The Upper Room

1:28 AM

0

Peter Ackroyd writes on page 88 of his account of the English Civil War: Cobblers were well known for their radical Protestant sympathies. What was so special about cobblers?

anonymouswho

3:38 AM

@LeeWoofenden I don't know. If you say that barn is red, I'll probably think you're either mistaken or joking. If you consistently say the barn is red, even after several other blue things have been shown to you and there is absolutely no logic for why you think it's red, then surely you are color blind. Anyone with eyes to see can see that the barn is blue, and because of this, I stand in fear and awe of what God has done.

When the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit. But no matter how far they fall..."Behold, YHVH'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear" Isaiah 59:1

Lee Woofenden

3:58 AM

@anonymouswho I specifically said I'm not colorblind for this example.

@anonymouswho Anyone with a mind to think can see that those who picture God as three figures are picturing three gods, not one God.

@anonymouswho That is, a mind not addled by centuries-old false dogma.

curiousdannii

4:31 AM

@Lee Do you believe God is inherently, intrinsically, by his own nature, loving? Or relational? If he had decided not to create, would he be loving?

Lee Woofenden

@curiousdannii I know where you're going with this. But it's based on a misunderstanding of time and eternity. Further, the fact of the matter is that God did create--and God created because God is intrinsically loving.

@curiousdannii Plus, the whole argument you were winding up for is another attestation that the Trinity of Persons really consists of three gods.

curiousdannii

4:55 AM

@LeeWoofenden There's no misunderstanding of time and eternity. I'm saying there's time before the universe, nor, really, that there was a 'time' when he had not decided to create the universe.

@LeeWoofenden But I do believe it was a true free choice of his. Do you believe that God was not free to create?

@LeeWoofenden If God is intrinsically loving, how is that expressed without reference to the creation?

curiousdannii

5:10 AM

I think all unitarian gods, and this includes the Islamic god, suffer from the fact that their god had no experience of others until it created them. The immutability of God is in question, because it isn't just the creation that changes as it comes into existence, but God who stops being arelational and starts relating to the creation.

Ask Elisha

5:37 AM

0

Q: Did the Bar Kokhba revolt happen before or after the city name changed to Aelia?

There are conflicting views with respect to this on the net. At some places, its written that the name change happened before the Bar Kokhba revolt, and that was one of the cause of the revolt. At other places, its written that the name changed happened after the revolt, as a way of ensuring such...

roman-empire christianity jerusalem judaism

Lee Woofenden

6:09 AM

@curiousdannii You seem to think God is bounded and limited by time.

@curiousdannii There is no such thing as "before the creation of the universe." For God, the universe is always present. God's omniscience requires this.

@curiousdannii Freedom of choice is a secondary kind of freedom, necessary for created, limited, and finite beings, so that we can choose whether or not to be in relationship with God, and thus have a real relationship with God if we make that choice.

God does not require freedom of choice, because God is already and eternally fully himself, with no need to "decide" what he is going to be, or even what he is going to do.

The greater freedom is the freedom to do what a being wants to do, and thus express the being's nature. God doesn't have to "decide" what to do. God does everything that expresses God's eternal, unchanging nature. Creating a universe with beings to love is such an expression of God's nature, which God can freely and fully do.

God was never not going to create a universe with beings to love, because that would be contrary to God's loving and relational nature.

To posit a hypothetical situation in which God did something than God actually did is to suggest that there might have been something better than what God actually did, so that God actually did a less good thing. So it is to question the all-loving, all-wise, and all-powerful nature of God.

The whole idea that God requires three Persons in order to have someone to love when a Creation doesn't exist is a pure hypothetical, and a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the eternity of God in relation to the temporal and spatial created universe.

It's about like saying, "Yes, but if the moon were made of green cheese, then there must have been a Man in the Moon to make all that cheese." It's a faulty conclusion based on a hypothetical that simply isn't the reality.

@LeeWoofenden That should have said, "something other than what God actually did . . ."

I would not want my concept of God to be based on a hypothetical situation that does not actually exist.

anonymouswho

11:46 AM

@LeeWoofenden I know, I was just playing with your words =) I wasn't considering your belief in freewill. You seem to think that the trinitarians are just being stubborn, which I do not believe to be the case.

Something is causing them to believe in this triune god, and I believe it's because the triune god tells them that anyone who denies him will be thrown into hell to have their flesh burned forever. That's not just scary, it's infinitely scary. They think this is what it means to "fear the LORD". You can't change a trinitarian's mind...that's like a Christian thinking an atheist is being stubborn because he refuses to believe in their triune god.

anonymouswho

11:59 AM

@curiousdannii I've also heard this argument before, but I don't believe God is eternal or "immutable", so it doesn't make sense to me. Since the bible doesn't say God is "immutable", then whatever this term means can only be a personal interpretation, or an acceptance of what the pagan philosophers say it means.

Therefore, you and Lee will never settle this issue because you're both arguing over what a meaningless word actually means. What you seem to be arguing is that polytheism is more rational than monotheism, which is where pagan philosophy is sure to lead anyone.

curiousdannii

12:38 PM

@anonymouswho -1 Do a little homework before you say that something is meaningless or nothing more than personal interpretation. Immutable is a simple term which means "unchanging", is a very uncontroversial attribute of God, and has widespread Biblical support.

@anonymouswho I don't think I've seen you explain this before: what's the core reason you reject the incarnation?

anonymouswho

1:16 PM

@curiousdannii The strongest evidence I see of an "immutable" God in those verses are those that say God does "not change". Of course God does not change. Once He aquired perfection and brought forth all wisdom (Proverbs 8:22-25), He no longer had a need to change.

Yeshua also became perfect, and he will never need to change again. Yeshua said we can likewise obtain perfection (though I am quite aware that I'm very much lacking in this area; but I'm only 26 and I trust that God will continue to work on me)...

"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matthew 5:44-48.

Why do I deny the incarnation? I can answer that here, or if you'd like, you can post it as a question. Just please make sure you're clear that by "unitarian", you mean those that deny the preexistence of Yeshua. Otherwise JW's or other Arians may reply.

Nathaniel

1:47 PM

@anonymouswho I'm still trying to understand your homoousia question. If you don't mind, could you clarify how you would distinguish your question from the general question "What is the Reformed basis for there only being one God?"?

curiousdannii

1:57 PM

@anonymouswho You don't seem to adhere to any existing theological position, so we can't really ask questions about your beliefs on the main site.

Ask Elisha

0

Q: Was the Jewish population expelled from the Jerusalem after the siege of 70 AD or after the Bar Kokhba revolt?

The Wikipedia article on Bar Kokhba revolt says : and Jews were forbidden from entering it, except on the day of Tisha B'Av. I was under the impression that the Jewish population had already been expelled after the siege of 70 AD. Or was it, that they were heavily persecuted, but not exp...

roman-empire christianity jerusalem judaism

anonymouswho

2:21 PM

@Nathaniel Sure. Homoousios means "one substance". According to the answers I've received, God is not a person, He is three persons that consist of one and the same substance. This substance is referred to as "the divine nature". Therefore, the homoousios is the divine nature. So I'm looking for how we can Scripturally deduce that God is a "divine nature", and not His own person. Does that make sense? I can include this in my question if you think it would help.

Nathaniel

2:34 PM

@anonymouswho Yes, that does make sense, and it helps me better understand your comment on the question. Are you suggesting, then, that there are other logical ways to harmonize the Reformed beliefs that there is only one God and that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God?

My point is that many would simply argue – "The Bible says there is one God. The Bible says that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Therefore homoousios follows."

And that's the method used to logically deduce the doctrine. But I think you'd find that an unsatisfying answer to your question.

curiousdannii

@anonymouswho ὁμοούσιος is an adjective, and it's used grammatically in the same way we might say "Jesus is united to the Father". It's doesn't make sense to say that "the ὁμοούσιος is the divine nature" any more than "the union is the divine nature"

JNat

3:26 PM

@curiousdannii Feel free to post it there, then. Other members in other communities did so. Since most blogs haven't been active in over a year (two, in many cases) and there's no chat room dedicated to the blog, it's hard for me to know who I need to reach out to that might have interest in it.

I'm reaching out to mods because they're more likely to know, and to point me to whoever that might be. Alternatively, they can make that decision themselves or reach out to the community for thoughts/feedback (meaning go to Meta if they want to).

anonymouswho

5:29 PM

@curiousdannii I think my answer to this question should sum up what I believe about the "incarnation". It covers mostly the "virgin birth" and some things in John's gospel. If you have any other questions please feel free to ask.

Lee Woofenden

@anonymouswho I don't think they're being stubborn. I think they've had false doctrine deeply ingrained in their minds--so much so that it is nearly impossible to dislodge it. They deeply believe that it's the truth because that's what they've been taught, and that's what the institutional Christian church has taught for nearly 1,700 years now, since the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, when the doctrine was first formulated as official church doctrine.

@anonymouswho Yes, it's common for trinitarians, especially on the conservative end of the spectrum, to believe that they're in danger of eternal hellfire if they "fall away from the faith" by denying the Trinity of Persons in God.

But also, their entire doctrine of salvation hinges on there being three distinct gods, the second of whom assuages the wrath or satisfies the justice of the first one, whereupon the third one carries the resulting justification and salvation to those who correctly believe.

Denying the Trinity would be like pulling out the cornerstone and foundation on which their faith is built. Their entire edifice of doctrine and faith would come crashing down around their heads. And that's not something that people generally want to have happen.

Historically, the Trinity of Persons came about when Christians had fallen away from their original faith, which was focused on the two Great Commandments, and on living by them. When they began instead to start focusing on correct doctrine, as part of their loss of the original charity that reigned in the church, they began fighting with one another over correct doctrine, and over power and influence within the church.

The First Council of Nicaea was called primarily to establish Christianity as a state church and lend its power to the Roman Empire. It was also called to crush opposition from figures such as Arius who held to and promulgated opposing doctrines. There was a whole period of councils and counter-councils anathematizing and excommunicating each other, until the Trinity of Persons faction won.

Does Elisha speak?

6:35 PM

0

Q: Why is this closed as a "truth" question? The answer is almost trivially simple

I am not sure that the person asking this question has done much research (which may be a different reason to close it) but there are a variety of ways to answer it that don't get into "truth" wars or debates. I provided a link to a related question, and we have a variety of questions about sain...

discussion

Lee Woofenden

7:11 PM

@anonymouswho Your questions about the Trinity might be more successful if you did not use so much charged language, such as:

> According to Reformed theology, do the men who ignorantly promote these blasphemous lies about the triune god believe in a different god (such as the god of the modalist or three separate gods), so that they deserve to have their flesh burned forever and ever in agonizing pain?

This makes it sound like you're really intending to make a statement rather than asking a question about the beliefs of a particular group or denomination of Christians.

anonymouswho

7:29 PM

@LeeWoofenden Thanks for the advice, but I try to be very careful to only use terms that rightly convey what each position teaches. There are MANY churches that believe God is going to burn human flesh forever in agonizing pain. This is so scary that, if it's true, I believe it would be morally wrong to sugarcoat it in any way. Would you agree?

Lee Woofenden

@anonymouswho I agree with the statement you are making about the beliefs of those churches. I think the doctrine of those churches is a horrible travesty. But not sugarcoating it is just going to get the question closed as making a statement rather than asking a question.

@anonymouswho Here in chat you can say (almost) whatever you want, in whatever strong language you want, and get people as mad at you as you want. But in the main body of the site, questions and answers are supposed to be more dispassionate and objective, and ideally stated in language that the denominations you're asking about would use themselves.

Personally, I can hardly contain myself when I contemplate the terrible fallacies and the horrible implications of much of traditional Christian doctrine. And there is a time and a place to point that out in the strongest language possible. But the main Q&A body of C.SE is not the place to use the type of language those doctrines so richly deserve.

Nathaniel

8:41 PM

@anonymouswho It won't make you feel much better, I'm sure, but sometimes the people who don't believe that hell will involve eternal flesh burning think that what it will involve, though sounding better ("eternal separation from God," "spiritual death," etc.), will actually be worse than physical torment. So by using that particular language you are referring only to a subset of the people who believe something you consider scary.

Lee Woofenden

9:07 PM

@Nathaniel You're the one using that language, not me. That's what we're talking about.

Nathaniel

@LeeWoofenden I'm not sure I've ever used that specific language except in response to a question in which anonymouswho used it. I'm not convinced it's helpful.

Lee Woofenden

10:01 PM

@Nathaniel Oops, sorry. Not paying attention. I thought I was responding to @anonymouswho.

Nathaniel

Ah, np