Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[face2face]

Allow me.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries several new religions emerged that professed to believe in the Bible and in Jesus Christ but either denied or redefined the doctrine of the Trinity. These included Mormonism, Adventism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Oneness Pentecostalism. In this session, we will explain what these groups get right and what they get wrong on the subject and consider objections posed by most or all of these groups to the classic doctrine of the Trinity.

Rob Bowman is a much-published author and a Christian apologist specializing in new religions. In 1984 he began working as a researcher and editor at the Christian Research Institute (CRI) under Walter Martin. Today he is the director of research at the Institute for Religious Research (IRR). Prior to working with IRR, Rob was the manager of Apologetics and Interfaith Evangelism for the North American Mission Board which is an agency of the Southern Baptist Convention. Today Rob is arguably the foremost Christian apologist in the world.

He has authored close to sixty articles and a dozen books, and his most recent books reflect his concern with doctrines that tamper with the deity of Christ or with the person of the Holy Spirit.

J.

Yes, he was soundly defeated in the debate by a Unitarian – I remember following the debate with great interest at the time.

F2F

 

[Johann]

A position he had not occupied before!

You expect people to believe that God appointed Himself with power through the resurrection of someone who was not dead?

F2F

Not Himself--His Son.

J.

 

[face2face]

@Johann

As we've seen in this thread, many Trinitarians are divided on the issue of whether Jesus was capable of sin.

‘What was achieved, and how? What was it about Jesus that made him a perfect sacrifice for our sins? Did he need to be God in order to save us? If so, why? Above all, what died on the cross? Was it God Who died, or simply a mortal human body?’

When asked to address the atonement from a Trinitarian perspective, Rob Bowman declined to answer specific questions...

Johann, when you only have fragments of knowledge and not the whole picture, its impossible to provide a convincing case for the Trinity.

F2F

 

[Johann]

Yes, he was soundly defeated in the debate by a Unitarian – I remember following the debate with great interest at the time.

F2F

Refute the verses he is quoting or embrace them.

J.

 

[face2face]

Not Himself--His Son.

J.

So you like to discern the Father & Son when it pleases you?

If the Son pre-existed, how could he be appointed, and why? What was accomplished if the appointment wasn’t meant to exalt someone who had never held that position?

F2F

 

[face2face]

@Johann

Rob Bowman claimed Jesus was capable of temptation, yet incapable of sin.

Do you hold this belief?...like @ProDeo

If so, I'd like to hear your Biblical explanation.

Capable of temptation
Incapable of sin

I expect this to end in a similar way to explaining Hypostasis.

F2F

 

[face2face]

@Johann

You should know within the debate Rob Bowman was unable to explain the logic behind this and offered no Scriptural justification.

F2F

 

[ProDeo]

@Johann

Rob Bowman claimed Jesus was capable of temptation, yet incapable of sin.

Do you hold this belief?...like @ProDeo

God (even in the flesh) can not sin, simple isn't it?

 

[face2face]

@Johann

God (even in the flesh) can not sin, simple isn't it?

This is the same position Bowman found himself in and subsequently lost much ground with the audience.

When asked:

‘What was achieved, and how?

What was it about Jesus that made him a perfect sacrifice for our sins?

Did he need to be God in order to save us? If so, why?

Above all, what died on the cross? Was it God Who died, or simply a mortal human body?’

Because Bowman had no way of answering any of these questions, credibility was lost.

F2F

 

[APAK]

This is why there is a consistent tension between those who reference Platonic-influenced commentaries and those who interpret the Old Testament writings contextually, as demonstrated by the New Testament writers.

One side is comparing Scripture with Scripture to form an understanding while the other forcing dogma.

It's what fuels these threads and I believe it will go on until he comes to settle this once and for all.

F2F

In the meantime, I will continue my own APAK-style inquisitions of pagan thoughts blatantly being installed into minds of the innocent in Christ and into the holy Writ like a raging virus of worms and trojan horses. - until I'm satisfied, and that will be when I'm dead.

 

[APAK]

The Logos is the Son of God, the Messiah-a Person and not a concept in the mind of God.

J.

more garbage and pagan-derived ideas that you are fond of sprinkling in as poison into the well of truth, that disfigures and distorts and unglorifies both the nature of both God and his Son!

 

[face2face]

@ProDeo @Johann

I assume now Johann has joined Pro in this idea that Jesus was:

-Capable of temptation
-Incapable of sin

What happens from here results in affirming the consequent, false dichotomy, affirmative conclusion from negative premise, argument from ignorance, argument from silence, straw man, and special pleading.

It’s a tragic downfall of the intelligent mind, leaving the believer with the unsettling feeling that they’ve been deceived.

F2F

 

[Johann]

@Johann


This is the same position Bowman found himself in and subsequently lost much ground with the audience.

When asked:

‘What was achieved, and how?

What was it about Jesus that made him a perfect sacrifice for our sins?

Did he need to be God in order to save us? If so, why?

Above all, what died on the cross? Was it God Who died, or simply a mortal human body?’

Because Bowman had no way of answering any of these questions, credibility was lost.

F2F

Are you referring to the Jehovah Witness Greg?

J.

 

[face2face]

@ProDeo @Johann

It appears to me that you both have reached the limits of your Trinatarian arguments. With no compelling rebuttal to support the idea of Jesus being "incapable of sin," all that's left is a god-man who provides neither victory nor a genuine sacrifice for sin.

Guess I'll head for bed and see what tomorrow brings

F2F

Are you referring to the Jehovah Witness Greg?

J.

No, it was a blog-based debate.

It lasted for six weeks and was comprehensive.

Like this thread, the outcome was a convincing win for the Unitarians.

F2F

 

[Johann]

I assume now Johann has joined Pro in this idea that Jesus was:

-Capable of temptation
-Incapable of sin

Absolutely-learn the Koine grammar and do have a look at the ECF's from time to time.

@ProDeo is biblically sound.

J.

 

[face2face]

Absolutely-learn the Koine grammar and do have a look at the ECF's from time to time.

@ProDeo is biblically sound.

J.

Are you a fool Johann? (asked sincerely)

I posted this:

@Johann

You should know within the debate Rob Bowman was unable to explain the logic behind this and offered no Scriptural justification.

F2F

And Pro posted this:

God (even in the flesh) can not sin, simple isn't it?

And you post this?

Absolutely-learn the Koine grammar and do have a look at the ECF's from time to time.

@ProDeo is biblically sound.

J.

Provide one post Prodeo has provided which is Scripturally sound on providing evidence Christ could not sin.

Sharpen up Johann or you should be off to bed also!

F2F

 

[Johann]

@ProDeo @Johann

It appears to me that you both have reached the limits of your Trinatarian arguments. With no compelling rebuttal to support the idea of Jesus being "incapable of sin," all that's left is a god-man who provides neither victory nor a genuine sacrifice for sin.

Guess I'll head for bed and see what tomorrow brings

F2F

No, it was a blog-based debate.

It lasted for six weeks and was comprehensive.

Like this thread, the outcome was a convincing win for the Unitarians.

F2F

This is not about achieving a victory for the "Unitarians" but about coming to know the Lord Jesus Christ, our great God and Savior.

J.

 

[face2face]

This is not about achieving a victory for the "Unitarians" but about coming to know the Lord Jesus Christ, our great God and Savior.

J.

We have already established, Johann, that you do not know the true Christ. You believe in a facade— a puppet show—where God merely pretends to be tempted, pretends to die, and pretends to be exalted.

A victory in overcoming your error would be far more triumphant if you abandoned your Platonic doctrines and returned to the Apostles' Gospel!

Pray it is so!

F2F

 

[Johann]

Are you a fool Johann? (asked sincerely)

Pro_26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

J.

 

[Lizbeth]

Jesus didn't have divine nature J...we have been over this so many times.

Jesus was like you in "every respect!"

F2F

Wow, no. A thousand times, no. If that were the case any human could have been sacrificed to save mankind....there would have been no need for a heavenly man. The Law required a perfect, spotless, pure, entirely unblemished Lamb, aka heavenly/divine, because the blood of animals or any fallen mortal flesh could not take away sins. There has never been a single perfect, spotless, sinless human alive on earth born of woman, apart from the Anointed Christ who "came out from God". The life is in the blood.........what kind of life exists in the blood of animals and fallen man? Only temporal life. But in the blood of Jesus was eternal life, not temporal, because He came out from the One who is eternal in the heavens. He was fathered, begotten, by God, His eternal Spirit, not an earthly father. Can any of this be said of us? Hello? He certainly was not like us in those respects. And He shed His blood (eternal life), pouring it out, that whoever believes in Him might receive and have a share in it.

I would go down dying with my last breath proclaiming the divinity of Christ Jesus. That is a "non-negotiable" of the Christian faith. Need to understand that even though He was God incarnate.......He obeyed the will of the Godhead and humbled and limited HIMSELF so as to not make use of His deity, so to speak, when He walked the earth as a man, even though He could have. Instead He set us a perfect example of a man perfectly obeying, submitting to and relying entirely on God the same way we need to learn to.

But to receive and have any grasp of spiritual truths, one needs to first be born again and receive the Spirit of God. The things of God are spiritually discerned....the natural man cannot perceive them.