Autumn traditions for 2014 – 4 Blasphemy and ridiculing faith in God

Posted on 2014/10/22 by Bijbelvorsers

Last Autumn and the previous months we noticed that certain groups wanted to use the Christian religion to mock. Also Rana (that’s pronounced ‘Reh-na’) does not mind people to be a Satanist? But what bothers her and us is that they:

steal a consecrated Host from a Catholic Church

so they can desecrate our Saviour

(although I believe the stolen Host was returned to the Church). I don’t care if you hate Him. You wouldn’t be allowed to get a bunch of people to rally and use a stolen Koran as toilet paper. That would get shut down immediately. {United, We Stand}

The Harry Potter hype may be gone. _ Crowd outside a book store for the midnight release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, on 16 July 2005,

Those people joining in the Halloween celebrations do not hesitate to say all bad things about believers in Christ and do not mind taking many symbols of the Catholic Church to make caricatures of Christian religion.
Around the Halloween festivities lot of attention is pulled to the Worship of Satan, or the devil and to all sorts of occult figures which may have a connection with him. Some years ago the Harry Potter series introduced again an interest in witchcraft and the occult. Though we must admit that interest is fading again and last year we saw already less attributes of Harry Potter and other witch television series characters in the shops. Not as the Biblical meaning of the word, namely the subservient to, adversary and accuser of God. The participants of such satanic gatherings forget that they are the real satans, the Bible is speaking about. In these times coming closer to the end-times we may see the postbiblical traditions were Satan emerges as the tempter of humankind shifting to being the preferred master of the world.

The Sigil of Baphomet: emblem of the Church of Satan (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The cults associated with Satanism love to have demonic figures with the name Satan, Lucifer or Beelzebub as their central feature in their meetings and their black mass. The corrupted and inverted rendition of the Christian Eucharist may not only call a strong aversion by the Roman Catholics. All Christians should consider those practices which include animal sacrifice and deviant sexual activity as an abomination in the eyes of God but also something not done by decent people.

Their worship may be motivated by the belief that Satan is more powerful than the forces of good, and so is more capable of bringing about the results sought by his adherents, and that is why with Halloween people should bow down in front of him and his adherents, also bringing sacrifices or gifts to buy of his good heart, so that man can continue the next year without having to much trouble. (That is the spirit of the true Halloween.)

The Villain Authoress finds it a sick and twisted parody of religion designed to mock her god. Though mostly they ridicule Jesus Christ, who is the son of God and laugh with his dying on the ‘cross‘. Those crosses in our regions are often put on fire in the fields as a ‘light beacon’, and we wonder if they not give a special meaning on such a burning of a cross?

Just as abortion is a sick parody of the words Jesus spoke at the Last Supper when He said, “This is My Body,” satanists twist the Catholic Mass to spit in God’s face.

Image from The Onion’s spoof article “Harry Potter Books Spark Rise of Satanism Among Children” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Rana writes, but those celebrators of a Black Mass spit mainly in Jesus his face and none of them dares to mention the name of God. Probably it frightens them too much to call onto the name of God (Jehovah/Yahweh) and therefore they only use the name of the son of God (Jeshua/Jesus) and the name of their gods. The Real Only One True God is the One about Whom they do not want to talk. If you dare to mention His Name they droop off. Luckily this Name of God still frightens most of them. But we may see a tendency of more people, wanting not to know anything from the God of gods, ridiculing faith in God, but liking to make fun in a world they love to create for a few nights, with all sorts of gods and ghosts.

Those people also like to shout about free speech and the right to have a free opinion and to do what they want to do.

For them we would like to quote the above author:

Free speech should be limited to only the laws of libel, obscenity, sedition, and slander. {United, We Stand}

About the Satanic Masses she writes:

This would fall under obscenity and slander. I have no clue why the state would legally allow this to happen other than the fact that they don’t care and are part of a society that hates God. {United, We Stand}

When we look at those in control of the Western countries we only can see that often a lot of them are more interested in their own material well-being than in the social welfare of the whole community. Most of the people in charge of a country are not active religious persons and many of them do not like the Christians because they mainly have a restricted view of certain denominations in Christendom who in the past used their power too much to oppress the common people.

For sure the last few years the governments have loosened the robes of decency too much. All those who have a faith in the Divine Creator should come to react against the many blasphemous things which happen around this time of year.

The organizer Adam Daniels of the Black Mass in Oklahoma City returned his pilfered Communion wafer to the Church, which they intended to desecrate, to Archbishop Coakley of Oklahoma City who is still concerned that they have not backed away from all the other blasphemies and sacrileges involved in this ritual worship of Satan.

As for the attendees, Monsignor Brankin, the official exorcist for his diocese for the last four years, said

“I would think that there would be a real strong possibility, especially in the state of sin, that they would walk out possessed. They’re going into a situation where people are calling upon Satan to exercise dominion over everything in the state–dominion over people, places, our very land.

“They promise to do an exorcism of the Christians there, which, in their own foolish talk, involves puling out of the Holy Spirit. If someone went there out of curiosity, especially if there was a possibility that they were not in the state of grace, they could easily come out with a demonic attachment, whether it would be an oppression, obsession or a full possession.”

Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan used the phrase as part of public rituals (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Another exorcist, speaking under the condition of anonymity to Aleteia, didn’t think that there is necessarily a rise in public black masses, but believes there are plenty of them going on behind closed doors. However, when they do take place in public, he argues for the strategy employed by the Catholic Church in Boston, when another group of satanists planned to hold a black mass in a pub on the Harvard campus in May. {Exorcists Warn of Danger from Oklahoma City Black Mass}

In a statement posted on the Archdiocese Website, he said:

“Even though our city leaders apparently do not take this threat seriously, I do. As a Catholic priest and bishop, I have witnessed in my ministry the battle between forces of good and evil, in both ordinary and extraordinary ways. It is not merely a struggle rooted in human weakness and ignorance, though these are certainly the source of much suffering and mayhem in our lives and in our world. Demonic activity and the chaotic forces of evil are very real. The madness of war, accompanied by increasingly brutal acts of terror, the violence in our schools and communities are all evidence that something is terribly wrong.

“The crucial battleground for the forces of good and evil is the human heart. As a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ came to conquer the power of sin and to cast out demons. This was an essential part of His mission and ministry. It continues in His Church.”

It is true that a lot of remarks by Flemish people are grounded in a certain truth.
For several citizens Catholicism perverted “pure” religion, producing deviant sexual practices originating from “unnatural” vows of chastity violating “nature” — Catholic sexual repression engendered the veiled hypocrisy masking the orgiastic sexuality performed in unnatural monasteries and convents. The last ten years we had one scandal after the other unveiled, priests and nuns having sex with youngsters and often at first denying it, but when proof of it came onto the surface they had to admit it. The last few years also the variety of sexual, political anxieties, specifically anxieties about masculine women and feminine men go more attention and was extravagantly demonstrated in gay- and love parades and in the costumes for Halloween.

According to a poll in 2013 only one in five actually believe in the existence of the Prince of Darkness (Satan, Beelzebub, Lucifer) and therefore, in the United Kingdom, from January 2014 evil is to go from some christening services after clerics were told to no longer ask parents and godparents to reject Satan during baptisms in the Church Of England faith. In true Christianity and Judaism there is no devil figure in the sense of a torturing or frightening figure. According to the bible satan means adversary, and could be any body who is against some one or something. Some religions have a trickster or tempter. For instance, Buddhists believe in Mara, who tempted Buddha with visions of beautiful women — but others believe the devil is merely a concept, symbolising man’s own base instincts and sinfulness, and this is also what real Christians should believe. They should not go into the stories which are told around this period, making children afraid that their grandparents and the dead people can hear their thoughts, see what they do and could come to punish them for what they have done wrong.

That punishment from the dead is what the worshippers of All Hallows’ Eve or Halloween hope to accomplish by bribing the dead, the ghosts and the spirits on the 31st of October and by putting flowers, candles and food on the graves of their beloved on the 1st and 2nd of November, in the hope they can satisfy those in the graves. The sacrifices made on October the 31st and November 1 & 2 shall not bring liberation for those who gave candy or money or flowers. The saints or souls people do think to talk to on those days shall not be able to help them out in whatever difficult situation. Though many feel guilty when on All Saints or All Souls not go to the graves of their death family members. They are even a little bit frightened when they would not honour those dead they could have more problems in the coming year. It is that superstition where God is against.

God makes it clear to all people, that they should not think them being much more than the other elements of creation. They should respect the full creation which is given to them to use it properly, whilst they are alive. Because when they die it will be too late to change anything. They shall not be able to take anything with them in their grave to use it in a sort of other world. For we as living beings should be aware that time on this earth is limited. We can not buy some more time or pay for postponing our death. All of us will have the same end, all die and shall either be put in a grave or be incinerated or be burned. For such an action many are afraid, but they forget that the dead not feel such a thing, because they know not anything and like animals they return to the ground. We all return to dust.

“All the prosperous of the earth will eat and worship, All those who go down to the dust will bow before Him, Even he who cannot keep his soul alive.” (Psalms 22:29 NAS)

“19 For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. 20 All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust.” (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 NAS)

“For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5 NAS)

“Whatever your hand finds to do, verily, do [it] with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going.” (Ecclesiastes 9:10 NAS)

“His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish.” (Psalms 146:4 NAS)

Preceding articles:

Autumn traditions for 2014 – 1: Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet

Autumn traditions for 2014 – 2 Summersend and mansend

Autumn traditions for 2014 – 3 Black Mass, Horror spectacles and pure puritans

Find also to read:

Find in Dutch:

+++

Christianity without the Trinity

Posted on 2014/02/06 by taanathshiloh

Nicene Creed in cyrillic writing (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since the Council of Constantinople (381) the concept that God exists as three Persons in one Substance has been affirmed has formed a central part of the Christian confession. Though perhaps neglected in Protestant theology, the modern evangelical movement has given considerable emphasis to the doctrine of the Trinity as fundamental constituent of Christianity. Nevertheless a number of groups, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Christadelphians and the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, have from biblical foundations developed a trinity-less theology. In their book The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound, Sir Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting presented the argument that the doctrine of the Trinity is both a misrepresentation of the biblical doctrine of God and a liability that weakens Christianity’s power.[1] The controversy caused by The Myth of God Incarnate opened up to scrutiny the doubts of ‘respectable’ theologians about the ideas surrounding the divinity of Christ.[2]

The question I wish to consider in this article is what would Christianity without the Trinity look like, and is such a Christianity desirable? This can only be a cursory survey of the issues involved nevertheless I hope that this review prompts a reconsideration of the centrality ascribed to the doctrine of the Trinity in Christian theology.

A Platonic Doctrine

English: Diagram of the Holy Trinity based on ...

Diagram of the Holy Trinity based on the Hebrew word רוח “air, wind, spirit” having feminine grammatical gender in the Hebrew language (though in fact in a significant minority of its occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, the word actually has masculine grammatical gender). Could be considered “non-orthodox” by the criteria of the traditional mainstream of Christian doctrine. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When theologians write about the doctrine of the Trinity they cite great luminaries like Augustine and Karl Barth, and, occasionally, the Bible.[3] But rarely will one pause to consider the theological pioneers of later Christian doctrine, such as the early apologists. Yet any scholar who deigns to do so will come against the awkward fact that the concept of a triune god is not Christian at all, but has the Platonists as its progenitors.[4] If Justin Martyr held a doctrine of three divine principles (First Apology 13), it is because Middle Platonists like Numenius of Apamea held this doctrine first. And the first thinker to propose three co-ordinate divine members of a trinity was not one of the Cappadocian Fathers [5] but a bitter enemy of Christianity, the Neo-Platonist Porphyry.[6]

The Platonic doctrine of a triune god is an imposition upon Christianity and an imposition that diverts Christianity from its original message and purpose. The simplicity of Christ’s teaching was supplanted by philosophic complexities that are seldom consistently defined. And thus too, the Bible was, in part, supplanted, because where in the Bible can one go to find theological definitions about the Trinity? It is noticeable that the Nicene Creed quotes verbatim from the New Testament regarding almost every aspect of belief except its definitions of the nature and trinity of God, where philosophic terms are supplied instead.[7]

A return to the teaching of Christ and the apostles would necessitate a reversal of the Platonic influence upon Christianity and thus require the revoking of the doctrine of Trinity.

The Role of Christ

In early Christian thought Christ was understood as a mediator. Paul writes ‘there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ’ (1 Tim 2:5). This relationship between to God and Jesus was seen through the role of high priest, Paul describing Christ as ‘making intercession’ for believers (Rom 8:34). Paul does not connect the intercession of Christ to any supposed divinity but to his ascension to the right hand of God. We find the same concept used in Acts when Peter says of Christ ‘God has exalted him to his right hand to be a prince and a saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins’ (Acts 5:31).

The writer to the Hebrews makes this concept his own, repeatedly naming Jesus ‘High Priest’. As with Paul, this intercession is linked to the literal ascension of Jesus from the earth to the right hand of God, ‘passing into the heavens’, as the writer puts it (Heb 4:14). Christ’s entry into the presence of God is described as a high priest entering the Holy of Holies (Heb 9:11-12). And, unequivocally, Christ becomes High Priest, not by intrinsic divinity but by the calling of God (Heb 5:5-6, 10, 6:20).

Other early Christian writers also view Christ has a mediator between God and men. Clement of Rome describes Jesus as ‘High Priest’, saying that he was ‘chosen’ by God (1 Clem 64). Ignatius too uses the term ‘High Priest’ but also describes Christ’s intercession through another figure, saying ‘he is the doorway to the Father’ (Ign.Phil 9). Also see Polycarp’s letter to Smyrna, where he too says Christ is ‘High Priest’ (12).

If Christ is promoted to the Godhead (and the Holy Spirit too), who then intercedes on behalf of believers? Historically, this problem was ‘solved’ by the introduction of a series of other go-betweens, namely the Saints and the clergy. In modern evangelical theology can alternative ‘solution’ has been posited, namely that Christ, whilst ontologically co-equal with the Father, remains subordinate and can thus perform his scripturally defined duties of intercession.[8] Yet this fudge simply results in the conundrum that Jesus is neither fully co-equal, nor fully mediator.

Sola Scriptura

Luther Bible, 1534 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries saw both the invention of the printing press and the translation of the Bible into the common tongues of the people of Europe. And following almost immediately on the heels of these developments was the emergence of groups that denied the doctrine of the Trinity. The Socinians, the Brüder in Christo and other unitarian groups were founded across Europe, teaching that the Bible alone was authoritative and that the Bible knew nothing of the Trinity. The problem for the Protestants was clear. The Reformation was founded on the principle of sola scriptura, and yet these groups, who also held the principle of sola scriptura, denied the doctrine of the Trinity.

English Protestant theologians wrestled with this problem throughout the seventeenth century. They urged that the believer needs both scripture and reason, and hoped that reason itself would be sufficient to safeguard the Trinity. Catholic theologians pounced upon the dilemma, challenging the Protestants to meet the objections of the Socinians by scripture alone or else return to the Catholic rule of faith.[9] The consequence of these disputes led English Protestants to neglect the doctrine of Trinity, passing over it in silence, a tacit admission that with scripture alone as the rule of faith the Trinity could not be sustained.[10]

Vickers bemoans the demise of the Trinity as the impact of an emphasis on the Trinity as a set of propositions (the immanent Trinity), and urges a return to the invocation of the Trinity in the believer’s encounter with God (the economic Trinity).[11] Yet, as Karl Rahner declares, the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity; it would make little sense to invoke God as Trinity if that set of propositions cannot be assented to. Given then the failure of Protestant theologians to defend the doctrine of the Trinity by scripture alone, it seems we must either abandon the Trinity or the founding principle of the Reformation, sola scriptura.

Modern evangelicals attempt to hold both sola scriptura and the Trinity, and yet it seems no evangelical can preach about the Trinity without reference to the creeds.[12] Though evangelicals may claim that the bible alone is authoritative, there is implicit in many evangelical writings a retreat to tradition to defend the doctrine of the Trinity.

Interfaith Dialogue

Christianity is oft categorized as one of the three great monotheistic faiths, alongside Judaism and Islam. Yet the Trinitarian conception of monotheism is determinedly different from that of either Jews or Muslims. Inasmuch as the Trinity is three Persons in one Substance, the Trinitarian claim to monotheism is an ontological one. However, viewed from a liturgical perspective it is hard to escape the fact that Trinitarian Christians claim to experience God in plurality, worshipping three Persons as God. This feels very different from the Jewish experience of a uni-personal God, and seems to have more in common with Hinduism’s conception of Brahman.

The upshot of this is that in dialogue with other monotheistic faiths the Trinitarian brings to the table a plural conception of God. However carefully the theologian may define the Trinity ontologically as one God, the bread-and-butter of traditional Christian liturgy is hopelessly poly-personal. Christians may claim to be monotheists but they appear for all world to practice polylatry. This hampers interfaith dialogue (and ultimately evangelism).

The issue is not simply that Christians experience God differently from other faiths, but that they define God differently. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all claim to adherence to the God of Abraham, and yet the Trinitarian definition of God is simply alien to both Jews and Muslims (and, one must assume, would have been alien to Abraham himself). Therefore Christianity’s most primitive form of evangelism, preaching the coming of Jewish Messiah, is robbed from it by a doctrine that fundamentally alters the conception of the God of Abraham.

The Atonement

One proposition above any other motivates the continued emphasis on the doctrine of the Trinity in modern evangelical theology: that only God could be sufficient substitute to bear the punishment due to mankind. It therefore becomes necessary that Jesus was fully God to bring about the atonement and to question the Trinity is treated as tantamount to denying the salvation of believers.[13] Yet this doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is a relatively new doctrine; it certainly did not motivate the doctrinal innovations that led to the formulation of the notion of the Trinity.

It is beyond the scope of this article to digress into a full rebuttal of the notion of penal substitutionary atonement but, in brief, there are at least two reasons why Christianity would be better off without such a doctrine.

Firstly, none of the New Testament writers appeal to the idea of a substitute to explain the atoning sacrifice of Christ. The analogy to the brazen serpent speaks of a representative icon (John 3:14-15); the analogy to the Passover lamb speaks of a representative offering (1 Cor 5:7); even the analogy to the Day of Atonement speaks of a representative death (Heb 9:11-14). The recapitulation theory that Paul develops at length (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:20-22; Phil 2:5-11) knows nothing of a substitutionary death, rather an offering of obedience to God (Rom 5:19). Even the very words of the NT writers presuppose a representative understanding of the Christ’s death, using huper (‘on behalf of’) in preference to anti (‘instead of’) in almost every instance where the death of Christ is described (cf. Luke 22:19-20; John 6:51; Rom 5:6-8; 1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:14; Gal 1:4; Eph 5:2; 1 Thes 5:10; 1 Tim 2:6; Tit 2:14; 1 Pet 2:21; 1 John 3:16).[14]

Secondly, the notion of penal subtitutionary atonement skews our notion of God. The psalms describe a God who does not desire sacrifices (Ps 40:6; 51:16). Hosea states that God prizes mercy above sacrifice (Hos 6:6; cf. Matt 9:13, 12:7). The idea of a God who requires sacrifice as a prerequisite for mercy seems inconsistent with this picture. Rather the biblical concept of forgiveness is one without price or condition; the king in the parable, moved with compassion, writes off the debt of his servant without any requirement of some other source of remittance (Matt 18:22-27). Followers of Christ are instructed to forgive freely; are we then more righteous than God, who only forgives at cost? This notion would seem to annul the very idea of grace and portray God as limited and constricted by the requirements of Justice, unable to act freely upon His compassion. This is not the God of the Bible.

Christianity without the Trinity

Christ Church (Photo credit: Nathan Kavumbura)

There are some that feel that without the doctrines of the Trinity and of the incarnation Christianity is doomed to failure. It is claimed that robbing Christ of his divinity makes his message and mission of null affect, and ultimately leads to a denial of the atonement, the resurrection and miracles in general.[15] Unfortunately in some cases, such as the Unitarians (capital ‘U’), this has been the result, Jesus being treated as just a righteous teacher. However there is no reason why the reductive process of removing the doctrine of the Trinity from Christianity should be a purely negative process. Rather it is, I am arguing, a restoration of the primitive Christian faith.

What, then, would Christianity without the Trinity look like? A unitarian creed might look something like this:

There is one God (Mark 12:32), who is the Creator of all things (Eph 4:6) and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 8:6; 2 Cor 1:3).
There is one Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:5), the Son of God (Rom 1:4) born of a virgin (Gal 4:4; Matt 1:23; Luke 1:27f), who lived a sinless life of obedience to God (2 Cor 5:21; 1 Pet 2:22; Rom 5:19), was crucified and rose the third day (1 Cor 15:3-4). Through his death Christ reconciled man to God (Rom 5:10).
There is one Spirit (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:4), the power of God (Luke 1:35), by which God inspired the prophets (2 Pet 1:21) and works miracles (Gal 3:5).

What would Christianity without the Trinity feel like? It would feel more reminiscent of its Jewish roots, more consistent with its claims to monolatry, more reflective of scriptural language, and more intelligible to its adherents.

It has oft been claimed that those who deny the Trinity aren’t real Christians. Yet a ‘Christian’ (Greek christianos) by definition is a follower of Christ, and if this is to be anything more than a nominal title then those who claim to be Christian should follow Christ, in both his teaching and mode of life. Jesus Christ preached the God of Abraham (Matt 22:32) as his Father and as the one true God (John 17:3). Isn’t it time for the teaching of Christians to reflect the teaching of Christ?

[1] A. F. Buzzard & C. F. Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound (New York: International Scholars Publications, 1998).

[2] The Myth of God Incarnate (ed. J. Hick; London: SCM Press, 1977).

[3] Cf. M. A. McIntosh, Divine Teaching: An Introduction to Christian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell 2008), 111-178

[4] T. E. Gaston, The Influence of Platonism on the Early Apologists, The Heythrop Journal 50.4 (2009), 573-580.

[5] Pace I. S. Markham, Understanding Christian Doctrine (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 76-7.

[6] J. Dillon, ‘Logos and Trinity: Patterns of Platonist Influence on Early Christianity’, in The Philosophy in Christianity, (G. Vesey ed.; Cambridge University Press, 1989).

[7] E.g. “Light of Light, very God of very God”, “being of one substance with the Father”, etc.

[8] R. M. Bowman, Why you should believe in the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), 78-81.

[9] J. E. Vickers, Invocation and Assent: The Making and Remaking of Trinitarian Theology, (Grand Rapinds: Eerdmans, 2008), 69-101.

[10] Vickers, Invocation and Assent, 165-7

[11] Vickers, Invocation and Assent, 191-2

[12] cf. S. Olyott, The Three are One (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 1979), 101-2; N. Gumbel [Alpha Course], Is the Trinity Unbiblical, Unbelievable and Irrelvant? (Eastbourne: Kingsway, 2004), 7;

[13] cf. J. I Packer, Knowing God (Leicester: IVP, 1984)166-170.

[14] The single exception to this rule is Matt 20:28 (cf. Mark 10:45), “to give his life a ransom for (anti) many”.

[15] Cf. Packer, Knowing God, 46+

Please do find to read:

+++

Additional reading:

+++

Also of interest:

+++

Nineteenth Century Protestant Doctrines of the Trinity (redeemingthetext.wordpress.com)
The discussion in chapter nineteen of The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity is, in brief form, one of how Enlightenment philosopher-theologians developed innovative ways to discuss the Trinity and their effectiveness leading into the twentieth century.
+
Immanuel Kant, a German Idealist continuing the exegesis of the Socinians, saw no need for the doctrine of the Trinity. It was this idea of “necessity” mixed with speculative interpretation that led many like Kant to dismiss it altogether. Questions addressing God’s being, volition, and self-consciousness brought to light some of the supposed weak spots in the Trinitarian doctrine. Not being convinced scripturally of the nature or the necessity of the Trinity, nineteenth-century theologians turned to philosophy to answer their questions. Powell describes it as providing “philosophical answers with expressly Trinitarian features (269).” This move loosened the shackles of theological presuppositions and creedal traditions. Nineteenth-century theology was freed to philosophically construct a new horizon for the doctrine of God. Powell examines four prominent figures to structure his argument.
Hans Kung on Trinity Part 2 (presenttruthmn.org)
This is continued from the previous post on the Trinity. It is taken directly from Hans Kung’s book ‘Christianity: Essence, History and Future’

All this should have made it clear that according to the New Testament the key quesiton in the doctrine of the Trinity is not the question which is declared an impenetrable ‘mystery’ (mysterium stricte dictum), how three such different entities can be ontologically one, but the christological question how the relationship of Jesus (and consequently also of the Spirit) to God is to be expressed. Here the belief in the one God which Christianity has in common with Judaism and Islam may not be put in question for a moment. There no other God but God! But what is decisive for the dialogue with Jews and Christians in particular is the insight that according to the New Testament the principle of unity is clearly not the one divine ‘nature’ (physis) common to several entities, as people were to think after the ne0-Nicene theology of the fourth century. For the New Testament, as for the Hebrew Bible, the principle of unity is clearly the one God (ho theos: the God = the Father), from whom are all things and to whom are all things.
A Theology Big Enough for the Gospel: Reviewing Mike Bird’s Evangelical Theology (marccortez.com)
despite the fact that Bird mentions the image of God throughout, clearly viewing it as an important topic that has bearing on a range of other issues, he devotes only five pages to it, one of which is just a recitation of the relevant biblical verses. His excursus on infra- vs. supralapsarianism is almost as long! And union with Christ hardly gets any attention at all. In a systematic theology, pages are like currency; what you invest in shows what you value. And I was surprised at a few of the investments.
+
Bird affirms a social trinitarian approach, defining the divine persons as “self-aware” beings who are “capable of consciousness” (p. 615), and he even refers to separate consciousnesses in the Trinity (p. 118). Regardless of whether you think social trinitarianism is viable, Bird’s discussion simply fails to deal with the historical and theological objections that can (and have!) been raised. And unfortunately, these aren’t isolated incidents.
What’s Old is New Again: The Return of “Biblical Unitarianism” (southernreformation.wordpress.com)
While I’m used to defending the deity of Christ against the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or fending off Mormon misunderstandings of the doctrine of the Trinity, I never thought I would see professing “conservative evangelicals” who were willing to jettison the central dogma that makes Christianity…Christianity.But it’s happening.

I can name at least three churches in my immediate area (i.e., within 25 miles of my home) who have either had to turn away prospective new members because they wouldn’t affirm the Nicene formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, or who have only found out that a new member denied the Trinity after the individual had already been received as a member (in this case, it was kept hidden from the elders).

What’s more, I know of at least two seminary students (at Presbyterian and Reformed seminaries, no less!) who have informed their professors that they don’t out and out deny the Nicene Creed, but they’re not sure they can affirm it, either.
“Should You Believe in the Trinity?” (1peter58.wordpress.com)
“The Bible says…” The real issue here is that these individuals, and also those that belong to very young churches/institutes, claim for themselves the authority to teach new doctrine, claim for themselves the authority to reject unchanged ancient doctrine. How do you decide when to trust that a doctrine is truly of God? How do you decide what is a false doctrine not of God?
Theophany, Epiphany and the Holy Trinity (orthodoxmom3.wordpress.com)
Giving recognition to the Holy Trinity is an important aspect of the Holy Orthodox Church. When we pray we make the sign of the cross. The thumb and first two fingers represent the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The bringing of these three fingers together signifies that we do not believe in three gods, only ONE GOD. Everything we do is in the name of the trinity: baptism, forgiveness, marriage, the confession of our faith (Nicene Creed) etc. The Trinity expresses the essence of our faith. The work of salvation begins with the Father who created the world, is realized by the Son through His death and resurrection, and is completed through the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Because the Bible Tells Me So (mackerelsnapperblog.wordpress.com)
Whenever a Catholic debates the Faith with a non-Catholic — Christian or atheist — the very first argument that often gets brought up is that Catholic teaching contradicts the Scriptures.

“Catholics believe (X), but (X) isn’t in the Bible”

First off, let me put this out there and get it over with — Catholics do not believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which translates to “Scripture alone.” Unlike many Protestant beliefs, Catholics do not accept the Bible as the highest authority on doctrine. This may sound like a heresy to some, but it isn’t. The Church isn’t derived from the Bible. In fact it’s quite the opposite. It is precisely because of the Catholic Church that the Bible even exists
Sola Scriptura? (preacheroftruth.com) + > Sola Scriptura?
Pythagoras is said to have been the earliest outside of Scripture (Isa. 40:22) to contend that the earth is round. He did not make the earth round with his assertions, but identified what already was. Sir Isaac Newton certainly did not create gravity, but he is credited for our modern understanding of it. Likewise, the term “sola scriptura” is not found in scripture (similar to terms like “trinity” and “omniscience”), but it was coined during the “Reformation Movement” as part of Martin Luther’s protests against perceived corruptions of the Catholic Church. It was a “Latin phrase (literally ‘by Scripture alone’) describing the Protestant theological principle that Scripture is the final norm in all judgments of faith and practice.
+
Scripture is God-breathed, making one spiritually complete (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If Scripture is sufficient, what need is there for anything beyond it? On what basis would we accept anything more or less than or different from the Bible? How could fallible man be equal to or co-authorize with the perfect law of the Lord? Let us accept no substitute or rival to the Bible!
(1) The Two Pillars of the Reformation (altruistico.wordpress.com)
The Protestant Reformation saw the advancement of the Gospel and an understanding of right doctrine that hadn’t been seen since the time of Christ and the Apostles. It drew Christianity out of the dark ages of the faith; a time when the Scripture was forbidden to be read in the language of the people, when superstition reigned, where abominations within the church leadership was a norm, and when a knowledge of the Truth was virtually unknown. But to the glory of God, He rekindled the fire of the Gospel, and it spread like a fire in a barn of hay. The Reformation has given us such a wealth of knowledge of the truth of Christ’s teaching that I personally will never be able to ingest all of.

Importance of parents 2

Posted on 2013/11/04 by Belgian Biblestudents - Belgische Bijbelstudenten

In our ever changing world coming closer to the End of Times, much more things would go wrong and disturb many people. the world evolving to go to the wrong end makes the position of the parents, the guides of the next generations more important.

Parents (Photo credit: leef_smith)

The parents would not be able to escape from the consequences things which happen in the world. It is possible their family would also be tested be what is going on. How can you keep these problems from arising in your family? Clearly, every member of every family needs to learn and to value some principles that rule out abusive and wrong conduct. The best place to find that kind of guidance is in God’s Word, the Bible.

The parents are the once who should take care in the first instance of the children they brought on to this earth and should raise. True Christians realize that the Creator God has provided a manual for the world. It is available for all those who like to know how the world is, what the world can do and how the world is to evolve. The Originator, Creator of all things gave His Guide to the world, with all His principles. Those full instructions are recorded in the Book of books, the Bible. God his Word has not changed, though the world has changed a lot and tried everything to destroy that Word.

God sees every deed we carry out, even those that are hidden to most humans. The Bible says:

“All things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting.” (Hebrews 4:13)

“Love,” the Bible tells us, “is a perfect bond of union.” (Colossians 3:14)

As described in the Bible, love is not simply a feeling. It is defined by the way it motivates — by the conduct it prompts and the deeds it forbids. (1 Corinthians 13:4-8) By love man and wife should come together and unite to be with child. Making children out of love, they shall have to receive the full love parents can give. In the family, showing love means treating each member with dignity, respect, and kindness. It means living in harmony with God’s view of each family member. God gives each one an honourable and important role.

The parents do have to rip the cover off those frauds in this world and see how attractive they look in the light of Christ. they have to wake up from their sleep they perhaps had previously in this world full of many traditions not according to the Will of God. Uniting man and woman as wife and husband they should try to find the light Christ will show them. They have to watch their steps and use their head. They shall become confronted with many opportunities and will have to make the most of every chance they get.

These are desperate times! Therefore we must be observant and not live carelessly, unthinkingly. Parents have to make sure they understand what the Master wants. The apostle Paul gives advice like not to drink too much wine, which cheapens the parents their life. They better drink the Spirit of God, huge draughts of Him.

Jesus Christ has given the world his good example how to behave. Out of respect for Christ, they should be, like every person who calls himself or herself a Christian, courteously reverent to one another. Wives, should understand and support their husbands in ways that show their support for Christ. The husband who provides leadership to his wife, should do this in the way Christ does to his church, not by domineering but by cherishing. So just as the church submits to Christ as he exercises such leadership, wives should likewise submit to their husbands. Husbands, should go all out in their love for their wives, exactly as Christ did for the church — a love marked by giving, not getting. As Christ’s love makes the church whole, his love makes also the family to one unit, blessed in his name. His words evoke not only the beauty of the church, the ecclesia or parish, but of every member of the household. Everything Christ did and said was designed to bring the best out of his followers. In the same way parents should, as part of the body of Christ, carry the unselfish love with them, dressing each other in dazzling white silk, radiant with holiness.

As the family head, the father is to take the lead in showing love. He understands that a Christian father is not given license to be a tyrant, abusing his power over his wife or children. Rather, he looks to Christ as his example in headship.

²¹ Be in subjection to one another+ in fear of Christ. ²² Let wives be in subjection+ to their husbands as to the Lord, ²³ because a husband is head of his wife+ as the Christ also is head of the congregation,+ he being a savior of [this] body. ²⁴ In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, so let wives also be to their husbands in everything.+ ²⁵ Husbands, continue loving YOUR wives,+ just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it,+ ²⁶ that he might sanctify it,+ cleansing it with the bath of water by means of the word,+ ²⁷ that he might present the congregation to himself in its splendor,+ not having a spot or a wrinkle or any of such things, but that it should be holy and without blemish.+

²⁸ In this way husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, ²⁹ for no man ever hated his own flesh; but he feeds and cherishes it,+ as the Christ also does the congregation, ³⁰ because we are members of his body.+ (Ephesians 5:21-23- 25-27)

Parents Cerebral Palsy – Children both NO C.P. * Spring 1978 (Photo credit: Whiskeygonebad)

Though parents must be cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves (Matthew 10:16) should in their wedding flee from the desires incidental to youth and should start pursuing righteousness, faith, love, peace, with the willingness to share everything with their partner and the offspring. (2 Timothy 2:22) They should do nothing out of contentiousness or out of egoistic intentions. In the household nothing may be done through strife or vainglory, but should be done in lowliness of mind letting each esteem the other better than himself. (Philippians 2:3)

So the man must be tender and loving with his wife and patient and gentle with his children. He loyally should protect them and give his all to prevent anything from happening that might rob them of their peace, their innocence, or their sense of trust and safety.

Likewise, the wife and mother has a role of vital importance and dignity. The Bible uses the protective instincts of mothers in the animal kingdom to illustrate how protective Jehovah and Jesus can be.

³⁷ “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets+ and stoner+ of those sent forth to her,+—how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings!+ But YOU people did not want it. (Matthew 23:37)

A human mother, bound by law to her husband while he is alive, (Romans 7:2) should likewise be staunchly protective of her children. Lovingly, she is quick to put their safety and well-being ahead of her own. The parents do not allow abuse of power, bullying, or intimidation to enter into their dealings with each other or with their children; nor do they allow their children to use such tactics on one another.

Parents should take the Word of God at heart and should also let their children know that infallible Word. In the Bible they can find the basic principles that can help. Many fathers have found that they and their families benefit when they follow the wisdom found in the Bible.

Surely there are many things parents can do for their children, including the sacrifices they shall have to make to feed them and provide them with an adequate home. Parents would not do such things if their children were not important to them. Yet, if they do not spend significant amounts of time with their children, they might conclude that the parents care more for other things, such as their job, their friends, or their hobbies, than they do for them.

Parents should be aware of those feelings of the children and should take care that the children always shall be able to feel that the parents are there for them. Marriage is a Divine institution and each person playing a role in the unity God wanted to see, from the beginning of the world, should make the best out of his role working for the other and being ready for the other, out of love. Today we can find couples of the same sex, but originally God provided the first act of marital union so that there may be a further population. The basic pattern by the creation given is simple – a man (male) will leave the confines of parental authority (again male and female) and cleave to his wife (female) and thus become one flesh.

This creation ordinance was also affirmed in the teaching of the Nazarene Jesus Christ. When questioned on the issue of the validity of divorce, he reminded his audience that the first couple were male and female and then quoted Genesis 2:24.

²⁴ That is why a man will leave his father and his mother+ and he must stick to his wife* and they must become one flesh.+ (Genesis 2:24)

The master Jesus said:

⁵ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother+ and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’?+ (Matthew 19:5).

Man and woman were to be united, joined to be one body, to “be one flesh”. (1 Corinthians 6:16)

Today we should still have the continuance of this Divine design of marital union where man and woman, becoming parent should not depart from each other until death comes in between.

³¹ “For this reason a man will leave [his] father and [his] mother and he will stick to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”+ (Ephesians 5:31)

⁴ Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement,+ for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.*+ (Hebrews 13:4)

¹⁰ To the married people I give instructions, yet not I but the Lord,+ that a wife should not depart from her husband;+ (1 Corinthians 7:10)

We all should try to become good parents, fulfilling the Wish of God and His creation.

Preceding articles:

Importance of parents 1

Father and motherhood

Poverty and conservative role patterns

Connection between women and environmental sustainability

Find also:

+++

Also of interest:

+++

Equal? (dizzydaisydoo.wordpress.com)
Are men and women a) equal in the full definition of the word, or b) are they equal with different roles, or c) are they not equal? (okay, it’s definitely not c.) If you think it is, you really need to re-read the Bible.)
A Comparison Of Rahab In Bible (dwilliamcruise.wordpress.com)
Surely, a quality Christian education may be the most valuable gift any child can receive. Through the guidance of Christian parents and teachers, children will become mature Christians, devoted to a life of loving “the Lord thy God with all thy heart, together with all thy soul, and just about all the thy mind” (Matthew 22:37b), reflective of Christ’s love that dwells within them.
Why does God hate divorce? (altruistico.wordpress.com)
Malachi 2:16 is the oft-quoted passage that tells how God feels about divorce. “‘I hate divorce,’ says the Lord God of Israel.” But this passage says much more than that. If we back up to verse 13, we read, “You cover the Lord’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, ‘Why does he not?’ Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.”
+
God clearly explains His reasons for esteeming marriage so highly. He says it was He who “made them one” (Malachi 2:15). Marriage was God’s idea. If He designed it, then He gets to define it. Any deviation from His design is abhorrent to Him. Marriage is not a contract; it is a covenant. Divorce destroys the whole concept of covenant that is so important to God.
Does the Bible Say that Women are Distinctly Under the Authority of Their Fathers? (afittinguncertainty.wordpress.com)
As both experience in the world and the Bible testify, the instruments of interpretation (humans) are at our best bent, and at our worst self-servingly disingenuous to the facts in front of us. I think that true humility consists in an understanding of our own fallibility when it comes to matters of interpretation (that goes for all interpretation, and it gives rise to this blog’s title).
+
Within the Christian context in which I was brought up, people believe (I would even call it an assumption) that the father of girls has a specific authority over that girl that is distinct from what he has over boys. There’s nothing “creepy” about it–the (well-meaning) idea is that the father is supposed to protect his daughter by keeping bad boys away from her (this mostly crops up during discussions of relationships). This comports with experience up to a point–most people think that young girls (like 13) do need to be protected to a degree (experience differs about whether this is distinct from the protection of, say, a 13 year-old boy, but that’s not the point of this post). But I have heard it (and seen it acted on) many times, that before a girl can date a guy (or “court” or whatever you prefer to call that), the guy has to get the approval of the girl’s father. This includes the father’s ability to say “no” when both the girl and the boy want to date. I have seen guys “date” their hopefully future girlfriend’s dad, where the dad hangs out with him, makes him read books, etc, to “vet” him. Note that there is no corresponding “vetting” of a girl from the boy’s parents, which is why I frame the question the way that I chose to (“Does the Bible say that women are distinctly under the authority of their fathers?” The “distinctly” is doing a lot of work in that sentence, as it does in practice).This leads to my question: Where does the Bible proscribe, or even describe, this practice? This practice does not pass my definition of compelling. There is no text, or stream of texts, or coherent theme throughout Scripture, that rules out a mutually exclusive conclusion (such a conclusion would be: the Bible has nothing to say about a distinct authority fathers have over their daughters, so it is up to the conscience of the individual family–I did not say “father” because that presumes that fathers have a distinct authority for such decisions–determine what that means). In other words, this idea that women are specially under their fathers’ authority (until marriage) is pretty far into the “interpretation-dominant” area of the compelling spectrum.
What’s “Biblical” About It? (kingdomventurers.com)
Regarding male and female behavior I’ve come to the conclusion that masculinity and femininity are social contrivances or social regulators which help us navigate our relationships. Again, the Bible does not tell men how to behave like a man or a woman how to behave like a woman. The Bible does tell us in very simple general statements how we as men and women are to relate to the opposite sex and to each other. The Bible also provides us with examples of what men find attractive in a woman (e.g., the Shulammite woman of The Song of Solomon & the industrious woman in Proverbs 31) and what women find attractive in men (the Ruth/Boaz story). Masculine or feminine qualities, if there are such things, are worked out between each man and woman in the give and take of relationship. They certainly are not the rubber stamping of contrived gender roles promoted by such “Let’s-Get-This-Nailed-Down” Conferences.
Godly Parenting & the Bible by J. C. Ryle (ilyston.wordpress.com)
See that your children read the Bible reverently. Train them to look upon it, not as the word of men, but as it truly is, the Word of God, written by the Holy Spirit Himself—all true, all profitable, and able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ.
Sharing Jesus with Your Children (ourdailybread101.wordpress.com)
This is the mistake so many parents are making today. They spend their time telling their children “Don’t do this. Don’t do that. That’s wrong.” By such behavior, these parents are failing an entire generation. Many times, children are never shown the riches of Jesus Christ. In every 24-hour cycle, there are a multitude of teachable moments for sharing and modeling life in Christ.
Controlling Our Children? (yesihomeschool5.wordpress.com)
The most recent idea I have run across is the thought that we cannot and should not control our children, but rather, only the Holy Spirit can do such. I believe that is completely unbiblical hogwash! Of course the Holy Spirit can guide and direct a saved child that is learning to be a spirit filled believer, however, the Bible also teaches not only that children are to obey their parents, but, that the parents are, in fact, to demand the obedience, and yes, to control their children.
A Terrible Parent…. (derrickskelton.wordpress.com)
Here I am a Children’s Pastor, weekly sharing the importance of God’s word to kids and families… and I haven’t purchased by own kid the appropriate Bible. While this made me feel like a “Terrible Parent”, I was reminded of how we all are imperfect which is why there is a need for God…. As parents we all make mistakes.. WE have days we wish could be erased in our parenting… But how great it is to know that God knows where we are and exactly what we need…. and even more HE knows what our kids need…. I pray daily that my failures in life will not be my kids failures… And when they see me fail…they also see me “get back up”…..
Version 40.4: The Bible: A Word For All Ages (lie77.wordpress.com)
Regardless of your age, become a “little child” for a minute. Come to Jesus as one would to a loving parent. No requests. No expectations. You don’t have to brush your teeth or comb your hair. Simply come and linger in His presence, experiencing His love for you. Why not take a moment to do this right now? Learning from the Bible is the best way to build a “rock-solid” spiritual foundation. From the Bible’s inspired pages you will learn who God is, how He wants you to live and how He will guide you.

	On to a baptismal ce… on Get Your Wonderful Disease-pro…
	Reden om kennis in u… on Fundamenten van het Geloof 13…
	What is expected of… on Lovers of God, seekers and lov…
	What is expected of… on Being in tune with God
	Wat wordt er van een… on Wettisch tegenover wet
	Wat wordt er van een… on Fundamenten van het Geloof: 7.…
	Intense conflict in… on A multi-front war between Isra…
	Wat betekent het om… on Kerkzijn in een ik-gerichte…
	What does it mean to… on Being Religious and Spiritual…
	What does it mean to… on Members of the ecclesia unitin…
	What does it mean to… on How do I know if I’m cal…
	What does it mean to… on The Pastor Theologian
	No necessity for fas… on 8 Reasons Christian Holidays S…
	How to find out that… on Lovers of God, seekers and lov…
	How to find out that… on Patriarch Abraham, Muslims, Ch…

Stepping Toes

Things said on this site possibly can upset someone

Tag Archives: Sacrifices

Autumn traditions for 2014 – 4 Blasphemy and ridiculing faith in God

Find also to read:

Find in Dutch:

Further reading:

Christianity without the Trinity

Please do find to read:

Additional reading:

Also of interest:

Importance of parents 2

Find also:

Also of interest:

Find also to read:

Find in Dutch:

Further reading:

Related articles

Rate this:

Share this:

Please do find to read:

Additional reading:

Also of interest:

Related articles

Rate this:

Share this:

Find also:

Also of interest:

Related articles

Rate this:

Share this: