I am currently taking a graduate level course on the doctrine of the Trinity. One of the first things we learned is that there are two different aspects to the doctrine of the Trinity. One aspect is called "the economic doctrine of the Trinity." The word "economic" comes from the Greek word oikonomia. The economic doctrine talks about "God-as-He-toward-us." It is essentially what has been written in the Bible. The gist of the economic Trinity is that everything we receive from God the Father, we receive through Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit, and everything we direct to God the Father we direct through Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit.
...
The words that became fossilized in the 4th and 5th centuries, such as homoousias and hypostasis had very reasonable meanings in the culture of the time, but those meanings have been lost down through the following centuries.
Steve, would that be "holy spirit" not "Holy Spirit"? :rolleyes:/>
I look forward to your further commentary on this doctrine. First time I've ever heard of two trinities.
What does your third para mean? That is, what are the supposed meanings in the 4C and 5C?
I am currently taking a graduate level course on the doctrine of the Trinity. One of the first things we learned is that there are two different aspects to the doctrine of the Trinity. One aspect is called "the economic doctrine of the Trinity." The word "economic" comes from the Greek word oikonomia. The economic doctrine talks about "God-as-He-toward-us." It is essentially what has been written in the Bible. The gist of the economic Trinity is that everything we receive from God the Father, we receive through Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit, and everything we direct to God the Father we direct through Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit.
The other aspect is called the ontological or immanent doctrine of the Trinity, and deals with "God-as-He-is-in-Himself." The first thing any theologian says about "God-as-He-is-in-Himself"is that it is "ineffable," which literally means that it can't be spoken about. The next thing most theologians have done is to begin speculating about that which cannot be spoken of. Since there is no objective standard to judge the correctness of that which cannot be spoken, many different speculations arise and they often contradict each other. The need for unity of belief led to councils and creeds that dictate how to think and talk about that which cannot be spoken.
The words that became fossilized in the 4th and 5th centuries, such as homoousias and hypostasis had very reasonable meanings in the culture of the time, but those meanings have been lost down through the following centuries. Consequently, the ontological doctrine of the Trinity no longer makes sense to people who have not familiarized themselves with the thought worlds of late antiquity and the middle ages. There are long and convoluted rules about what we can think and say about that which cannot be spoken.
When Wierwille rejected the ontological doctrine of the Trinity, unfortunately, he also rejected the economic understanding of the relations between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the gift of Holy Spirit, which is accurate according to the Bible. I'm not really that interested anymore in what Wierwille taught. He is long gone and dead. What does exercise me is how John Lynn markets his material as correction for Trinitarian "insanity." People hear him say stuff like that and think he's talking about the economic Trinity!!!!! He has no awareness of how ignorant he sounds...
Steve, would that be "holy spirit" not "Holy Spirit"? :rolleyes:/>/>
I look forward to your further commentary on this doctrine. First time I've ever heard of two trinities.
What does your third para mean? That is, what are the supposed meanings in the 4C and 5C?
I have decided to capitalize Holy Spirit... because I believe it is the "life-force" (spirit) of God combined with the "human nature" of Jesus Christ. There are places where Paul calls it the spirit of Christ and in II Corinthians 3:16 he wrote "Now the Lord is that Spirit..." What I question now is whether the whole thing should be called "the Gift of the Holy Spirit," and I am not the first person to wonder that. In the early days, there were theologians who wondered if the names of the persons of the Trinity should be "Father", "Son" and "Gift"!
When you say "First time I've heard of two trinities", Twinky, you are treading very close to DANGEROUS heresy! There can't be TWO trinities! That would make SIX! Theologians say there are two ASPECTS to Trinitarian doctrine. ASPECTS, mind you! We have to be very careful how we talk about things of which we cannot speak!
Tertullian (active around the year 200 AD) was the theologian who came up with the word "Trinity" and the concept that God and Jesus Christ were "of the same substance". He explained how God extended Himself toward His creation by means of Platonic emanations. But if he went with pure Platonism, it would violate the unity of God the Father and Jesus Christ... so he solved the problem by saying that even though Jesus was an emanation of the Father, they were both of the same substance, homoousias. The Greek word ousia can be very well translated simply as "thing". Homo means "same", therefore homoousias means "same thing". However,in those early days, theologians also used the word hupostasis synonymously with homoousias. Hupostasis literally means "under standing" in the sense of "substrate". But later, the word homoousias became associated with the "one ousia" of the Trinity and the word hupostasis became associated with each of the three persons of the Trinity. Perfectly sensible if you understand Platonic emanations! But nobody has thought that way in a VERY long time. The words are fossils now.
Incidentally, Tertullian himself was a Montanist... a group judged to be heretical at the time, and later on, the things Tertullian wrote about the Trinity, beyond the use of the words "Trinity" and "same substance", were themselves judged to be heretical because he didn't include the Holy Spirit as being of the same substance with God and Jesus.
That was a lot of sizzle-I'm waiting to see the steak come out of the kitchen.
I'm not really intending to go much of anywhere on this thread, unless people want me to. I am just gobsmacked at how ignorant Wierwille was, and how ignorant he trained me to be, and how ignorant many of the leaders of the offshoots still are... needlessly so... all they have to do is take a course or two in real theology.
As a project in Advanced Greek, I did a sense translation of I Corinthians 8:6 and demonstrated how Paul co-opted the Stoic definition of the Soul-of-the-Cosmos to show that God the Father is vastly superior to any of the things called gods in I Corinthians 8:5. The other day, I went in to see the professor over-seeing my work in the Doctrine of the Trinity class and asked him if I could go off of the syllabus and write a quantum description of the economic Trinity based on the schema Paul presented in I Corinthians 8:6. I showed him all the material I've already generated, and asked him if my theology was as kookie as my looks. He said "no" to my question about kookiness, saying that it all looked very logical, and gave me permission to go off of the syllabus. So that's what I'll be doing with some of my time over the next few weeks.
If you guys want me to post updates, I'd be glad to do it.
I would also like you to describe this in more detail. To this day, I have never heard of an "Economical aspect" but the way you first laid it out, it seems to make sense so I would love it if you'd write more on this.
I am glad that Steve Lortz is posting. Steve shows very good scriptural knowledge. Also showing very good scriptural knowledge here is someone that I met when I was in Noo Yawk, WordWolf. Did I pronounce that correctly, "Noo Yawk"? However, Steve which denomination is the seminary that you are attending part of? This is a reminder and is something that Jesus Christ taught as part of the gospels. Namely the doctrinal error that results when the tradition of men is elevated above the word of God. Instead we can learn from both our study of the scriptures and asking God for answers of truth in prayer. James chapter 1 verses 5-8 are an example of our truthful learning. Also see these scriptures.
Mark 7:9
9 And He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
NKJV
Col 2:8-10
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
NKJV
One of the religious traditions is the doctrine of the trinity. Why would any doctrinally truthful person insist on elevating a word that is not used in any version of the bible, namely the unbiblical word, "trinity"? Steve, I think it is good for you to learn the biblical Greek language at the seminary that you are attending. However, doctrinally speaking, especially if your seminary is part of a denomination, they should learn from you at least as much as you might learn from them. In fact, now I live right next door to a church called the Berean Baptist Church. Doctrinally, they are O.K., but occasionally, I see obvious doctrinal error when I attend. I do this in a non-argumentative manner, but when I talk to the teachers and pastors after the teachings I do my best to help them doctrinally and this has also involved providing them information in written form that they can study at their homes.
Doctrinally, besides asking God for truth in prayer, which God gives me when ever I ask. I learn from biblical software that I have called the PC Study Bible. Besides commentaries and biblical Greek, this has the Nelson Bible Dictionary. Nelson Publishing is the same publisher for the New King James version of the bible. This has a very truthful biblical study of Jesus Christ and do you think there is even one mention of the work trinity in this approximate 10 page study of Jesus Christ? The answer is not even once is the word trinity mentioned.
I usually avoid talking Trinity with anyone. One of the main reasons is that I've found so many people and denominations define the term differently and if I don't fully understand what they mean by the term we often just confuse each other. While the original post is the first time I've heard those terms, I've run into the basic ideas behind them several times. It sounds like a good study to get into though.
I don't have a lot of time right now, but here's a thought that's been influencing my thinking for some time now...
If the truth about the relation between Jesus Christ and the Father was lost some where between the time of Tertullian (late-2nd/early-3rd century) and the Council of Chalcedon (mid-5th century), and was not recovered until Wierwille in the mid-20th century (ignoring Sozzini in the late-16th century), then Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, left his body in total ignorance for fifteen to eighteen hundred years. That does not seem reasonable to me. It does not square with my experience of the Lord who taught me how to change the things that were in my heart, in terms of steam engines and nuclear reactions. He can teach anything he wants to teach, to anyone who is willing to learn, at any time he wants to, in terms that they will understand.
There is much more to the doctrine of the Trinity than Wierwille recognized and taught... in terms both of its accuracy AND its inaccuracy...
We will consider some of those things as time permits...
I don't have a lot of time right now, but here's a thought that's been influencing my thinking for some time now...
If the truth about the relation between Jesus Christ and the Father was lost some where between the time of Tertullian (late-2nd/early-3rd century) and the Council of Chalcedon (mid-5th century), and was not recovered until Wierwille in the mid-20th century (ignoring Sozzini in the late-16th century), then Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, left his body in total ignorance for fifteen to eighteen hundred years. That does not seem reasonable to me.
(snip)
It doesn't seem reasonable to us, either.
But, since it is a FALSE DILEMMA, it is DESIGNED not to make sense to anyone,
and to just make it easy to think there's only 2 possibilities-
MY opinion, and an incredibly stupid opinion.
Christians who didn't believe in the Trinity have been existing all through
the centuries. We discussed once how one group of Trinitarians killed off a
group of non-Trinitarians in Europe centuries ago.
There have been lots of minority opinions through the entire history of the
Christian Church. This has been one of them- and that's only considering people
who actually said "I'm not a Trinitarian." I had a friend who was Roman Catholic,
and I asked him once if Jesus was The Son of God, or if he was God. He answered
immediately and said Jesus was The Son of God, and seemed surprised there was a
position that could be phrased so as to say Jesus was God. Officially, he'd be
on the books as a Trinitarian by definition because he's RC.
(I phrased the question that way because I was in twi at the time, so I didn't
have as much of a problem loading questions like I do now.) In and of itself,
the question, as phrased, would either get a proper Trinitarian to say outright
that Jesus is God, or clarify his phrasing but say that Jesus is God in some
form or other while answering.
If that False Dilemna's been influencing your thinking for some time now,
Very good points by Wordwolf. Steve, you also have the potential to bring good biblical knowledge to this forum and you have done this. However, please don't make up stuff about Victor Wierwille and the trinity. Not everything that Victor Wierwille taught was unbiblical or untruthful. What he taught that was truthful he learned from other people. For example, E.W. Bullinger, who did not believe in the trinity. If you disagree look at his book How to Enjoy the Bible. Wierwille also learned about the Gift of holy spirit from people like J.E. Stiles with his book The Gift of Holy Spirit and another person that I forgot the name of who I understand he knew personally. He also may have learned the bible from a very good bible teacher, Dr. Ernest L. Martin. None of these people taught the trinity or likely believed in it. If you don't believe this get a copy of Bullinger's book, How to Enjoy the Bible and see if the trinity is mentioned at all. I have a copy of this book and I looked up in the index the word trinity and this word is not listed at all. Dr. Ernest L. Martin did not believe in the trinity. If you don't believe this then go to this web page, with his teaching titled Just What is God. Here is a quote from this, "So the Godhead in the Hebrew language is filled with plural significance, and not limited to three personalities as the false Trinity doctrine teaches."
Wierwille was not all bad. He learned from other people truth and he also thought up unbiblical non-truth like his errant doctrine of the original sin being masturbation. I did talk to him once in the year 1984 when he was with his best friend, whose name I forget. I saw the fundamental problem with the Way ministry how some people were looked highly upon and others were looked lowly upon and tried to correct this. When I walked up to Victor Wierwille I simply told him you look familiar, but I can't remember your name, but it sounds something like wear something. Victor then played along with me and said Wierwolf and we all laughed. Victor Wierwille was not bad all the time. Some times he was O.K. and I consider him an actual bible teacher, but NOT the Teacher. The teacher is Jesus Christ and the best teacher for the New Testament was a real life apostle, the apostle Paul.
Wierwille was not always consistent in his stance on the Trinity. For example, in the PFAL class, he goes into a homoletic rant about how "Christ is coming back as God Almighty". As class instructors, we were expressly taught to gloss over this section of the class and explain it away as an emotional slip of the tongue, fueled by Wierwille's Trinitarian past. That was filmed in 1967. In later times, he speaks in veiled condescendence of other men, such as Bishop K.C. Pillai, who held Trinitarian beliefs. On one hand he praised Pillai for his "knowledge" of Oriental customs and on the other hand subtly criticized his Trinitarian position. Wierwille compared the Trinity concept to a common household product, saying it was like calling God "3 in 1 oil". (His own words) My own belief on this matter is not relevant. What matters is that Wierwille was perfectly willing to adjust his story about anything to suit the ears of the audience. He was a flim-flam man. That's what they do.
I'm writing a an onerous paper on this topic, wherein I have to do some transcribing from a CD because scholars have taken some things so much for granted that I can't find direct written sources...
But here's another nugget...
Tertullian was biblically inaccurate when he invented the word "trinity," because he limited the fullness of the Deity to three parties, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit...
but the New Testament itself extends the fullness of the Deity to the members of the Church as well...
That's why we don't find the word "trinity" in the Bible!
Hi Steve. That sounds like a valid point you just made. A very good bible teacher did a written work on what you just mentioned. His name is Dr. Ernest L. Martin. Here is a link to his written study titled, Just What is God. I think you will do well in your study.
Another very valid point is that denominational churches spend to much time and have to much emphasis on church history. This can turn into the tradition of men which our Lord Jesus Christ was against and clearly spoke against. Focus on your study of the bible, learning and using Greek words and you should do very well. I even had a debate on the trinity with a Greek Orthodox church leader. It was so one sided with other church leaders hearing our debate that the next leader of the same church knew not to debate me on this subject. Of course, my goal is simply to help them with their knowledge of the bible and I printed out the study of Jesus Christ from the Nelson Bible Dictionary and gave the new church pastor a copy. This was of course to help him with his knowledge and since their church uses the New King James Version of the Bible and since Nelson Publishes this version along with the Nelson Bible Dictionary the new pastor knew this study could be helpful. At least as long as he looks at the bible clearly without church tradition.
Below is the conclusion of Ernest Martin's study. See this also in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. In the future after Jesus Christ has put all things under Him, then God will be all in all and Jesus Christ turns back His authority of the salvation of mankind to God His Father. See verses 20-28.
So, “Just What Is God?” Elohim is the ONE divine Family to which all of us belong and into which we will be born at our resurrections from the dead. All of us of the human race have a glorious future awaiting us. We are all destined in Christ Jesus to partake of the Godhead (divine Headquarters of the universe) and be members of that ONE Family for the rest of eternity. This is not “New Age” teaching. It is “Old Age” doctrine that comes directly from the plain statements of the Holy Scriptures. It is the truth of God and His Son, Jesus Christ. What the so-called “New Agers” have done is to take a central truth of the Scripture and color it with the errors of eastern pagan mysticism. And true enough, we are not only to become “Gods” (deified) in the very Family of God, but we are already acknowledged as members of that Family in our present human existence (1 John 3:1–2). This doctrine of the Deification of the human race did NOT originate with the “New Agers.” It comes directly from the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.
Thanks for your well considered comments, Mark! The purpose of the class I'm taking is not for me to teach different understandings from those of conventional Christianity, but for me to understand the doctrine of the Trinity well enough to execute the duties and responsibilities of a master, that is of a teacher, in whatever setting I may find myself. And if those duties and responsibilities entail instruction in what exactly various people meant through the course of Church history by the doctrine of the Trinity, then I need to be able to do that.
It's easy enough to shred the ontological Trinity. My professors and mentors agree that it is a matter of words that once meant something far different from the things we mean by them today, fossilized though the centuries by the forces of habit. The problem involved with simply shredding the doctrine of the Trinity rests in the dichotomy between the economic and the ontological Trinity. The economic Trinity expresses the exact same relation between God and Jesus Christ that we would draw from our readings of the Scripture, with the exception that we would not use the word "Trinity." The ontological Trinity is a mass of unscriptural speculation about things which are supposedly ineffable, that is, talking about things that we can't "effing" talk about!
I listened to 24 hours' worth of lectures by Dr. Peter Toon on CDs. When he spoke about the economic Trinity, he spoke some of the most wonderful things I've ever heard about developing "personal friendship, personal union, personal knowing of the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit." And yet he believes firmly in the validity of the ontological Trinity, which requires a "differentiated consciousness" to appreciate. Toon's teaching was remarkable in part because he delineated the differences between the economic and the ontological doctrines of the Trinity, something I've never heard or read anyone else do (except for the prof I had for Constructive Theology, in a very sketchy way).
Most people have no idea about the differences between the economic and the ontological doctrines of the Trinity. If I were to simply say "I don't believe in the Trinity," then they may well think I am saying I don't believe people can have a relation with God the Father through the Son by means of the Holy Spirit.
I believe the Lord Jesus Christ has tolerated the doctrine of the Trinity for the past 1500 years or so for just this reason. There's only one time it seems to me that the Lord stepped in to change the course of the doctrine, and that was after the 2nd Council of Ephesus in 449, which declared that Jesus had only a single, divine nature. This would have meant that the Church would not have regarded Jesus as a real human being but as a sock-puppet of God. The Council of Chalcedon, only 2 years later in 451, overturned the decision of the 2nd Council of Ephesus, declaring that Jesus had two natures, one divine and one human, but the two natures cannot be mixed or confused, nor can they be divided or separated.
It appears to me, after reading over some material on the economic and immanent trinity, that you cannot believe the economic trinity without also accepting the immanent, or ontological trinity. Does not the economic trinity simply explain the relationship the believer has with the supposed Godhead?
There is no way Wierwille would endorse the economic trinity even if he knew what it meant. No, what Wierwille taught was this concept we used to know as the "Great Principle". That is, "God's Spirit teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit, and your spirit teaches your mind." That is what was taught in the "Advanced (ooh, Advanced!) Class. If you take a step back from that, that statement is not biblical. In fact, there is more evidence of an immanent and economic trinity being a biblical concept than there is of the "Great Principal".
As far as Tertullian coining the term "trinity", it's true he invented the word. Alistair McGrath,in his book Christian Theology,an Introduction points out that Tertullian had a penchant for coining new phrases. He says, "(He) was responsible for coining 509 new nouns, 284 new adjectives, and 161 new verbs in the Latin language." He adds, "Happily, not all seem to have caught on."
So the word Trinity is yet another word in a very long list of invented words. The word Trinity is simply an attempt at explaining a process that many believe is biblical. Of course, the debate rages on.
One part of Way Theology states that spirit can only talk to spirit, yet The Great Principle states your spirit teaches your mind. It makes no sense.
I think VPW must have lifted TGP from some source he didn't quite understand. Here's why I believe this. If you look closely at the visual depiction of TGP (sorry, I don't have a scanner.) you will notice it is not a big triangle, it's one triangle inside another triangle inside another triangle, the sides being very closely oriented. I think whoever dreamed up this TGP meant this to be somehow suggestive of a Trinity, something Wierwile would not have ever done.
One part of Way Theology states that spirit can only talk to spirit, yet The Great Principle states your spirit teaches to your mind. It makes no sense.
I think VPW must have lifted TGP from some source he didn't quite understand. Here's why I believe this. If you look closely at the visual depiction of TGP (sorry, I don't have a scanner.) you will notice it is not a big triangle, it's one triangle inside another triangle inside another triangle, the sides being very closely oriented. I think whoever dreamed up this TGP meant this to be somehow suggestive of a Trinity, something Wierwile would not have ever done.
It's rather obvious vpw didn't understand "his" "Great Principle" because it was both
inconsistent and senseless.
"God is Spirit. God can only give that which He is."
As Raf pointed out on this once, God gave manna. God is not manna. (And so on.)
"God is Spirit. Spirit can only communicate with spirit."
Again, Raf pointed out that this is inconsistent.
According to vpw, God CAN'T communicate with body-and-soul, flesh-and-blood.
(Let's ignore all the instances where God did EXACTLY that.)
So, God gives spirit, and God communicates with spirit, and that spirit God
gave us communicates with our mind.
Wait- that spirit can communicate with flesh-and-blood, body-and-soul, but
God Almighty is UNABLE TO because he is spirit???
This gets even more senseless when they end up tacking on the wild explanation
that every incident and instance in the Bible where God Almighty darn well DID
communicate with people involved putting spirit upon them for just that moment
in a "phenomena." It just gets more and more convoluted and wrong for every
single incidence that's discussed-since that stupidity has to be tacked on to
I finished writing "The Economic Trinity of 1 Corinthians 8:6 in Quantum Terms" (13 pages, 3248 words) late last night, and a brief reflection paper on the course this morning. I have yet to finish my annotated reading list tonight, and I will turn it all in tomorrow. I will see about posting some, if not all of it, here. Thank you all!
I actually had a point when I last posted, though it's hard to tell.
Wierwille and TWI in general railed against the Trinity as unbiblical and pure conjecture when in fact what he taught had even less biblical evidence that he/we were criticizing at the time. Furthermore, he taught that believers today take the place of Christ here on earth. We even had a song about it ("Today I take his place, and live in love and grace, I can do all he did and more"). The Bible clearly teaches that believers are ambassadors for Christ, but I know of no scripture that states that anyone takes the place of Christ. That's pretty heavy, you know? I have a theory.
I question Wierwille's motivation for denying the Trinity? I think it's because with the Trinity out of the way, the road to MOG status is shorter. If believers take the place of Christ, and if God gave Wierwille special revelation concerning the Word of God, that made VP top believer. If he was top believer, than he, in fact, took the place of Christ on earth as was hence the MOGFOT.
Does this make Jesus Christ God? Hardly, but it does bring into serious question the motivation of the man who indoctrinated us with his non-trinitarian views.
Then again, maybe I'm stretching things too far. I'm open to that.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
7
9
12
Popular Days
May 1
6
Nov 18
5
Jan 2
4
Mar 27
3
Top Posters In This Topic
Mark Sanguinetti 13 posts
WordWolf 7 posts
Steve Lortz 9 posts
TLC 12 posts
Popular Days
May 1 2014
6 posts
Nov 18 2016
5 posts
Jan 2 2017
4 posts
Mar 27 2014
3 posts
Popular Posts
WordWolf
It's rather obvious vpw didn't understand "his" "Great Principle" because it was both inconsistent and senseless. "God is Spirit. God can only give that which He is." As Raf pointed out on this o
Steve Lortz
I am currently taking a graduate level course on the doctrine of the Trinity. One of the first things we learned is that there are two different aspects to the doctrine of the Trinity. One aspect is c
T-Bone
Very interesting thread and great input by all. I’ve looked at this thread a number of times…I’m a little slow to grasp ideas like this. As far as dealing with my cult-damaged-faith (or whatever you w
Twinky
Steve, would that be "holy spirit" not "Holy Spirit"? :rolleyes:/>
I look forward to your further commentary on this doctrine. First time I've ever heard of two trinities.
What does your third para mean? That is, what are the supposed meanings in the 4C and 5C?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm waiting to see where he goes with this.
That was a lot of sizzle-I'm waiting to see the steak come out of the kitchen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yanagisawa
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I have decided to capitalize Holy Spirit... because I believe it is the "life-force" (spirit) of God combined with the "human nature" of Jesus Christ. There are places where Paul calls it the spirit of Christ and in II Corinthians 3:16 he wrote "Now the Lord is that Spirit..." What I question now is whether the whole thing should be called "the Gift of the Holy Spirit," and I am not the first person to wonder that. In the early days, there were theologians who wondered if the names of the persons of the Trinity should be "Father", "Son" and "Gift"!
When you say "First time I've heard of two trinities", Twinky, you are treading very close to DANGEROUS heresy! There can't be TWO trinities! That would make SIX! Theologians say there are two ASPECTS to Trinitarian doctrine. ASPECTS, mind you! We have to be very careful how we talk about things of which we cannot speak!
Tertullian (active around the year 200 AD) was the theologian who came up with the word "Trinity" and the concept that God and Jesus Christ were "of the same substance". He explained how God extended Himself toward His creation by means of Platonic emanations. But if he went with pure Platonism, it would violate the unity of God the Father and Jesus Christ... so he solved the problem by saying that even though Jesus was an emanation of the Father, they were both of the same substance, homoousias. The Greek word ousia can be very well translated simply as "thing". Homo means "same", therefore homoousias means "same thing". However,in those early days, theologians also used the word hupostasis synonymously with homoousias. Hupostasis literally means "under standing" in the sense of "substrate". But later, the word homoousias became associated with the "one ousia" of the Trinity and the word hupostasis became associated with each of the three persons of the Trinity. Perfectly sensible if you understand Platonic emanations! But nobody has thought that way in a VERY long time. The words are fossils now.
Incidentally, Tertullian himself was a Montanist... a group judged to be heretical at the time, and later on, the things Tertullian wrote about the Trinity, beyond the use of the words "Trinity" and "same substance", were themselves judged to be heretical because he didn't include the Holy Spirit as being of the same substance with God and Jesus.
More later...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I'm not really intending to go much of anywhere on this thread, unless people want me to. I am just gobsmacked at how ignorant Wierwille was, and how ignorant he trained me to be, and how ignorant many of the leaders of the offshoots still are... needlessly so... all they have to do is take a course or two in real theology.
As a project in Advanced Greek, I did a sense translation of I Corinthians 8:6 and demonstrated how Paul co-opted the Stoic definition of the Soul-of-the-Cosmos to show that God the Father is vastly superior to any of the things called gods in I Corinthians 8:5. The other day, I went in to see the professor over-seeing my work in the Doctrine of the Trinity class and asked him if I could go off of the syllabus and write a quantum description of the economic Trinity based on the schema Paul presented in I Corinthians 8:6. I showed him all the material I've already generated, and asked him if my theology was as kookie as my looks. He said "no" to my question about kookiness, saying that it all looked very logical, and gave me permission to go off of the syllabus. So that's what I'll be doing with some of my time over the next few weeks.
If you guys want me to post updates, I'd be glad to do it.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
newlife
Please Steve, do share what you know. I agree totally with what you have said so far......
And thank-you for sharing this.....to me it is confirmation to what I have found myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm slow to just endorse anything that anybody says/writes.
I am reading all the posts. I have no problem with you posting more-
in fact, I'd rather you post more than leave it at that.
You didn't post the substance-you just made statements.
Perhaps they are all well-documented....but darned if they are for all
we know.
In your particular case, I'm specifically aware that a prevalent danger
is to get too wedded to a fascinating theory or set of ideas,
and end up so far out in left field a helicopter has to be sent to
retrieve you. (Saw it happen once, in fact.) I know every approach
has its own pitfalls no matter what, so I'm keeping an eye out for yours
when you post. (When you don't post, I don't monitor you, of course.)
Since we're both honest and sincere in our approaches, the net result of
our interactions should (at least in theory) be a benefit overall- if
to the others only but probably to us as well. :)
(Note: Yes, with Tertullian you made a start on the explanation, later.
But we could use more if you want us all on board, or at least me.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I would also like you to describe this in more detail. To this day, I have never heard of an "Economical aspect" but the way you first laid it out, it seems to make sense so I would love it if you'd write more on this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I am glad that Steve Lortz is posting. Steve shows very good scriptural knowledge. Also showing very good scriptural knowledge here is someone that I met when I was in Noo Yawk, WordWolf. Did I pronounce that correctly, "Noo Yawk"? However, Steve which denomination is the seminary that you are attending part of? This is a reminder and is something that Jesus Christ taught as part of the gospels. Namely the doctrinal error that results when the tradition of men is elevated above the word of God. Instead we can learn from both our study of the scriptures and asking God for answers of truth in prayer. James chapter 1 verses 5-8 are an example of our truthful learning. Also see these scriptures.
Mark 7:9
9 And He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
NKJV
Col 2:8-10
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
NKJV
One of the religious traditions is the doctrine of the trinity. Why would any doctrinally truthful person insist on elevating a word that is not used in any version of the bible, namely the unbiblical word, "trinity"? Steve, I think it is good for you to learn the biblical Greek language at the seminary that you are attending. However, doctrinally speaking, especially if your seminary is part of a denomination, they should learn from you at least as much as you might learn from them. In fact, now I live right next door to a church called the Berean Baptist Church. Doctrinally, they are O.K., but occasionally, I see obvious doctrinal error when I attend. I do this in a non-argumentative manner, but when I talk to the teachers and pastors after the teachings I do my best to help them doctrinally and this has also involved providing them information in written form that they can study at their homes.
Doctrinally, besides asking God for truth in prayer, which God gives me when ever I ask. I learn from biblical software that I have called the PC Study Bible. Besides commentaries and biblical Greek, this has the Nelson Bible Dictionary. Nelson Publishing is the same publisher for the New King James version of the bible. This has a very truthful biblical study of Jesus Christ and do you think there is even one mention of the work trinity in this approximate 10 page study of Jesus Christ? The answer is not even once is the word trinity mentioned.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mark!!!!
Was just thinking about you the other morning when I was posting.
Yes, you pronounced it correctly. :)
I agree doctrinally with what you posted, but I'm still curious to see
where he's going with this.
I'm well aware that there are truly beautiful theories and concepts that are
completely error-ridden, but are beautiful and people can WISH they were true
since they're so picturesque and poetic. It's quite frustrating when you have
one, then have to discard it because reality rudely intruded.
(I've felt that one before, too.)
Can I get some info- by pm unless others want it too- of that study you got
your hands on? I'm curious about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
I usually avoid talking Trinity with anyone. One of the main reasons is that I've found so many people and denominations define the term differently and if I don't fully understand what they mean by the term we often just confuse each other. While the original post is the first time I've heard those terms, I've run into the basic ideas behind them several times. It sounds like a good study to get into though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I don't have a lot of time right now, but here's a thought that's been influencing my thinking for some time now...
If the truth about the relation between Jesus Christ and the Father was lost some where between the time of Tertullian (late-2nd/early-3rd century) and the Council of Chalcedon (mid-5th century), and was not recovered until Wierwille in the mid-20th century (ignoring Sozzini in the late-16th century), then Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, left his body in total ignorance for fifteen to eighteen hundred years. That does not seem reasonable to me. It does not square with my experience of the Lord who taught me how to change the things that were in my heart, in terms of steam engines and nuclear reactions. He can teach anything he wants to teach, to anyone who is willing to learn, at any time he wants to, in terms that they will understand.
There is much more to the doctrine of the Trinity than Wierwille recognized and taught... in terms both of its accuracy AND its inaccuracy...
We will consider some of those things as time permits...
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It doesn't seem reasonable to us, either.
But, since it is a FALSE DILEMMA, it is DESIGNED not to make sense to anyone,
and to just make it easy to think there's only 2 possibilities-
MY opinion, and an incredibly stupid opinion.
Christians who didn't believe in the Trinity have been existing all through
the centuries. We discussed once how one group of Trinitarians killed off a
group of non-Trinitarians in Europe centuries ago.
There have been lots of minority opinions through the entire history of the
Christian Church. This has been one of them- and that's only considering people
who actually said "I'm not a Trinitarian." I had a friend who was Roman Catholic,
and I asked him once if Jesus was The Son of God, or if he was God. He answered
immediately and said Jesus was The Son of God, and seemed surprised there was a
position that could be phrased so as to say Jesus was God. Officially, he'd be
on the books as a Trinitarian by definition because he's RC.
(I phrased the question that way because I was in twi at the time, so I didn't
have as much of a problem loading questions like I do now.) In and of itself,
the question, as phrased, would either get a proper Trinitarian to say outright
that Jesus is God, or clarify his phrasing but say that Jesus is God in some
form or other while answering.
If that False Dilemna's been influencing your thinking for some time now,
you've got a lot of work to UNdo....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Very good points by Wordwolf. Steve, you also have the potential to bring good biblical knowledge to this forum and you have done this. However, please don't make up stuff about Victor Wierwille and the trinity. Not everything that Victor Wierwille taught was unbiblical or untruthful. What he taught that was truthful he learned from other people. For example, E.W. Bullinger, who did not believe in the trinity. If you disagree look at his book How to Enjoy the Bible. Wierwille also learned about the Gift of holy spirit from people like J.E. Stiles with his book The Gift of Holy Spirit and another person that I forgot the name of who I understand he knew personally. He also may have learned the bible from a very good bible teacher, Dr. Ernest L. Martin. None of these people taught the trinity or likely believed in it. If you don't believe this get a copy of Bullinger's book, How to Enjoy the Bible and see if the trinity is mentioned at all. I have a copy of this book and I looked up in the index the word trinity and this word is not listed at all. Dr. Ernest L. Martin did not believe in the trinity. If you don't believe this then go to this web page, with his teaching titled Just What is God. Here is a quote from this, "So the Godhead in the Hebrew language is filled with plural significance, and not limited to three personalities as the false Trinity doctrine teaches."
Wierwille was not all bad. He learned from other people truth and he also thought up unbiblical non-truth like his errant doctrine of the original sin being masturbation. I did talk to him once in the year 1984 when he was with his best friend, whose name I forget. I saw the fundamental problem with the Way ministry how some people were looked highly upon and others were looked lowly upon and tried to correct this. When I walked up to Victor Wierwille I simply told him you look familiar, but I can't remember your name, but it sounds something like wear something. Victor then played along with me and said Wierwolf and we all laughed. Victor Wierwille was not bad all the time. Some times he was O.K. and I consider him an actual bible teacher, but NOT the Teacher. The teacher is Jesus Christ and the best teacher for the New Testament was a real life apostle, the apostle Paul.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wierwille was not always consistent in his stance on the Trinity. For example, in the PFAL class, he goes into a homoletic rant about how "Christ is coming back as God Almighty". As class instructors, we were expressly taught to gloss over this section of the class and explain it away as an emotional slip of the tongue, fueled by Wierwille's Trinitarian past. That was filmed in 1967. In later times, he speaks in veiled condescendence of other men, such as Bishop K.C. Pillai, who held Trinitarian beliefs. On one hand he praised Pillai for his "knowledge" of Oriental customs and on the other hand subtly criticized his Trinitarian position. Wierwille compared the Trinity concept to a common household product, saying it was like calling God "3 in 1 oil". (His own words) My own belief on this matter is not relevant. What matters is that Wierwille was perfectly willing to adjust his story about anything to suit the ears of the audience. He was a flim-flam man. That's what they do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
My personal opinion about a few writers (Bullinger and Kenyon, specifically)
is that their writings show a disconnect. At places, they specifically state
what the Trinity doctrine says as a matter-of-fact, in the manner we get of
people who repeat slogans and catchphrases they've seen advertised, or were
told so many times they never think to question if they might actually be
false. (I've seen a few pop songs do that with passing misinformation, no
matter what the truth was, for example.)
However, if you're reading their expositions on other matters, the explanations
seem to suggest the opposite- that they're not diehard Trinitarians and would
offend such with what they write because it suggests the OPPOSITE.
Lacking either here to question- and a chance to speak without consequence-
I'd not be too sure exactly what they believed. As for Leonard, his own
position wasn't a traditional Trinitarian stance either, no matter what
he wrote. In fact, he wrote an entire book explaining his position because
it wasn't the main one ("The Godhead, or The Water In the Bottle.")
Historically, there have been-and are now- multiple positions and opinions.
There's the "co-equal, co-eternal Trinity", there's Oneness theology, there's
Arianism, Socianism, etc, etc. Each has/had their own adherents. Naturally,
each has/had some fools eager to excommunicate or declare anathema everyone who
holds ever OTHER position and declare they are not actually Christians.
Morons, all of them (the excommunicators.)
As for vpw's stance, one obvious reason his positions changed was that he
was lazy and didn't think. He was the worst kind of eclectic. (I like
eclecticism because one can consider all points of view on every single
doctrine before forming an opinion, and need not adhere to one simply
because one's group teaches it.) vpw just found different stuff then added
it to his catalog, without understanding it much of the time. That's how he
ended up with some odd carryovers from authors who made some obvious mistakes.
His official training was in homiletics, in preaching. So, the thing he was
trained to do was to get up to the podium and make grandiose announcements-
and the more grandiose and welkin-ringing, the better. So, he often didn't
fact-check his pontificating. So, he closed at least one session rather
dramatically (he did that with more than a few), and in this case he was
so busy shaking the rafters that he didn't realize he was quoting stuff
he hadn't espoused for decades.
For most people, for most GENUINE people, this would be a hard mistake to
make. For a fraud, a fake, a Harold Hill, this is actually one of the more
likely mistakes to make.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I'm writing a an onerous paper on this topic, wherein I have to do some transcribing from a CD because scholars have taken some things so much for granted that I can't find direct written sources...
But here's another nugget...
Tertullian was biblically inaccurate when he invented the word "trinity," because he limited the fullness of the Deity to three parties, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit...
but the New Testament itself extends the fullness of the Deity to the members of the Church as well...
That's why we don't find the word "trinity" in the Bible!
But you do what you can...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Hi Steve. That sounds like a valid point you just made. A very good bible teacher did a written work on what you just mentioned. His name is Dr. Ernest L. Martin. Here is a link to his written study titled, Just What is God. I think you will do well in your study.
Another very valid point is that denominational churches spend to much time and have to much emphasis on church history. This can turn into the tradition of men which our Lord Jesus Christ was against and clearly spoke against. Focus on your study of the bible, learning and using Greek words and you should do very well. I even had a debate on the trinity with a Greek Orthodox church leader. It was so one sided with other church leaders hearing our debate that the next leader of the same church knew not to debate me on this subject. Of course, my goal is simply to help them with their knowledge of the bible and I printed out the study of Jesus Christ from the Nelson Bible Dictionary and gave the new church pastor a copy. This was of course to help him with his knowledge and since their church uses the New King James Version of the Bible and since Nelson Publishes this version along with the Nelson Bible Dictionary the new pastor knew this study could be helpful. At least as long as he looks at the bible clearly without church tradition.
Below is the conclusion of Ernest Martin's study. See this also in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. In the future after Jesus Christ has put all things under Him, then God will be all in all and Jesus Christ turns back His authority of the salvation of mankind to God His Father. See verses 20-28.
So, “Just What Is God?” Elohim is the ONE divine Family to which all of us belong and into which we will be born at our resurrections from the dead. All of us of the human race have a glorious future awaiting us. We are all destined in Christ Jesus to partake of the Godhead (divine Headquarters of the universe) and be members of that ONE Family for the rest of eternity. This is not “New Age” teaching. It is “Old Age” doctrine that comes directly from the plain statements of the Holy Scriptures. It is the truth of God and His Son, Jesus Christ. What the so-called “New Agers” have done is to take a central truth of the Scripture and color it with the errors of eastern pagan mysticism. And true enough, we are not only to become “Gods” (deified) in the very Family of God, but we are already acknowledged as members of that Family in our present human existence (1 John 3:1–2). This doctrine of the Deification of the human race did NOT originate with the “New Agers.” It comes directly from the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks for your well considered comments, Mark! The purpose of the class I'm taking is not for me to teach different understandings from those of conventional Christianity, but for me to understand the doctrine of the Trinity well enough to execute the duties and responsibilities of a master, that is of a teacher, in whatever setting I may find myself. And if those duties and responsibilities entail instruction in what exactly various people meant through the course of Church history by the doctrine of the Trinity, then I need to be able to do that.
It's easy enough to shred the ontological Trinity. My professors and mentors agree that it is a matter of words that once meant something far different from the things we mean by them today, fossilized though the centuries by the forces of habit. The problem involved with simply shredding the doctrine of the Trinity rests in the dichotomy between the economic and the ontological Trinity. The economic Trinity expresses the exact same relation between God and Jesus Christ that we would draw from our readings of the Scripture, with the exception that we would not use the word "Trinity." The ontological Trinity is a mass of unscriptural speculation about things which are supposedly ineffable, that is, talking about things that we can't "effing" talk about!
I listened to 24 hours' worth of lectures by Dr. Peter Toon on CDs. When he spoke about the economic Trinity, he spoke some of the most wonderful things I've ever heard about developing "personal friendship, personal union, personal knowing of the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit." And yet he believes firmly in the validity of the ontological Trinity, which requires a "differentiated consciousness" to appreciate. Toon's teaching was remarkable in part because he delineated the differences between the economic and the ontological doctrines of the Trinity, something I've never heard or read anyone else do (except for the prof I had for Constructive Theology, in a very sketchy way).
Most people have no idea about the differences between the economic and the ontological doctrines of the Trinity. If I were to simply say "I don't believe in the Trinity," then they may well think I am saying I don't believe people can have a relation with God the Father through the Son by means of the Holy Spirit.
I believe the Lord Jesus Christ has tolerated the doctrine of the Trinity for the past 1500 years or so for just this reason. There's only one time it seems to me that the Lord stepped in to change the course of the doctrine, and that was after the 2nd Council of Ephesus in 449, which declared that Jesus had only a single, divine nature. This would have meant that the Church would not have regarded Jesus as a real human being but as a sock-puppet of God. The Council of Chalcedon, only 2 years later in 451, overturned the decision of the 2nd Council of Ephesus, declaring that Jesus had two natures, one divine and one human, but the two natures cannot be mixed or confused, nor can they be divided or separated.
I have needed to blow off this steam... Thanks!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
It appears to me, after reading over some material on the economic and immanent trinity, that you cannot believe the economic trinity without also accepting the immanent, or ontological trinity. Does not the economic trinity simply explain the relationship the believer has with the supposed Godhead?
There is no way Wierwille would endorse the economic trinity even if he knew what it meant. No, what Wierwille taught was this concept we used to know as the "Great Principle". That is, "God's Spirit teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit, and your spirit teaches your mind." That is what was taught in the "Advanced (ooh, Advanced!) Class. If you take a step back from that, that statement is not biblical. In fact, there is more evidence of an immanent and economic trinity being a biblical concept than there is of the "Great Principal".
As far as Tertullian coining the term "trinity", it's true he invented the word. Alistair McGrath,in his book Christian Theology,an Introduction points out that Tertullian had a penchant for coining new phrases. He says, "(He) was responsible for coining 509 new nouns, 284 new adjectives, and 161 new verbs in the Latin language." He adds, "Happily, not all seem to have caught on."
So the word Trinity is yet another word in a very long list of invented words. The word Trinity is simply an attempt at explaining a process that many believe is biblical. Of course, the debate rages on.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The Great Principle: flawed logic at its best
One part of Way Theology states that spirit can only talk to spirit, yet The Great Principle states your spirit teaches your mind. It makes no sense.
I think VPW must have lifted TGP from some source he didn't quite understand. Here's why I believe this. If you look closely at the visual depiction of TGP (sorry, I don't have a scanner.) you will notice it is not a big triangle, it's one triangle inside another triangle inside another triangle, the sides being very closely oriented. I think whoever dreamed up this TGP meant this to be somehow suggestive of a Trinity, something Wierwile would not have ever done.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's rather obvious vpw didn't understand "his" "Great Principle" because it was both
inconsistent and senseless.
"God is Spirit. God can only give that which He is."
As Raf pointed out on this once, God gave manna. God is not manna. (And so on.)
"God is Spirit. Spirit can only communicate with spirit."
Again, Raf pointed out that this is inconsistent.
According to vpw, God CAN'T communicate with body-and-soul, flesh-and-blood.
(Let's ignore all the instances where God did EXACTLY that.)
So, God gives spirit, and God communicates with spirit, and that spirit God
gave us communicates with our mind.
Wait- that spirit can communicate with flesh-and-blood, body-and-soul, but
God Almighty is UNABLE TO because he is spirit???
This gets even more senseless when they end up tacking on the wild explanation
that every incident and instance in the Bible where God Almighty darn well DID
communicate with people involved putting spirit upon them for just that moment
in a "phenomena." It just gets more and more convoluted and wrong for every
single incidence that's discussed-since that stupidity has to be tacked on to
discussions about lots of unrelated things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I finished writing "The Economic Trinity of 1 Corinthians 8:6 in Quantum Terms" (13 pages, 3248 words) late last night, and a brief reflection paper on the course this morning. I have yet to finish my annotated reading list tonight, and I will turn it all in tomorrow. I will see about posting some, if not all of it, here. Thank you all!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I actually had a point when I last posted, though it's hard to tell.
Wierwille and TWI in general railed against the Trinity as unbiblical and pure conjecture when in fact what he taught had even less biblical evidence that he/we were criticizing at the time. Furthermore, he taught that believers today take the place of Christ here on earth. We even had a song about it ("Today I take his place, and live in love and grace, I can do all he did and more"). The Bible clearly teaches that believers are ambassadors for Christ, but I know of no scripture that states that anyone takes the place of Christ. That's pretty heavy, you know? I have a theory.
I question Wierwille's motivation for denying the Trinity? I think it's because with the Trinity out of the way, the road to MOG status is shorter. If believers take the place of Christ, and if God gave Wierwille special revelation concerning the Word of God, that made VP top believer. If he was top believer, than he, in fact, took the place of Christ on earth as was hence the MOGFOT.
Does this make Jesus Christ God? Hardly, but it does bring into serious question the motivation of the man who indoctrinated us with his non-trinitarian views.
Then again, maybe I'm stretching things too far. I'm open to that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.