Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Devaluing the Very Voice of God

  1. #1
    Adelphos
    Guest

    Default Devaluing the Very Voice of God

    Hello,

    Although I agree with the essentials of Trinitarianism, I have always been offended with the thought that man can explain things better than God. Allow me to try to unpack what has been bothering me forever:

    I believe 100 percent that Scripture, as embraced by Protestantism, is the authoritative, inspired, and inerrant Word of God. So, if I really, really believe that, why would I use terminology that God doesn't use to, in theory, express what is written in the Word of God? To me, it is like saying, "God, you didn't do your ***! We, as humans, need to develop our own terms to express to the world what we really believe!" Yes, I know the argument that says that that people use Bible terms in different ways, so we must clearly show what we mean by those terms. hmmmmm... Is God that dumb? What I mean is this - God wrote EXACTLY what He decided to write using the exact terms, etc... that He desired to use. What is wrong with simply using HIS Words to express HIS truth? I have come to believe that calling God anything else but what He calls Himself is offensive. If God wanted to be called Trinity, don't you think that He would have stated it? Do we really believe that God wrote the Bible, and placed in it EXACTLY what He desired for us to know? Hey, if I am that out of whack here, share with me your thoughts. However, I really, really believe that if I never use the word Trinity in referring to God, God will never be offended!

    The above is not a very well thought out summary, but it may get a dialog moving along.

    Respectfully,

    Adelphos

  2. #2
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    God hid truth in the words he used to teach us...

    very little of the Lords teachings are easy to catch right away....

  3. #3
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    I have come to believe that calling God anything else but what He calls Himself is offensive. , , ,I really, really believe that if I never use the word Trinity in referring to God, God will never be offended!
    Appreciate the candor!

    Sometimes a rough sketch is all you need and this transfer is well enough I think.

    Interesting, ,I’ve heard others raise this concern too, but not to this level. Whether or not this is still a little bothersome, I would think might yet tip someone else. For others may have the same sensitive attention to Him and might like to see how others view it.

    Most importantly here, when we use that phrase, how can it be anything more than another connotation like Godhead, expressing the essence of His likeness rather than the One?

    BTW, We do have other lesser than the “Almighty” or “Lord God” directly from the word that I don’t hear anyone raising points over such as:

    “There is a friend that sticks closer than a brother” Proverbs 18:24

  4. #4
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    H
    If God wanted to be called Trinity, don't you think that He would have stated it? Do we really believe that God wrote the Bible, and placed in it EXACTLY what He desired for us to know?

    Adelphos
    the problem is that you are thinking the the lack of something in the text means something....this is not true at all...

    and god should not mind what name you call him by....im sure god still gets his mail even if you misname it...lol

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Hello,

    Although I agree with the essentials of Trinitarianism, I have always been offended with the thought that man can explain things better than God. Allow me to try to unpack what has been bothering me forever:

    I believe 100 percent that Scripture, as embraced by Protestantism, is the authoritative, inspired, and inerrant Word of God. So, if I really, really believe that, why would I use terminology that God doesn't use to, in theory, express what is written in the Word of God? To me, it is like saying, "God, you didn't do your ***! We, as humans, need to develop our own terms to express to the world what we really believe!" Yes, I know the argument that says that that people use Bible terms in different ways, so we must clearly show what we mean by those terms. hmmmmm... Is God that dumb? What I mean is this - God wrote EXACTLY what He decided to write using the exact terms, etc... that He desired to use. What is wrong with simply using HIS Words to express HIS truth? I have come to believe that calling God anything else but what He calls Himself is offensive. If God wanted to be called Trinity, don't you think that He would have stated it? Do we really believe that God wrote the Bible, and placed in it EXACTLY what He desired for us to know? Hey, if I am that out of whack here, share with me your thoughts. However, I really, really believe that if I never use the word Trinity in referring to God, God will never be offended!

    The above is not a very well thought out summary, but it may get a dialog moving along.

    Respectfully,

    Adelphos
    Adelphos, you are absolutely right: your post wasn't very well thought out. No offense intended, just pointing out what you said about your own writing, and I agree. Here's how:

    The trouble with someone saying they only want to use God's exact words, you have to first learn ancient Hebrew, and then go back in time about 3500 years to the time of Moses et. al. in order to understand just exactly how those words were used in their culture at that time.

    Unless you think the King James Version is actually the exact words of God (like the KJV-only-ists), then you open up a whole other can of worms about how you think a translation is God-inspired when the translators themselves deny it. And then you also might open the debate about whether the NT was originally written in Greek or Aramaic (which is still an ongoing debate), but even then, you start to open the debate about which original m****cripts are the exact ones, since we no longer have the originals, and the m****cripts we have contain over 4000 variants.

    The point I am making is this: the truth has less to do with exact words being spoken than it does the meaning of those words. The more familiar I've gotten with the scriptures, the more I understood that it's the meaning of the scriptures that's important, the understanding of what's being said which enlightens the mind and spirit. It is the doctrines of the faith that defines the faith, not the words of it. People prove this every day by speaking all the Christian jargon, but not living the life - talking the talk but not walking the walk.

    So then, why do we use theological terms that the Bible doesn't use? The point is to make distinctions in doctrine, in order to define the boundaries of the doctrine, so that someone doesn't come along and try to corrupt the faith by redefining or changing the boundaries and distinctions. You believe in the "virgin birth" of Christ, but the Bible doesn't use that term. The term is described and defined by Biblical text, but we don't have to quote lengthy Biblical texts in order to teach doctrine that arrives at what everyone understands as "virgin birth." We use the term to say it in a short period of time.

    For example, we believe that "Son of God" means that Jesus is God (and we believe that first century Christians understood that). But then along came Arius (a church leader, no less), who changed the definition of the term and made Jesus merely human without divinity. This had to be countered by correct teaching, and theological terms like "hypostatic union" was generated to briefly say what many scriptures of the NT say when gathered together, that Jesus' humanity and divinity were together in one person Christ, and we call Him the God-man (another non-Biblical term).

    "Trinity" is simply a term that teaches that God is 3 persons in 1 being. And how do we arrive at this conclusion? By simply observing statements in the Bible:
    1. God is one - showing that God is a single being
    2. "I and the Father are one" - that Jesus is one being with God the Father
    3. "The Father loves the Son" - showing that there is a love relationship between the Father and Son, showing two distinct personages.
    ...etc.

    (The reason I used the term "personage" is because the common def. of the term "person" refers to a human being, of which God is not, and thus referring to the Father as a "person" is really a misnomer. But other terms are also inadequate for this. We cannot call the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit en***ies, because God is One, therefore a single en***y, God. So far as I know of, no correct theological term has been coined for the distinct 3 persons of the Godhead, so we use the term "persons" for lack of a better term. Furthermore, we can't say they are separate persons, because they are not separated in any way, being one. Therefore we call them distinct persons, since all 3 have ongoing relationships with each other.)

    The final point is that God did not inadequately explain something, in which man is trying to do a better *** of it. That would be the wrong stand to take, and a cynical one at that. What theologians are doing is trying to correct misunderstandings. It is true that God adequately explained things. But since man is still full of sin, and thereby full of pride and stubborn misunderstandings, people often get the wrong idea about what the Bible is teaching. This is why we need experts to teach us the meaning of the scriptures so that we can read it correctly. And who is the expert, except the one who has spent most of his life studying the scriptures and becoming so familiar with it, that it is like a language he is fluent in? The one who can "rightly divide the word of truth" - which is the same thing as putting it together to make clear sense of the truth being taught in it.

    And just one more thing, if God had explained everything clearly in step 1,2,3 procedure like a textbook, then where would be the parables, the figures, the mysteries, which confound the wise of this world and confuse those who lack ears to hear?
    TD

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •