Continuing:

basicallyblues wrote:

> 2)  second reason for heresy, the
> unwillingness to accept and live with tension in Christian theology.
>
> True. But this is based on a misunderstanding of Christian theology.
> When so-called Christians tried to integrate Greek philosophy

This is both presumptive and unlearned.  You have not done your home
work.

> into pure
> Christian truth there was an obvious tension. The Platonic trinity
for
> example clashed with the Bible but the apostae church wanted to find
> away to cram the trinity down everyone's throat.
>
Platonism was not trinitarianism it was tri-modal.  You do not
understand what Plato was teaching if you wish to somehow brand this on
Biblical Trinitarianism.  It won't work.  This is something which many
JfW's have come in here espousing but it is plain they have never
studied Platonic thought processes.

It is confessed that Justin was confused as to the HS.  And that it
could be concluded that he tries to understand the Spirit regard its
existence as the 3rd being in Plato's writings.  Kelly comments on this
in "Early Christian Doctrines," p. 102.  Theophilus was the first to
use the term "Triad."

Also, Platonism primary comes to bear when discussing the doctrine of
the soul.  We could venture off into a severe tangent at the point but
let it just be briefly noted, that though Platonism and Aristotlism
have been synthesized by Roman theology, it give no right for you or
others to draw large brush strokes across the rest of the Christian
world.
>
> 3) Thirdly, there is the question of why some heresies never seem to
go
> away. (lack of church structure)
>
> Yes. After the death of John things rapidly became disorganized and
> Paul's exhortations at 1 Cor. 1:10 was no longer possible. When the
> cat's away the mice will play.
>
You are an idolator!  That is, you view God other than He is, and this
is basic to all idolatry.  You here illustrate a complete disregard for
the providential care of God.  You obviously hold to the authority of
the Christian scriptures, but who do you think was the vehicle which
canonized those scriptures?  If you were a student of history of the
Church, you would have noted that even before its canonization, the NT
already exerted a powerful influence, revealing both dyadic and triadic
paterns.  Within the liturgical and catechetical practices of the early
church, these patterns were beginning to emerge more clearly.  As late
as the 2nd C we see the "rule of faith" in written formulas which are
either clearly dyadic or triadic in nature.  It is the latter which is
predominate.  For instance, "Proof of the Apostolic Preaching,"
Irenaeus, 6.  Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all grouped together as
equal personages.  Then there are the baptismal formula's, not only as
mentioned in scripture itself, but in the early church cerimonies as
well.  The "Didache" (7:1-3) uses a Trinitarian blessing.  Irenaeus
clearly uses this in "Proof" 3.   I suggest you read his "Epistle to
Magnesian" 8.2.

Like Sarah, you say that you only hold scripture as being your
determinitive criteron for ajudication, spuring "theology" and yet you
go off on these theological bents without any appreciation of how
theological doctrine is formed.  You allow for no transition or growth
of understanding by the Church at large.  Everything was lost after the
departure of the apostles, according to your exposition.  All the
eschatological, all the soteriological, all the harmitological teaching
which have developed through the following centuries are only a
re-establishment of what was fully known during the apostolic era
-according to your model.

The problem with this is that it is totally contrary to the Hebrew
Scriptures.  Revelation was progressive.  Understanding and knowledge
was progressive.  Daniel is key as both 2:21ff and in 12:9 illustrate,
in support thing.  How can it be said that angles "long to inquire" (1
P 1:12) if it was all revealed and then lost?

Admittedly, Trinitarianism is spoken of sporatically in the epistles.
That is partly because even the apostles themselves were transitioning
from a singular monotheism into a trinitarian monotheism even as then
transitioned in many other area's as well.  Pauline thought on this is
probably the most developed because he was granted the most revelation,
even being called up into the 3rd heaven twice.  But John's prelude in
his gospel, his renumeration of Jesus' "IAM" declarations, his
apocolyptic revelation in Rev 4 & 5 clearly demark an understanding and
acceptance of Messianic Deity.

> 4) Now we come to often discussed 4th reason -the deliverate misuse
of
> terms or confusion due to honest disagreement over which terms best
> expressed the doctrine.
>
> Agreed. But the doctrine was simple.

This is your first mistake.

> As regards the
> trinity 1 John 4:15 simply stated that believing Jesus was the SON OF
> GOD were in union with God.

When was 1 Jn written, before or after his gospel?  Hmmm.  And what
does John reveal in his gospel concerning sonship?  Again, note the
Greek tenses he uses in 1:1-2.  He uses the imperfect tense.  This
makes the grammatical understanding read, "In the beginning was
[already] the Word, and the Word was [already] with God, and the Word
was [already] God.  He was [already] in the begining with God."

Then v 3 rules out any idea that the Logos was created because
everything which was created came into existence through Him.  This is
Paul's sumnation as well at the end of Rom 11.

The parallels between Gen 1 and Jn 1 cannot be denied.  It was the Word
which spoke the uni-verse into existence.  And was is the linquistic
meaning of uni-verse?  Uni of course means "single." 
"Verse" means
"spoken sentence."  The Logos of John is the One who calls the
uni-verse into existence.  He is God.

This is the reason that John uses the ingressive aorist in 1:14.  It
denotes an entirely new condition or mode of existence.  He's speaking
of the kenosis of Phil 2.  Here is a memeber of the Godhead, setting
aside His divine attributes to "grow in stature and wisdom" rather than
operate under the divine consciousness.

Yet another point is if you reduce Jesus to being but a creature, then
you make his death merely that of "bulls and goats," i.e. finite.  How
can such blood atone for all the sin of the world?  And how can a
finite being hear all the prayers of his children and mediate for them?
 Your advocate is weak and puny.  You idea of mediation is no different
than the RC version under the guise of Marianism.

>But the apostate church took it upon itself
> to place the "trinity" doctrine as the most vital of doctrines. Huge
> mistake.
>
You know, the more I read what you write the more revealing it is that
you have been rotely taught.  You keep spraying the same mantra.  You
present nothing new nor reveal any greater depth of understanding.  You
do not deveolop any sort of argumentation or support for your thesis.

Again, broaden your reading.  Read Justin or even his disciple, Tatian
("Oration to the Greeks, specifically 5.1, 14; 7, 1-2)

> 5)A 5th reason of heresy is that often orthodox Christians, even
teachers
> of the church, are willing to compromise on doctrine
>
> Yes. Apostate Christianity adopted pagan teachings,

You have not shown this.

> customs, holidays and tried to "Christianize" them.

Now you refering to that which happened in the 4th -7th C, and
specifically with Roman.  Not even the RCC denies its theology of
synthesis.  But this is part of the reason why the Reformation came
about.  It was a rebellion against such things.

> Only a fraction of the bishops even
> took part at Nicea but compromised when Constantine demanded unity in
> his empire at the expense of truth.
>
Again, you are not displaying a studied understanding of who was there,
why they were there and why the counsel met and nor what followed.
>
> 6) Last but certainly not least, the 6th reason for heresy is when
the
> sole authority of canonical Scriptures is rejected.
>
> Agreed. If you can't support it with the Bible it ain't diddly. But
the
> Bible interprets itself.
>
I'm not debating with you, I merely wish to know if you understand why
this is.  Can you briefly explain this to me?  The Reformation had a
very definitive reason why it espoused, sola scriptura.
>
> I don't find fault with these assertions. Your rants by Arius has
> nothing to do with anything. Arius and Athanasius are meaningless
here.
>
They were example to give meat to the argument.  They were
illustations.  If you didn't understand this, what did you understand?
>
> >At least you should
> >give credit to your resources.
>
> why? so you can distract attention off the Bible and find fault with
> the resources? No thanks. I've learned my lesson when dealing with
> trinitarians to not give them diversions- not give them alternate
> targets. Where certain quotes come from is not important unless one
> relies on the credentials of the resource. What I quote can be proven
> or disproven by the Bible which is where the discussion should stay
> anyway.
>
But why is this necessarily so?  Do you have a theory of knowledge?  Do
you understand the foundational issues involved?

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/25/05 8:45:59 PM ---