis while not taking any dignity or preeminence away from the ultimate godhead.

And as for the triune godhead, I trust that you know that for a time it was so widely accepted that it was enforced by imperial decree, well after Nicaea by the way. Knowledge of history can be so troubling to some assertions.

My explanation (which I hope is our explanation) is that GW records many things in historical passages that are not taught in doctrinal passages.

As for the Triunity, my (our?) concern is to explain it as well as possible based on doctrinal passages in GW, not on history.

 

[studier]

If all others are "unjustifiable/false" would you care to explain why they are recorded in scripture? I know many people will find reasons to claim that "Elohim" refers to something other than deity in some cases, usually because to leave it as God or gods implies something other than monotheism but that becomes an assumption driving the conclusion, not evidence doing the driving.

From my studies, I see far more evidence of actual henotheism than monotheism even into the 1st century CE based on both Dead Sea Scrolls and Talmud, as well as more ancient records. Henotheism allows for apotheosis while not taking any dignity or preeminence away from the ultimate godhead.

And as for the triune godhead, I trust that you know that for a time it was so widely accepted that it was enforced by imperial decree, well after Nicaea by the way. Knowledge of history can be so troubling to some assertions.

I periodically have found myself wondering if you've read Michael Heiser's work.

 

[rewriter]

I periodically have found myself wondering if you've read Michael Heiser's work.

That is a work I have not yet read. However, for anyone who wants to deal a deathblow to my theories regarding Christianity, all that is required it to disprove one key foundational point. Prove that I am wrong in believing that the Romans won the 1st Jewish War. Of course, there are other places that could be attacked also, but just as with the main premise, tradition accepts these other points as true also. Where I break with tradition is in having the audacity to do as was done in the Wizard of Oz and look behind the curtain that tradition says conceals nothing of any importance.

 

[rewriter]

My explanation (which I hope is our explanation) is that GW records many things in historical passages that are not taught in doctrinal passages.

As for the Triunity, my (our?) concern is to explain it as well as possible based on doctrinal passages in GW, not on history.

But GW was given and recorded in specific historical situations. If we ignore those situations or dictate what they were to comply with tradition's interpretation, then we are not looking at the evidence to support tradition, we are looking at tradition to support the evidence. I prefer to go to the evidence and let it support or deny tradition. When the evidence suggests that the most ancient tradition dates back roughly 1950 years, I wonder what happened to the first roughly 40 years.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I see that you agree God is One and yet exists as three "persons".
I also understand that you do not agree with modalism.
I also understand you disagree with viewing the same person as having different roles.

Therefore, I do NOT understand why your answer to my question was/is not simply "yes".

In the Trinity or the triune Godhead, each of the three distinct persons (i.e., the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) each have distinct functions or roles, yes, but this is not Modalism. The Holy Spirit does not speak of himself and He transforms the believer's heart, etc. However, this is not the Father, but the Holy Spirit. The Son came down from Heaven to die on the cross and not the Father. But you have to realize that Jesus also does what He sees the Father do. So there are times, there is role sharing.

Modalism is saying that there is no person called the Son. It was actually the Father who took on the role of the Son and died on the cross. Modalism is saying there is no distinct person of the Holy Spirit, so if a person were to blaspheme or speak bad words against using the name of the Holy Spirit, they would actually be doing so against the Father and not an actual person known as the Holy Spirit. (Note: Scripture says if you blaspheme the name of the Holy Spirit, you will never be forgiven. By doing so, they would be condemned.) So condemnation in Modalism for blaspheming the Holy Spirit would be blaspheming merely a certain name of God and not an actual person (Which doesn't make make any sense).

So do you believe in Modalism?
Please answer, "yes, or "no." If I do not get a "yes," or "no" answer, then we are done talking.
Meaning, the proper reply would be "No, I do not believe in modalism."
I say this because I do not consider anyone who rejects the classic view of the Trinity as being saved.
One has to worship God in spirit and in truth.
To worship any other version of God is to worship a false god.








....

 

[GWH]

But GW was given and recorded in specific historical situations. If we ignore those situations or dictate what they were to comply with tradition's interpretation, then we are not looking at the evidence to support tradition, we are looking at tradition to support the evidence. I prefer to go to the evidence and let it support or deny tradition. When the evidence suggests that the most ancient tradition dates back roughly 1950 years, I wonder what happened to the first roughly 40 years.

Yes we should not ignore history but we should base doctrine primarily on the evidence of what Scripture teaches.

 

[rewriter]

Yes we should not ignore history but we should base doctrine primarily on the evidence of what Scripture teaches.

Yes, but proper interpretation of what scripture teaches might well depend on history rather than tradition. Why is some history that suggests a different interpretation of scripture deemed "clearly irrelevant" when other than contradicting tradition it seems to fit perfectly?

 

[studier]

That is a work I have not yet read. However, for anyone who wants to deal a deathblow to my theories regarding Christianity, all that is required it to disprove one key foundational point. Prove that I am wrong in believing that the Romans won the 1st Jewish War. Of course, there are other places that could be attacked also, but just as with the main premise, tradition accepts these other points as true also. Where I break with tradition is in having the audacity to do as was done in the Wizard of Oz and look behind the curtain that tradition says conceals nothing of any importance.

I'm not even close to entering into attempting to accept or to refute you and I have no problem with anyone seeking to look behind the curtains of traditions or orthodoxies - I trust men as far as I can throw them and I am one.

When speaking of gods and becoming gods and of divine councils and such, Heiser was one of those who also peaked behind the curtain. There are also some interesting secular writers doing a lot of work re: the reality of what the gods were to families in the NC era and with this in mind, how the NC writers, mainly Paul, were having to deal with these issues in bringing together the Hebrew and Greek cultures.

 

[studier]

Yes, but proper interpretation of what scripture teaches might well depend on history rather than tradition. Why is some history that suggests a different interpretation of scripture deemed "clearly irrelevant" when other than contradicting tradition it seems to fit perfectly?

This is in-line with what I just said.

It may not be the best example, but I enjoyed some recent discussions between 2 reformed adherents wherein one of them has been doing some deeper research in the Text on an issue that as I recall divides Preterism to whatever degree. Within the process he found that one of the historical creeds (history & tradition in this case) looks to have been a cause of forwarding error he believes he has identified.

 

[GWH]

In the Trinity or the triune Godhead, each of the three distinct persons (i.e., the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) each have distinct functions or roles, yes, but this is not Modalism. The Holy Spirit does not speak of himself and He transforms the believer's heart, etc. However, this is not the Father, but the Holy Spirit. The Son came down from Heaven to die on the cross and not the Father. But you have to realize that Jesus also does what He sees the Father do. So there are times, there is role sharing.

Modalism is saying that there is no person called the Son. It was actually the Father who took on the role of the Son and died on the cross. Modalism is saying there is no distinct person of the Holy Spirit, so if a person were to blaspheme or speak bad words against using the name of the Holy Spirit, they would actually be doing so against the Father and not an actual person known as the Holy Spirit. (Note: Scripture says if you blaspheme the name of the Holy Spirit, you will never be forgiven. By doing so, they would be condemned.) So condemnation in Modalism for blaspheming the Holy Spirit would be blaspheming merely a certain name of God and not an actual person (Which doesn't make make any sense).

So do you believe in Modalism?
Please answer, "yes, or "no." If I do not get a "yes," or "no" answer, then we are done talking.
Meaning, the proper reply would be "No, I do not believe in modalism."
I say this because I do not consider anyone who rejects the classic view of the Trinity as being saved.
One has to worship God in spirit and in truth.
To worship any other version of God is to worship a false god.

....

No, but I must point out that when I said I understood you disagree with modalism so I did NOT understand why you did not agree with me, that should have conveyed my "no I do not".

So, again I ask, "Do you agree with the Bible-based explanation of the Triunity that I shared?
If not, the why not?
Thanks.

 

[GWH]

Yes, but proper interpretation of what scripture teaches might well depend on history rather than tradition. Why is some history that suggests a different interpretation of scripture deemed "clearly irrelevant" when other than contradicting tradition it seems to fit perfectly?

Glad you agree that proper interpretation should depend primarily on Scripture,
but I do not understand the distinction between history and tradition that you seem to make,
so please clarify/specify.