Does saying Jesus is NOT God demean him? by John Lynn

[dmiller]

LOL I'm just thinkin' ... if God expected man to be able to define those things (and spell them correctly) before knowing him or jc, wouldn't most be lost?

[allan w.]

This I think is one of the reasons VPWs' ministry took off ( not the impressing the babes) but just keeping the Word simple.

[rhino]

I really shouldn't have directed that comment just at cynic ... but it seems labeling someone an arian, or socinian or whatever ... is demeaning. It is saying you have looked at part of what they believe, and linked it to someone else who believed something you see as similar, and so you pigeonhole them as a member of that sect. Understanding the history that led to different beliefs can be helpful, but since there are infinite nuances to each line of reasoning, it is impossible to accurately compartmentalize people into these groups.

The trinity doctrine makes little sense to me ... even in my lutheran days it didn't make sense. But for me to try to label where they "went wrong" by putting a sect name on them would just be name calling. Whatever (ridiculous ) belief they may hold, I have to acknowledge they may have some take on life that I don't know about that led them to their belief. They may even believe that their church somehow has jurisdiction over my church ... but they can hold that absurd belief if they want

Or I could just label them a socinian or an arian ... discounting the possibility that they think for themselves. Then too, some good people may accept some wrong doctrine because they don't really care about doctrine, but just enjoy the people at their church and how it functions ... maybe that is OK too, or maybe it is a better Way.

Edited February 21, 2006 by rhino

[markomalley]

I can't speak for Cynic, so don't assume that I am here.

When I use the term Arian as regards a person, it means that their beliefs in regard to the Godhead line up with those of Arius (i.e., denying the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead and stating that Jesus was merely a man). When I use the term Marcionite, it means that they believe in a dualistic God (i.e., a Creator god and a Good god). Etc.

When I use the term Trinitarian, it means that that person (e.g., me), subscribes to the creed of Constantinople-Nicea.

It is never inteded as a slam (at least when I use it), but, as used above, is a label to describe the beliefs of a certain group of people to whom the label applies.

[rhino]

...

When I use the term Trinitarian, it means that that person (e.g., me), subscribes to the creed of Constantinople-Nicea.

It is never inteded as a slam (at least when I use it), but, as used above, is a label to describe the beliefs of a certain group of people to whom the label applies.

Hey Mark...

I guess the label can be helpful, but I see it as better to not label that person, but a certain aspect of their beliefs as arian like. I don't see someone that doesn't believe the Trinity is biblical as an Arian. ("Trinitarian" would be more accurate as a label because Trinitarians accept that label themselves.) In my old way days when I was called an arian, it was in a demeaning way. Like "oh, I see you went the way of arius". Of course at the time I thought arius had gotten back to original Christian doctrine that may have been messed up by some trinitarians. In other words, it isn't arian doctrine, but Christian doctrine. Who the heck was arius, but someone the trinitarians didn't like thinking for himself?

Anyway ... that's just my take on it ... I think your usage is as you stated :) And I don't really believe any of it ... but I like Christians ...

[markomalley]

Rhino,

I agree fully on the not labelling a person...because you don't know what a person has inside of him. Still, the words are effective for describing various systems of belief. So, if I was to reword, I guess I could say:

I think sometimes that those who subscribe to an Arian-like belief system, like TWI and JW's, believe that Trinitarians are Monophysites. And nothing could be farther from the truth.

In past threads, Cynic has called me an "ilcalcitrant Papist" and I've called him an "incorrigible heretick" -- good-natured banter on both sides -- I am "confident" that this was the spirit with which he was intending his words here.

[Oakspear]

This I think is one of the reasons VPWs' ministry took off ( not the impressing the babes) but just keeping the Word simple.

I think it was both :P

I do think you're correct on this allan, the so-called "keeping 'The Word' simple" was one of the big attractions for Wierwille and PFAL. However we disagree on whether 'The Word' really is simple.

Much of Wierwille's teaching involved picking one point of view and ignoring or belittling or explaining away all evidense to the contrary. Of course, he's not the only one to do that, there are plenty of other denominations out there who base their existence on a narrow view of scripture.

[markomalley]

However we disagree on whether 'The Word' really is simple.

A very good point, Oak, as always.

Apparently St. Peter shared your views (all verses RSV):

2Pe 3:15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,

2Pe 3:16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

[rhino]

In past threads, Cynic has called me an "ilcalcitrant Papist" and I've called him an "incorrigible heretick" -- good-natured banter on both sides -- I am "confident" that this was the spirit with which he was intending his words here.

LOL Yeah, I kinda jumped in the middle there ... I'm really just envious that I can't come up with those cool terms :)

[Oakspear]

A very good point, Oak, as always.

Apparently St. Peter shared your views (all verses RSV):

I knew I liked that guy!

[Raf]

I'm sure Cynic and Mark already know this, but I think it needs to be said explicitly: TWI's position is not Arian. The Arians still believe in a Christ who existed prior to his birth as a man, which TWI rejects. JW's are far closer to Arians than TWI.

[GarthP2000]

Mark,

I can't speak for Cynic, so don't assume that I am here.

and

In past threads, Cynic has called me an "ilcalcitrant Papist" and I've called him an "incorrigible heretick" -- good-natured banter on both sides -- I am "confident" that this was the spirit with which he was intending his words here.

Take it from one who has been the target of his jabs in multiple times past, when he uses those terms, it hasn't been with the 'good natured bantering' you seem to see it as. And I'm not the only target either. Seems like whenever any unitarian view has been expressed and explained here, he's there with a tirade against it. And against those who believe it. It's very similar to when many of us, while we were in TWI, to rail against trinitarianism back in the day. So like I said, this seems to be a sore point with him

On the contrary, you (and many other trinitarians here) have responded to unitarian views with more class, it seems to me.

On a further note, it seems like this topic is still a major point of contention among Christians and the so-called 'heretics', altho' not as much as it was many years ago.

Edited February 21, 2006 by GarthP2000

[Cynic]

Mark,

Take it from one who has been the target of his jabs in multiple times past, when he uses those terms, it hasn't been with the 'good natured bantering' you seem to see it as. And I'm not the only target either. Seems like whenever any unitarian view has been expressed and explained here, he's there with a tirade against it. And against those who believe it. It's very similar to when many of us, while we were in TWI, to rail against trinitarianism back in the day. So like I said, this seems to be a sore point with him

On the contrary, you (and many other trinitarians here) have responded to unitarian views with more class, it seems to me.

On a further note, it seems like this topic is still a major point of contention among Christians and the so-called 'heretics', altho' not as much as it was many years ago.

Garth is quite correct that my "jabs" at him have not been "'good natured bantering.'"

I don't tolerate amoral liars or cheap hacks who spew bloody calumnies. Garth is both.

[Cynic]

And for one who goes around doing such things, Garth seems to be one pathetically whining little wuss.

[GarthP2000]

... and all this ranting on his part because I nailed John Calvin for committing murder in the Micheal Servetus incident. An incident where Calvin also had one serious problem with the unitarian point of view. Talk about bloody! :blink:

And yes Virginia, that was murder.

Deal with it!

You still evidently have a problem with the unitarian point of view. More than is really necessary that is. ... Like there should actually be a problem in the first place?

Edited February 21, 2006 by GarthP2000

[LG]

Hate to tell you thiis, Garth, but you didn't "nail" Calvin or Cynic on the Servetus matter.

Cynic may at times be a prick but I think he's bested you in your exchanges.

If I agreed with Cynic's premises, I'd mostly have to agree with his conclusions, though I would hope to express myself in a less grating way than he frequently does. If I were a Christian, the best expresison of and support for my faith I could think of would be some combination (I'd have to think about it and "tweak" it a bit) would be some combination of Cynic's logic and Evan's heart.

Yes, Cynic and Evan, that's a compliment to both of you. I don't agree with either of you but I respect you both.

(I could live with fewer "pathetically whining little wuss"" characterizations.)

Edited February 21, 2006 by LG

[GarthP2000]

Hate to tell you thiis, Garth, but you didn't "nail" Calvin or Cynic on the Servetus matter.

Calvin was responsible for having Servetus put to death. Altho' Servetus burning at the stake punishment did go 'over the top' for him, he didn't really put a stop to it, and he was in a position of influence and authority to stop it or change it. And he was the driving force in his desire to have Servetus put to death due to Servetus 'heresy'. Even Cynic has conceded to Calvin's responsibility in the matter, and even if he doesn't, historical sources do.

Add to that Cynic's open admission that, to him, killing a heretic isn't murder. And I 'nailed' him in stating that it indeed is. (Perhaps you can explain to me why his idea in this would be logical to you, hmmmm?)

And if Cynic is so logical/sound as you proclaim, why don't you accept his belief? Do you make it a habit of rejecting beliefs that are supposedly 'logical' in nature?

Oh by the way, there are many Christians/theists who have very similar views re: Cynic's POV as well as Calvin's POV as I do. And a good number of them aren't even liberal (theologically speaking).

I could live without many of Cynic's 'prick based' characterizations as well, as well as his 'authority based mentality' of theology.

But, hey, that's me.

[Cynic]

Add to that Cynic's open admission that, to him, killing a heretic isn't murder.

What I actually wrote:

Garth,

I mentioned Genevese civil authority over Servetus’ execution and Calvin’s opposition to its mode in refutation of a flawed and rabid accusation that baited outrage over the gratuitous suffering inflicted in the mode of execution. I did not bring up the mode of execution as an issue. Goey did. And you damned well should know it.

You merely pretend that I suggested something about that making the situation “not so bad,” although you are correct in your implicit observation that I have not characterized Servetus’ execution as a murder. I will not put things in your terms, or make concessions to your froth and obsessions.

Facts? You don’t much bother with determining facts. Cite where I have mentioned “historical context” in this thread or any other thread as an ethically mitigating consideration. After some folks brought up historical contextual consideration in this thread, I actually opposed it as constituting “bad theology,” though I did characterize it as an element of “honest historicizing.” I used the following words:

[blockquote]

quote:

Originally posted by Cynic:

1. I think taking the views and practices common in Europe in Calvin’s time into account when assessing Calvin words and behavior makes for honest historicizing, but pretty bad theology. The New Testament gospels exhibit an ethical principle revealed in Christ that transcends the harshness of the Old. I have a problem with the way some Reformed folks view the Law of Moses (which is among the principal reasons I presently sit in a soteriologically Calvinistic Baptist church rather than a Presbyterian church).[/bLOCKQUOTE]

Judging from your various posts, I think you spew from and are committed to your polemical obsessions. I do not think you are very capable of distinguishing among arguments, characterizations, un-researched assertions, under-researched assertions, speculations and facts.

( see http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...95entry126095 )

I did not make some crude generalization that “killing a heretic isn't murder.”

In a demonstration of his customary level of honesty, Garth has reshaped a fact, similarly as he has in the past fabricated other "facts."

*****

Note: Due to several influences (e.g. Meredith Kline, Mark Karlberg), I mostly got over my reservations about Covenant Theology and Presbyterianism.

Edited February 24, 2006 by Cynic

[Cynic]

Cynic may at times be a prick....

Quite so, Sherlock.

If I agreed with Cynic's premises, I'd mostly have to agree with his conclusions....,

LG is possibly basing that statement on the difference between a valid and a sound argument. If so, he probably thinks my arguments are valid, but as an atheist, he rejects the soundness of arguments having theistic premises.

See:

http://www.ptproject.ilstu.edu/ARGUMENT.HTM

http://papyr.com/hbp/logic5.htm

Edited February 24, 2006 by Cynic

[TheEvan]

If I were a Christian, the best expresison of and support for my faith I could think of would be some combination (I'd have to think about it and "tweak" it a bit) would be some combination of Cynic's logic and Evan's heart.

Thanks LG. You'll have some heavy tweaking to do, though! (Referring to my black heart, of course )

Glad you respect me, but will you still respect me in the morning??

[GarthP2000]

Cynic,

Regardless of your many worded (and quite caustic) attempts to downplay or deny the validity of my argument, you, in answer to my charge that Calvin murdered Servetus, clearly stated that it (Servetus' execution for his 'heresy') wasn't murder. ("... although you are correct in your implicit observation that I have not characterized Servetus’ execution as a murder.") Servetus execution was for heresy. And your reasoning at least implies that it wasn't murder because it was for heresy.

You repost that and didn't come to that conclusion yet?? That line of yours alone supports my argument. Oh by the way, as I believe I stated this before, my usage of murder is in the generic moral and ethical sense, not in the nit-picky legal sense of the word (ie., murder, manslaughter, wrongful death, etc.) ... Ie., it all boils down to that Calvin wanted Servetus dead. And that shows that at least where his heart was at, and I believe the Scriptures address that, don't they?

You are but the 2nd Calvinist I've come across who attempted to downplay/justify/whitewash activities like the execution of heretics or similar activities, activities aimed squarely at those who committed heresy against the orthodox church. Activities which are, even understood in their 'historical context' (which was one of your whitewashing techniques, as illustrated by your latest post), both immoral and depraved. (No wonder Calvin was himself obsessed with the 'depravity issue' in his theology.)

And Calvin took part in said murderous activities with vigor.

Deal with it. And speaking of being honest, maybe you should look at your own, in reference to the historical facts re: Calvin and how it might portray him (and maybe as a result, his theology?) in a less-than-flattering light? Where is your honesty then?

Anyway, I'm done with this. Back to the main topic at hand.

(Glad to see that you admitted to being a prick tho'. Have a Calvinus beer on me. )

[Cynic]

Cynic,

Activities which are, even understood in their 'historical context' (which was one of your whitewashing techniques, as illustrated by your latest post), both immoral and depraved. (No wonder Calvin was himself obsessed with the 'depravity issue' in his theology.)

Garth,

Can you not stop lying?

It should be clear to anyone who can read that I did not invoke “historical context” as some “whitewashing technique.”

You have “nailed” me on nothing.

I did, however, expose you the matter of your blood libel against Baptists.

Anyway, I'm done with this. Back to the main topic at hand.

Oh, no you aren't. You keep bringing this up. You keep fudging our history.

Polemically, psychologically, you are going to experience some quite sustained heat on this forum.

[Edited to reduce the level of my prick-ness.]

Edited February 24, 2006 by Cynic

[GarthP2000]

Cynic, (Damn! You are a barrel of fun, aren't you? ;))

When you water down the murder of heretics to calling it "bad theology", you are whitewashing. (This is like saying that lynching blacks is 'rude'. Well, d-u-h-h! :blink: )

Ie., it is you who lies. Muddy your church's history? Please! Everything I have stated re: Calvin I have gotten from sources that are easily located on the internet, and I'm talking about historical sources to boot: Unitarian, Protestant, Catholic. Their opinions vary in regards the details and to the depth of Calvin's responsibility and culpability, but he was directly responsible nonetheless. And Yes Virginia, it WAS murder.

As far as that Baptist point, I have said more than once, you were right in my error in regards to the Baptists (as a denomination) practicing a form of inquisition. I have stated such, and yet you sir, are being dishonest in admitting that fact. Either that, or you forgot about it, which I seriously doubt.

Face up to the dark stains in Calvin's history, and he had them a-plenty. Whatever you get out of his dogma (which I admit, ain't nothing to write home about, but hey, thats me), the man and his reputation isn't worth behaving like Smikeol defending VPW's reputation, which isn't worth anything either.

Folks, just look up "Calvin" and "Servetus" on the net, and find out for yourself. Make sure the sources are outside The Reform Church. Getting them to give a straight answer on this topic is like getting the truth re: VPW by reading The Way: Living in Love.

Ok, ... forcing myself to step away from this fun topic, B) ... I encourage others find out for themselves.

Have a great weekend with a sixpack of Calvinus, Cynic.

Edited February 24, 2006 by GarthP2000

[Cynic]

Folks,

I have seen Garth, in rare instances in which he has had some factual advantage over a poster, demonstrate he is capable of doing a syntactic analysis of statements that is functionally precise. When he deals with me, however, his focus is rhetoric: He plays with words, he distorts some facts, and he proceeds repeatedly to sow misrepresentations and, at times, outright lies into the minds of readers.

My words were these:

1. I think taking the views and practices common in Europe in Calvin’s time into account when assessing Calvin words and behavior makes for honest historicizing, but pretty bad theology. The New Testament gospels exhibit an ethical principle revealed in Christ that transcends the harshness of the Old.

Garth has represented them as follows:

When you water down the murder of heretics to calling it "bad theology", you are whitewashing.

I could, of course, slip into “whitewashing” at any time. To this point, however, Garth has established that I have engaged in it to the same degree it has been established on this forum that Garth is rather famous in some aberrant social circles as an abductor and full-body lickier of Ukrainian corpses.

As for my supposed dishonesty concerning his admissions about his allegations against Baptists (in which he rather monstrously maintained that Baptists had tortured and lynched heretics and Jews), here’s my response to one of them.

quote:

Originally posted by GarthP2000:

Cynic, the only point that you rightfully got me on is that re: the Baptists torturing heretics, and that was due to me not having the documentation or well known historical facts thereof, rather than the possibility (and probability I might add) of such events actually occuring [sic]. But, I'll give you that point.

There is an apparent lack of inclination in Garth’s cognitive functions towards knowing facts and communicating what is factual. Garth has not retracted his calumnies concerning Baptists, though he has essentially admitted he cannot support them. Garth obviously had no justification for his allegations, yet he invokes brute possibility and keeps his calumny somewhat alive, and even characterizes his calumny as probable.

Garth’s charge that Jews had been hunted down because they were not Trinitarians carried the notion that there was some pronounced Trinitarian aspect about the targeting of Jews for persecution. If Garth had any sources to mention, it is likely he would be talking about them. Absent such things as sources, facts and a well-articulated argument, Garth preened loudly and proudly and changed the issue from there having been some Trinitarian motive driving a persecution of Jews to an issue of there having been forced conversions of Jews and a necessary Trinitarian element in professions of faith that would be received as credible.

What should be obvious before we get to Calvin and Genevan bloodletting is that Garth shows little thoughtfulness or restraint in making flawed, and quite bloody, accusations.

My previously posted point involving Durant was that, barring wording changes in some later edition of The Story of Civilization, Durant was significantly misquoted. I should get to that in a bit and provide, hopefully, a scanned image of Durant’s words for comparison to words quoted as being fully his on several Reformers-bashing Romanist sites. Garth provided a link some time ago to one such site in an attempt to support an accusation that Calvin had dozens of heretics killed. The discussion about Genevan executions needs to be significantly deeper and broader, however, than a mere discussion about Durant being misquoted. Before getting to that, I plan to offer some first principles by which one might come to know something about and evaluate Genevan figures and bloodshed.

See:

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...43entry122943

Also check out:

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...35entry122735

Edited February 24, 2006 by Cynic