Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Great Trinity Debate Challenge

Expand Messages
  • Jessica
    Dan Wallace wrote something that sounds contrary to what you have written. I d like to know your thoughts on what he wrote here: Susan, I appreciate your
    Message 1 of 30 , Dec 20, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Dan Wallace wrote something that sounds contrary to what you have written. I'd like to know your thoughts on what he wrote here:

      "Susan, I appreciate your comments, but I think I should clarify: I believe that evangelicals can learn a great deal from `liberal' scholars. It comes down to how we think about 1 Cor 2.14: "The natural person does not welcome the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." Many Christians think that this verse means that unbelievers can't understand anything about the Bible. That's not what the verse is saying, however. Instead, it is saying that unbelievers do not *welcome* the things of the Spirit of God. He understands the Bible well enough to know that he wants to reject its redemptive message. But some of the best commentaries are written by non-evangelicals (whether they are `liberal' or not may be a different matter; in any event, it is often hard to tell). I have learned much from Bart Ehrman, J. K. Elliott, And David Parker, for example. And I recommend my students to study under them for their doctorates. Some of the best lexical, grammatical, historical, and even theological work has been done by unbelievers. But it always needs to be filtered through a christocentric grid. `Liberals' have a lot to teach us, and we have some things to teach them, too–if they would only listen."

      http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/11/frustrations-from-the-front-the-myth-of-theological-liberalism/

      --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
      >
      > Heinz,
      >
      > You didn't get it. The Bible isn't meant to teach *nonbelievers* theology. Theology is for believers, a means for them to develop a sound and accurate understanding of the God in whom they believe. Nonbelievers who come with their unregenerate minds and the presuppositions and prejudices associated with such minds are unlikely to arrive at an accurate understanding of biblical theology.
      >
      > In Christ's service,
      > Rob Bowman
      >
      >
      > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "christian_skeptic" <christian_skeptic@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Thank you for that.
      > > Heinz
      > >
      > > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <faithhasitsreasons@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Heinz,
      > > >
      > > > You asked:
      > > >
      > > > << I replied to a post on evolution on Facebook about whether a non-believer ever adopted creationism based on the evidence alone, and this got me thinking. Has a non-believer ever read or studied the bible and concluded that it teaches the Trinity? >>
      > > >
      > > > I don't know, but plenty of nonbelievers have read the Bible and concluded that it didn't teach the Trinity.
      > > >
      > > > In Christ's service,
      > > > Rob Bowman
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • William
      Jessica, I think what is often forgotten is that neither liberals nor evangelicals have a lock on Christianity. In fact, both groups would do well to remember
      Message 2 of 30 , Dec 21, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Jessica,

        I think what is often forgotten is that neither liberals nor evangelicals have a lock on Christianity. In fact, both groups would do well to remember that Jesus warned that not all who say "Lord, Lord" will be counted as among His followers at the end. Further, not all who seem to reject Him according to the world will find themselves rejected by Him at the end.

        We need to learn from any and all who practice Christian ways and show Christ, rather then from those who trumpet Christ but do not exhibit Him.

        Bill

        --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Jessica" <mizpeh1@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dan Wallace wrote something that sounds contrary to what you have written. I'd like to know your thoughts on what he wrote here:
        >
        > "Susan, I appreciate your comments, but I think I should clarify: I believe that evangelicals can learn a great deal from `liberal' scholars. It comes down to how we think about 1 Cor 2.14: "The natural person does not welcome the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." Many Christians think that this verse means that unbelievers can't understand anything about the Bible. That's not what the verse is saying, however. Instead, it is saying that unbelievers do not *welcome* the things of the Spirit of God. He understands the Bible well enough to know that he wants to reject its redemptive message. But some of the best commentaries are written by non-evangelicals (whether they are `liberal' or not may be a different matter; in any event, it is often hard to tell). I have learned much from Bart Ehrman, J. K. Elliott, And David Parker, for example. And I recommend my students to study under them for their doctorates. Some of the best lexical, grammatical, historical, and even theological work has been done by unbelievers. But it always needs to be filtered through a christocentric grid. `Liberals' have a lot to teach us, and we have some things to teach them, too–if they would only listen."
      • christian_skeptic
        I have found lately that the most interesting studies of the bible have come from essentially non-believers. I have listened to all the Bible Geek podcasts
        Message 3 of 30 , Dec 22, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I have found lately that the most interesting studies of the bible have come from essentially non-believers. I have listened to all the "Bible Geek" podcasts by Robert Price of the Jesus Seminar and they are so fun and interesting. It is refreshing to approach a text with the attitude that maybe the bible writer just made a mistake.

          Heinz

          --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Jessica" <mizpeh1@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dan Wallace wrote something that sounds contrary to what you have written. I'd like to know your thoughts on what he wrote here:
          >
          > "Susan, I appreciate your comments, but I think I should clarify: I believe that evangelicals can learn a great deal from `liberal' scholars. It comes down to how we think about 1 Cor 2.14: "The natural person does not welcome the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." Many Christians think that this verse means that unbelievers can't understand anything about the Bible. That's not what the verse is saying, however. Instead, it is saying that unbelievers do not *welcome* the things of the Spirit of God. He understands the Bible well enough to know that he wants to reject its redemptive message. But some of the best commentaries are written by non-evangelicals (whether they are `liberal' or not may be a different matter; in any event, it is often hard to tell). I have learned much from Bart Ehrman, J. K. Elliott, And David Parker, for example. And I recommend my students to study under them for their doctorates. Some of the best lexical, grammatical, historical, and even theological work has been done by unbelievers. But it always needs to be filtered through a christocentric grid. `Liberals' have a lot to teach us, and we have some things to teach them, too–if they would only listen."
          >
          >
        • Rob
          If you are a non-Trinitarian, I invite you to vote in a poll to decide which of five non-Trinitarians will debate me on the subject of the Trinity:
          Message 4 of 30 , Jan 9, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            If you are a non-Trinitarian, I invite you to vote in a poll to decide which of five non-Trinitarians will debate me on the subject of the Trinity:

            http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/

            Look for the poll right there on the home page.

            In Christ's service,
            Rob Bowman
          • Carol McLaughlin
            Were there no Oneness Pentecostal takers? ... From: Rob Subject: [biblicalapologetics] The Great Trinity Debate Challenge To:
            Message 5 of 30 , Jan 10, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Were there no Oneness Pentecostal takers?

              --- On Sun, 1/10/10, Rob <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:

              From: Rob <faithhasitsreasons@...>
              Subject: [biblicalapologetics] The Great Trinity Debate Challenge
              To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Sunday, January 10, 2010, 12:27 AM

               

              If you are a non-Trinitarian, I invite you to vote in a poll to decide which of five non-Trinitarians will debate me on the subject of the Trinity:

              http://www.reclaimi ngthemind. org/blog/

              Look for the poll right there on the home page.

              In Christ's service,
              Rob Bowman


            • Reynolds Jeff
              Rob, First, I ll be praying for the debate.  I am not qualified to vote because I am a Trinitarian, but I will be praying. I will add that if I was elgible to
              Message 6 of 30 , Jan 10, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Rob,

                First, I'll be praying for the debate.  I am not qualified to vote because I am a Trinitarian, but I will be praying.

                I will add that if I was elgible to vote, the one who sounds the most interesting is Anthony Buzzard.  He sounds interesting and like a formidable debating opponent.  (I'm sure us Trinitarians aren't supposed to vote because this person is to be chosen to represent non-Trinitarians, but I also know some Trinitarians would look for the cupcake for you to debate.)

                I do have a few questions to bounce off you on the subject of the debate, if you don't mind.

                1. What do you mean by "Biblical Unitarian?" 

                2. Related to this, how familiar are you with Pres. William Howard Taft?  He was one of my favorite presidents (because of his personality), and he was Unitarian.  I just hope he was one where he could be a true believer.

                3. One drawback I see to having non-Trinitarians choosing their representative is because I see greater variations in non-Trinitarianism, including many groups who believe that they are the one true church.  While there are some people like that in Trinitarianism, there is more agreement I think.

                Thanks again for your service for the Kingdom, and hope you have a blessed day.

                Jeff Reynolds
                Author of An Apologetic For Murder, a novel due out early 2010.





                --- On Sat, 1/9/10, Rob <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:

                From: Rob <faithhasitsreasons@...>
                Subject: [biblicalapologetics] The Great Trinity Debate Challenge
                To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Saturday, January 9, 2010, 9:27 PM

                 

                If you are a non-Trinitarian, I invite you to vote in a poll to decide which of five non-Trinitarians will debate me on the subject of the Trinity:

                http://www.reclaimi ngthemind. org/blog/

                Look for the poll right there on the home page.

                In Christ's service,
                Rob Bowman


              • Paul Leonard
                While I see the Mormon professor getting the most votes, I feel it would not be productive as their views are significantly different than the majority of non
                Message 7 of 30 , Jan 10, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  While I see the Mormon professor getting the most votes, I feel it would not be productive as their views are significantly different than the majority of non Trinitarians. Both your comments and theirs would be skewed by their non traditional beliefs.


                  From: Rob <faithhasitsreasons@...>
                  To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Sun, January 10, 2010 12:27:11 AM
                  Subject: [biblicalapologetics] The Great Trinity Debate Challenge

                   

                  If you are a non-Trinitarian, I invite you to vote in a poll to decide which of five non-Trinitarians will debate me on the subject of the Trinity:

                  http://www.reclaimi ngthemind. org/blog/

                  Look for the poll right there on the home page.

                  In Christ's service,
                  Rob Bowman

                • Paul Leonard
                  Hi Jeff, Just a side point. I prefer Biblical Monotheist to Biblical Unitarian, as the two are not the same, as the Trinity is not taught in scripture,
                  Message 8 of 30 , Jan 10, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Jeff,

                    Just a side point. I prefer Biblical Monotheist to Biblical Unitarian, as the two are not the same, as the Trinity is not "taught" in scripture, rather some say it is implied,  while Monotheism is.


                    F



                    1. What do you mean by "Biblical Unitarian?" 

                  • Rob
                    Jeff, Thanks for praying and for your comments. The term Biblical Unitarian refers to a theological tradition that is unitarian in its view of God (i.e., no
                    Message 9 of 30 , Jan 10, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Jeff,

                      Thanks for praying and for your comments. The term "Biblical Unitarian" refers to a theological tradition that is unitarian in its view of God (i.e., no Trinity, Jesus was just a man) but is otherwise more conservative theologically than what is commonly known now as Unitarianism. The BU movement affirms that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, rose from the grave, will return bodily to judge the world, etc. They prefer the name "Biblical Unitarian"; in using the term, I am not (of course) conceding that their view is biblical.

                      I was not aware of Taft's theological views.

                      You make a good point about the possible drawback of letting the non-Trinitarians pick, but the alternative would have invited the criticism that the Trinitarians picked a weak opponent (assuming I do all right!).

                      In Christ's service,
                      Rob Bowman


                      --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Reynolds Jeff <preachingjeff@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Rob,
                      >
                      > First, I'll be praying for the debate.  I am not qualified to vote because I am a Trinitarian, but I will be praying.
                      >
                      > I will add that if I was elgible to vote, the one who sounds the most interesting is Anthony Buzzard.  He sounds interesting and like a formidable debating opponent.  (I'm sure us Trinitarians aren't supposed to vote because this person is to be chosen to represent non-Trinitarians, but I also know some Trinitarians would look for the cupcake for you to debate.)
                      >
                      > I do have a few questions to bounce off you on the subject of the debate, if you don't mind.
                      >
                      > 1. What do you mean by "Biblical Unitarian?" 
                      >
                      > 2. Related to this, how familiar are you with Pres. William Howard Taft?  He was one of my favorite presidents (because of his personality), and he was Unitarian.  I just hope he was one where he could be a true believer.
                      >
                      > 3. One drawback I see to having non-Trinitarians choosing their representative is because I see greater variations in non-Trinitarianism, including many groups who believe that they are the one true church.  While there are some people like that in Trinitarianism, there is more agreement I think.
                      >
                      > Thanks again for your service for the Kingdom, and hope you have a blessed day.
                      >
                      > Jeff Reynolds
                      > Author of An Apologetic For Murder, a novel due out early 2010.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- On Sat, 1/9/10, Rob <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > From: Rob <faithhasitsreasons@...>
                      > Subject: [biblicalapologetics] The Great Trinity Debate Challenge
                      > To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                      > Date: Saturday, January 9, 2010, 9:27 PM
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >  
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > If you are a non-Trinitarian, I invite you to vote in a poll to decide which of five non-Trinitarians will debate me on the subject of the Trinity:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > http://www.reclaimi ngthemind. org/blog/
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Look for the poll right there on the home page.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > In Christ's service,
                      >
                      > Rob Bowman
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.