How does the doctrine of the Trinity help us?

[grandfather]

I am singling out the quote from FF, but this seems typical of a lot of the responses which focus on the Trinity as an account of God’s love. While the various analogies between the Trinity and a family are, to my ears, frightening, especially when combined with talk about the Son being the offspring of the Father, what I take away from all this is that the Trinity a way for Christians to talk about the desire for unity that is found throughout creation and relate that desire back to God.

It still strikes me as somewhat questionable that this love of God is taken so literally as to suggest some sort of distinction within God. The question mentioned in FF’s quote seems particularly important to keep in mind: how does one understand Love if the “lover and the loved are the same?”. We can become objects to ourselves because there is a sort of reflective gap in our own self-awareness, but it is not clear to me that this type of reflexivity is appropriate to the One.

My best translation, if you will, of “Trinity” so far: Human unity is grounded in the divine One. Thus the love by which community is formed is the very love of God. God-Love is then specified in a peculiar way by Christians as Trinity, which is a master-metaphor for the way human community is an image of God.

This is probably woefully inadequate and Christians may find the language of master-metaphor too weak, but that is what I get from it so far…trying to keep the language somewhat within the bounds of what would be permissible on the basis of the One.

thanks to everyone who has responded.

The only way we have to understand anything about God is through analogy. God is infinite we a finite. All of our experience is limited. So Jesus teaches us by analogy. The kingdom of heaven is like unto a farmer who went out to sow seed, or a houswife who lost a coin, or a man who found a treasure in a field, etc.

We do not express an understanding of the Trinity as “an account of God’s love”. God is love. We can experience love, but we can not be love. God is truth. You can know truth, but you can not be truth. God is life. We can have life, but not be life. God exists in His infinite perfections. We know something about all of these. We experience them, but we can never know everything about them.

The divine lover and the beloved are the same in nature. In our experience we are all different. There are no two of us who are the same, because we are finite. We all have things that others lack or vice versa. God is infinite.

There is a distinction between what you are and who you are. You and I are the same what. We are men. We share human nature. We are not the same who. Who am I? I am the husband of Jane, the son of a mother and father, the brother of so and so, friend of John. Who we are does not come from ourselves. This part of our identity comes from those to whom we are related. So the Jews also identified one another in this way. Abraham was the son of someone, son of someone, son of, back to Adam. We are all related in the flesh. But who was Adam, the first man? He was a creature made by God. His identity, who he is comes from God, and so does yours. So who we are is known to us by the source of our being.

What is the source of God’s being. He is His own source. He lives. He is not a stagnant being, but a living being and the source of all life. He generates Himself eternally.

We ask the question, Who is God? Our theological answer is, God is the supreme spirit who alone exists of Himself and is infinite in all of His perfections. If God is love, or life, or truth and only God is eternal, then before He made anything He loved something, He knew some truth. He knew Himself. He loved Himself.

I am not the source of my being. I come from my parents. God is the source of His being. He exists of Himself eternally.

I do not understand your “take away”. The Trinity is not a way for Christians to talk about anything. God reveals Himself to us as triune. Man did not figure this out, out of some desire for anything. Jesus said, He and the Father are One. At His baptism in the Jordan God’s voice was heard. “This is my beloved Son.” His disciples asked Him to show them the Father. He said that they have seen Him so they have seen the Father. You do not believe these things. So you are frightened or scandalized by this as the Jews were. At His trial by the Jews He was asked directly, “Are you the Son of God”. He answered with God’s name, “I am”. The Jews did not believe Him and you do not believe Him. You do not believe what He said about Himself, but believe what Mohamed said about Him instead.

I am not offended or angry that a Muslim does not believe Jesus is the Son of God, or that God is triune. I hope that someday you will. I hope you receive every divine blessing possible now and for all eternity.

Christians do not believe that Mohamed was a prophet. The witness of his life, how he lived and what he did and taught is not compatable with their understanding of a man of God.

Jesus and Mohamed are opposites. What they did, how the behaved in life and what they taught are opposed. There is no harmonizing these things. If Jesus was of God, Mohamed could not have been. Muslims try to embrace both, but this is impossible.

Muslims can be angry that Christians reject their prophet and his teaching. In the end a choice must be made for us all. It is to follow Jesus or Mohamed. Jesus taught us about the Holy Trinity. Mohamed denied it.

But your original question was about how we benefit from the teaching. It tells us who we are and what we are becoming, what God has for us with Him.

 

[Verisimilitude]

If that man dies , he is dead as a father , as a child , as a frined / inspiration etc etc. But Christians beleive when son died , father did not die. Father knows when will be the last day but son or holy Spirit (pbut ) did not know that info. So , I think , this example is not suitable to understand trinity.

The Son who was born of a virgin. The Son who cured the incurable, walked on water, and raised others from the dead. I do not understand why you put human limits on the Almighty. Jesus said do not let the left hand know what the right is doing when giving alms to the poor: how could that be? Do you understand that?

I would like to respond to the other point about Jesus not knowing when the Last Day, but only the Father; though I am busy and it is not exactly on topic I may try later.

 

[Hypatia]

Please do not run off with Augustine’s flawed analogy and ignore everything else I have said; God is three persons, one substance. One God, three separate persons. Saint Athanasius is the person who has helped me most to understand Trinity-- God can never be without His Word…Hence the Son must exist eternally alongside the Father…His generation is an eternal process; “just as the Father is always good by nature, so He is by nature always generative”. It is entirely correct to call Him the Father’s eternal offspring, for the Father’s being was never incomplete, needing an essential feature to be added to it; nor is the Son’s generation like a man’s from his parent, involving His coming into existence after the Father. Rather He is God’s offspring, and since God is eternal and He belongs to God as Son, He exists from all eternity.

The divine lover and the beloved are the same in nature…God is infinite.

… God is the supreme spirit who alone exists of Himself and is infinite in all of His perfections. If God is love, or life, or truth and only God is eternal, then before He made anything He loved something, He knew some truth. He knew Himself. He loved Himself.

…I do not understand your “take away”. The Trinity is not a way for Christians to talk about anything. God reveals Himself to us as triune. Man did not figure this out, out of some desire for anything.

FF and GF,

I do realize the Augustine analogy about Love is only that: an analogy. And I did not mean to abuse him in any way. I simply focused on that because it seemed to sum up very well what you and others on thread had focused on when discussing the Trinity and trying to explain how it helped to specify and extend our knowledge of the One.

And when I said that the Trinity was the way in which Christians tried to give an account of God-Love, it wasn’t a particular jab at Christians…whenever we talk of God our language falls short and ultimately fails. It certainly was not an expression of anger that Christians hold a doctrine of the Trinity, and I am in fact enjoying the conversation and grateful to you and others who have contributed to this thread.

So the “take away”, as GF called it, was just that: my attempt at trying to feel out where Christians are going with this in language I am more comfortable with and seeing if some attempt can be made at translation…recognizing that there is always some slippage when one translates something from one language to another (even if, or perhaps esp. when, that “translation” is from Christianity to Islam). The issues of community and its relation to God I found interesting and worth pursuing. And several persons made connections between community and Trinity…in ways that I was more or less comfortable with depending.

After all, how does the creation image the Creator other than in its infinite diversity. But not a diversity that is in conflict with one another, but is harmonious and whole, i.e., a community. You said the model for that was found in God and you call it Trinity which is the Love of God itself: God loving God. Leaving aside for just a moment any questions I might have about that language, the way in which that narrative makes sense to me is by comparing it to the way in which we understand tawhid (making one) and wahat (one). The making one is nothing other than the activity of divine love or grace, which removes multiplicity and fashions creation into a harmonic whole. It is of course rooted in the actuality of God’s own being: wahat-i wujud (One-Being, or Actual-One of Being…as opposed to being made one). That which is becoming and process within the finite is real and actual, and thus One, as God.

community unified in love:Trinity
tawhid: wahat al-wujud

Now the downside, and the part that seems completely untranslateable, as far as I can tell, is that Christians mean Trinity as more than a master-metaphor (and I conceded that such language was probably not going to satisfy Christians…nor, I must admit is it a metaphor that I am likely to be extremely comfy with or would use on my own…but it does help me understand what Christians are saying). There really is some sort of distinction present within God by which the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are all different from one another. I do not know how such a position is defensible. I understand that Christians do not intend those differences in such a way as to violate fundamental affirmations of the One. And having said that I am rather stuck.

What is a “person” or hypostasis? Since it isn’t 3 gods (there is only one God), what are we trying to indicate with that language? If I may return to a few lines from FF’s post: the language of “offspring” seems to set up a relation of dependence (granted not temporal, but logical nonetheless) between one “person” and another in God. This seems problematic, since, as you also say, God is complete never needing any new feature. If I can add to that, it is not just that God does not need a new feature, but as Absolute, there is nothing possible to be added to God; God is without limit. God is the fullness of Be-ing.

I am struggling to find a way to ask the right question…and I am not quite sure I know what the right question is yet…: so, how is it possible to think a distinction between God’s ousia (Being) and the hypostases? Is that distinction meant to be taken as real, and if so, how is God One? It seems that God is one in one aspect, multiple in another and a unity of some sort when viewed as a whole. [This is not meant so much as an accusation but as an invitation for Christians to explain the relation between ousia and hypostasis to one who very much admits to NOT understanding]

again, thanks to everyone.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Christians are monotheistic as they claim.

Just to clarify: are you a Neo-Platonist ?​

It would seem, then, that the doctrine of the Trinity can only be a way of specifying what it means to say that God is One. The Trinity cannot be about anything other than God as One, because this would be a contradiction and would admit plurality and limitation into God (you would be talking about something else, or some other part of God, which is contradictory).

So, how does the Trinity help anyone better understand what it means to say that God is One?

The doctrine & the theology explore what it means to say that God is Three in One. To be One is not contrary to being Three, because one has to ask, “One what ? Three what ?”​

 

[Hypatia]

Just to clarify: are you a Neo-Platonist ?​

I prefer to think that the (Neo)platonists were/wanted to be Muslim.

Suhrawardi, for instance, places Plato above not only Muslim philosophers like al-Farabi (who are mired in logic), but even above certain Muslim saints like al-Hallaj (who have illumination, but no ability to express it rationally), in the pursuit of union with Allah (swt).

 

[Hypatia]

To be One is not contrary to being Three, because one has to ask, “One what ? Three what ?”

Granting all the limitations of human language, “One” is not a characteristic of God, like blue is a characteristic of my jeans, capable of appearing in multiple instances. God is the One (Arabic can say this beautifully in way that is, unfortunately, lost to English, b/c the “is” just disappears in Arabic – e.g., my overly literal translation of Surah 112 in my signature).

But “three”? First of all it is clearly derivative of the One and thus subsequent to the One. Moreover, as a multiple, 3 has to have a “what” as you say and that “what” must be to a certain degree autonomous of each instance since it is repeated three times…at which point it becomes 3 instances of something. Whatever that something is, it cannot be Allah (swt), the One which is beyond all division or multiplication since it is complete in itself.

What I was suggesting/asking was whether the Trinity was a way of specifying and clarifying, in some form, what it means to say that God is the One and if so, how does it help us understand the One better? Is there a way to think through it as an explanation of God as Absolute and One…so that we are talking about the One the entire time?

 

[grandfather]

FF and GF,

Community is another reality we all experience. Maybe another concept that is similar, but slightly different is communion. Our souls are made to not be alone, or separated, but in communion with one another and with God. In any communion something is shared. In a spiritual communion spiritual goods are shared. We are not meant to be divided, as we are, but united in a communion. We are meant to assist one another along the way on our journeys. Instead we fight and dispute and grow full of rancor and acrimony. This is not God’s will for us, His creatures. As souls are separated from God, so they are from one another. If we as a race are going to achieve the purpose for which we are made, and which history moves towards, this separation must be healed.

Now the downside, and the part that seems completely untranslateable, as far as I can tell, is that Christians mean Trinity as more than a master-metaphor

Yes we are not talking about metaphor.

There really is some sort of distinction present within God by which the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are all different from one another. I do not know how such a position is defensible. .

They are not different from one another. They are the same, but distinct. That is very difficult for us to see.

The only way to try to get this is by trying to grasp the concept of infinity. This is not easy, because all of our experience is of limitedness. We are all unique. Our DNA makes us not only distinct, but different from one another. These differences are our limitations. Maybe you have a gift of playing the violin and I am tone deaf. You can do what I can not do. God is not like this. He has no limitation.

God the Father and God the Son are the same, because they are infinite persons. They are distinct, but not separate or different.

If one had some characteristic the other lacked, the one lacking would not be infinite. The Father eternally gives all of Himself to the Son and the Son gives all of Himself back to the Father. The Father pours Himself out into the Son. God lives. He is not like a glass that contains water or divinity and is still and stagnant. He empties Himself eternally and is filled eternally. He empties Himself into His eternally only begotten Son. And the Son empties Himself back into the Father. What they give back and forth to one another is what they are, their Holy Spirit. I am trying to put into words what in a sense I have seen, not with my eyes, but with my eyes closed. I am trying to describe the indescribeable, a futile task.

What is a “person” or hypostasis? … If I can add to that, it is not just that God does not need a new feature, but as Absolute, there is nothing possible to be added to God; God is without limit. God is the fullness of Be-ing.

Hah, you are absolutely right.

The issue of dependence is a human concept. God exists of Himself. We do not. We are dependent. If we could understand what it is to exist of oneself we would be God. The Three are One. That seems to be a contradiction, because we are separated from one another, or appear to be. The three Divine Persons are not separated. They are enternally one. They can not be separated, as you can be with a person and then leave the presence of that person and maybe not think about that person for some time.

I am struggling to find a way to ask the right question… … [This is not meant so much as an accusation but as an invitation for Christians to explain the relation between ousia and hypostasis to one who very much admits to NOT understanding]

I don’t think you are accusing anyone of anything, but are honestly engaged in sincere dialogue and personal thought. If we have good will for one another that is probably enough. God will do the rest, we hope. God is one and He will make His people one, in divine communion. We are all limited in our capacity to understand. We are groping. We know things about God which He has revealed to us. Then we take this revelation and turn it over on our minds trying to understand even though we know we never will fully. Some have more a little understanding than others, but none of us have full understanding.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Thorwald]

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Christians are monotheistic as they claim.

It would seem, then, that the doctrine of the Trinity can only be a way of specifying what it means to say that God is One. The Trinity cannot be about anything other than God as One, because this would be a contradiction and would admit plurality and limitation into God (you would be talking about something else, or some other part of God, which is contradictory).

So, how does the Trinity help anyone better understand what it means to say that God is One?

Nowhere in scripture, does it say that ‘God’ is the Trinity. It states in Isaiah 44:6, that God consists of The Lord (The King of Israel) and His only begotten Son (The Lord of Hosts/The Redeemer). 1 John 5:7 states that there are three that bear record in heaven (The Father, The Word and The Holy Ghost). It is Christian beliefs that have made these two verses of scripture ‘equal’. Instructions to baptize ‘in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost’ are assumed to be the same three figures as 1 John 5:7 (which I believe is true). It is interesting to note, that The Holy Ghost was involved in creation (Genesis), but is absent from Isaiah 44:6 and the book of Revelation. Is it possible, that we have misunderstood ‘The Godhead’ and ‘The Trinity’???

In other words, is it possible, that the disciples/apostles have misunderstood, or we have interpreted their writings/teachings incorrectly? Is it possible, that ‘The Lord’ (ie. King of Israel), is in fact ‘The Father’s Son’, and Jesus is His Son? Are angels not sons of God? Do we not become sons/daughters of God if we are found worthy?

Thorwald Johansen

 

[ralphinal]

Nowhere in scripture, does it say that ‘God’ is the Trinity. It states in Isaiah 44:6, that God consists of The Lord (The King of Israel) and His only begotten Son (The Lord of Hosts/The Redeemer). 1 John 5:7 states that there are three that bear record in heaven (The Father, The Word and The Holy Ghost). It is Christian beliefs that have made these two verses of scripture ‘equal’. Instructions to baptize ‘in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost’ are assumed to be the same three figures as 1 John 5:7 (which I believe is true). It is interesting to note, that The Holy Ghost was involved in creation (Genesis), but is absent from Isaiah 44:6 and the book of Revelation. Is it possible, that we have misunderstood ‘The Godhead’ and ‘The Trinity’???

In other words, is it possible, that the disciples/apostles have misunderstood, or we have interpreted their writings/teachings incorrectly? Is it possible, that ‘The Lord’ (ie. King of Israel), is in fact ‘The Father’s Son’, and Jesus is His Son? Are angels not sons of God? Do we not become sons/daughters of God if we are found worthy?

Thorwald Johansen

Baptism makes us sons and daughters of God. Angels are not considered sons of God. I have no idea what you are asking about the other.

Now, about the Trinity. IF you are only looking at the Bible, you may come to all sorts of ideas about God, most of which are incorrect. Catholic and Orthodox Christians will tell you that Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded. That is in the Bible, too. Anyway, some of these teachings became part of the Apostolic Oral Tradition. These teachings would later make up the dogma of the Trinity.

In order to say that the Apostles messed things up. you must say that the Holy Spirit did not guide them to all Truth. If you do that, Jesus lied and Satan won.

 

[Thorwald]

Baptism makes us sons and daughters of God. Angels are not considered sons of God. I have no idea what you are asking about the other.

Now, about the Trinity. IF you are only looking at the Bible, you may come to all sorts of ideas about God, most of which are incorrect. Catholic and Orthodox Christians will tell you that Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded. That is in the Bible, too. Anyway, some of these teachings became part of the Apostolic Oral Tradition. These teachings would later make up the dogma of the Trinity.

In order to say that the Apostles messed things up. you must say that the Holy Spirit did not guide them to all Truth. If you do that, Jesus lied and Satan won.

Nice trick!!! If the scripture doesn’t agree with your philosophy, change it.

Genesis 6:2 is referring to angels. In order to become sons/daughters of God, we have to be found worthy ‘until the end’. When you are baptized, are you automatically assumed to be ‘at the end of your life’? Nice try…Duh!!! Jesus Christ is our brethern (albeit our Lord of Hosts as well). Even He states this in the scripture. As Son of Man (The Lamb of God), He became ‘lower than the angels’. As Lord of Hosts, He was begotten/created ‘above the angels’…Duh!!!

Thorwald Johansen

 

[ralphinal]

Nice trick!!! If the scripture doesn’t agree with your philosophy, change it.

Genesis 6:2 is referring to angels. In order to become sons/daughters of God, we have to be found worthy ‘until the end’. When you are baptized, are you automatically assumed to be ‘at the end of your life’? Nice try…Duh!!! Jesus Christ is our brethern (albeit our Lord of Hosts as well). Even He states this in the scripture. As Son of Man (The Lamb of God), He became ‘lower than the angels’. As Lord of Hosts, He was begotten/created ‘above the angels’…Duh!!!

Thorwald Johansen

First, my good sir, show where I changed scriptures.

Paul decribes being baptised into Christ as being adopted as a son of God, and Peter describes it as being saved as was Noah through the flood.

Now, think on this possibility: the sons of God in Genesis were those descended from Adam through Seth and others, and the Daughters of Man were through Cain’s line. Cain’s kids built cities, you know?

 

[Thorwald]

First, my good sir, show where I changed scriptures.

Paul decribes being baptised into Christ as being adopted as a son of God, and Peter describes it as being saved as was Noah through the flood.

Now, think on this possibility: the sons of God in Genesis were those descended from Adam through Seth and others, and the Daughters of Man were through Cain’s line. Cain’s kids built cities, you know?

This is your interpretation of the scriptures. How do you think that the negroid & mongoloid peoples were introduced to the earth. You can only get caucasian descendants from caucasian mothers and fathers. The sins of Adam & Eve had to pass through all ‘begotten’ people. Noah, his wife, and his three sons must have been caucasian. The wives of the three sons must have been one each of caucasian, negroid and mongoloid. You are mistaken in your understanding of the scriptures.

Another misunderstanding of most Christian teachers, is the ‘equating’ of being saved, to becoming sons & daughters of God. Those that are found worthy until the end, will become sons/daughters of God. These people, and these people only, will sit with Christ on His throne. All others who are saved, become the ‘Nations of the World’ (Revelation). This is a true understanding.

In order to qualify as a son/daughter of God (at the end of your life), you will have gone through a series of tests during your life. You will be ‘hated by the world’; You will be thrown out of churches (for if they threw the master out, they will surely throw you out); You will be betrayed by those you love (Sampson had his Delilah, Christ had His Judas); You will be persecuted for preaching the truth. Through your patience & obedience towards God, until the end, you will ‘earn your golden star’. If you want to be a ‘light’ for Him in these days of darkness, you will be severely tested, in order to prove what kind of ‘metal’ you are really made of. As a person holds a knife to your throat, about to behead you, will you have the courage and forgiveness in your heart, to pray for your slayer as Christ did? Will you ask God to forgive your slayer, for they know not what they do?

I see a lot of trash being written in this forum. I see a great deal of ‘blindness’ to the truth. I see a great deal of ‘high-headedness’ and self-anointments, but I see very little ‘light’.

Thorwald Johansen

 

[Verisimilitude]

I see a lot of trash being written in this forum. I see a great deal of ‘blindness’ to the truth. I see a great deal of ‘high-headedness’ and self-anointments, but I see very little ‘light’.

Thorwald Johansen

It strikes me that those who claim a legitimate authority to speak in the name of or about Christ outside the Catholic Church dengrate the clear authority Christ gave to Peter to do so. Smith had zero authority or legitimacy; less than Luther or Mohammed, each of which have led a multitude of souls in error with no proven justification but the words they utter.

The Doctrine of the Church has not changed in two millennia and its light proven since Pentecost, but unbelieveably people instead follow shadows cast by a war monger in Arabia, hubric heretical priest in Europe or lazy farmer in America. It’s not even good fiction.

 

[Thorwald]

It strikes me that those who claim a legitimate authority to speak in the name of or about Christ outside the Catholic Church dengrate the clear authority Christ gave to Peter to do so. Smith had zero authority or legitimacy; less than Luther or Mohammed, each of which have led a multitude of souls in error with no proven justification but the words they utter.

The Doctrine of the Church has not changed in two millennia and its light proven since Pentecost, but unbelieveably people instead follow shadows cast by a war monger in Arabia, hubric heretical priest in Europe or lazy farmer in America. It’s not even good fiction.

This is like a ‘broken record’. The Catholic Church followers, speak with arrogance. They are the ‘George W. Bush’ of the Christian religion. It is written in scripture, that God speaks to many, and we are to discuss amongst ourselves, what has been revealed to each other.

It is true that ‘nothing new’ is to be revealed (Ecclesiastes 1:10), but ‘understanding’ of what has been revealed unto us in the past, has been lost or forgotten. God uses ‘revelations’ through visions, thoughts, dreams, etc. to provide us with lost ‘wisdom’. No single person can lay claim to having perfect ‘wisdom’ of God’s Word. By not listening and debating these revelations, you are disobedient to His Word. He has instructed us to ‘listen’ to the revelations that He has given to others.

If a ‘wall’ is put up, stopping all revelations provided by God, this wall is of satan, not God.

Thorwald Johansen

 

[Verisimilitude]

This is like a ‘broken record’.

True, I have heard your tune more than I care to.

The Catholic Church followers, speak with arrogance. They are the ‘George W. Bush’ of the Christian religion.

You mistake arrogance with authority, and it’s obvious this pains you greatly. The authority is not mine but that which speaks for me which is the Church. If I speak against that authority I will stand corrected, but you offer nothing to suggest I have. BTW, GWB thinks and acts as you do so I would not use such a poor analogy.

It is written in scripture, that God speaks to many, and we are to discuss amongst ourselves, what has been revealed to each other.

If you think this is valid after Christ then your error begins there. Since humans originate from our Creator it is clear He spoke to many as you say, but God Chose the Jews to speak with one voice among the many false voices in the time of Abraham and Jacob and completed it with the Word of Jesus.

It is true that **‘nothing new’ is to be revealed **(Ecclesiastes 1:10), but ‘understanding’ of what has been revealed unto us in the past, has been lost or forgotten.

So says the Mohammedan, Protestant and Mormon with respect to the God of Abraham. The company you keep says a great deal.

God uses ‘revelations’ through visions, thoughts, dreams, etc. to provide us with lost ‘wisdom’.

If you want God’s Wisdom read these: (written versions are better but you get the idea- maybe)
THE BOOK OF WISDOM
ECCLESIASTICUS

Nothing is lost. Never has been.

No single person can lay claim to having perfect ‘wisdom’ of God’s Word. By not listening and debating these revelations, you are disobedient to His Word. He has instructed us to ‘listen’ to the revelations that He has given to others.

What was Luthers authority and wisdom? You utter Orwellian double-speak as noted by the bolded words above by saying nothing new will be revealed but insisting someone like Luther or Calvin was given some great lost knowledge by some new revelation. The Pontiff is not a single person, just the head of the Earthly Body of Christ.

I am not the one doubting His Word so the one who follows the words of someone outside that Body are the ones best described as being disobediaent to Him.

If a ‘wall’ is put up, stopping all revelations provided by God, this wall is of satan, not God.

Thorwald Johansen

The cornerstone of my wall is Jesus and the foundation it is placed upon the solid bedrock of the Law. The bricks in that wall are the Priests and Nuns who are faithfull to the Word and Satan will not prevail against it so I take shelter behind that wall trusting in the promise that God will protect it and those inside. You are welcome and encouraged to come through the front door instead of trying to break in.

Luther stepped outside that wall and the stones you throw at Her (the Church) becasue of him cannot be deemd good in any sense of the Word.

 

[Thorwald]

True, I have heard your tune more than I care to.

You mistake arrogance with authority, and it’s obvious this pains you greatly. The authority is not mine but that which speaks for me which is the Church. If I speak against that authority I will stand corrected, but you offer nothing to suggest I have. BTW, GWB thinks and acts as you do so I would not use such a poor analogy.

If you think this is valid after Christ then your error begins there. Since humans originate from our Creator it is clear He spoke to many as you say, but God Chose the Jews to speak with one voice among the many false voices in the time of Abraham and Jacob and completed it with the Word of Jesus.

So says the Mohammedan, Protestant and Mormon with respect to the God of Abraham. The company you keep says a great deal.

If you want God’s Wisdom read these: (written versions are better but you get the idea- maybe)
THE BOOK OF WISDOM
ECCLESIASTICUS

Nothing is lost. Never has been.

What was Luthers authority and wisdom? You utter Orwellian double-speak as noted by the bolded words above by saying nothing new will be revealed but insisting someone like Luther or Calvin was given some great lost knowledge by some new revelation. The Pontiff is not a single person, just the head of the Earthly Body of Christ.

I am not the one doubting His Word so the one who follows the words of someone outside that Body are the ones best described as being disobediaent to Him.

The cornerstone of my wall is Jesus and the foundation it is placed upon the solid bedrock of the Law. The bricks in that wall are the Priests and Nuns who are faithfull to the Word and Satan will not prevail against it so I take shelter behind that wall trusting in the promise that God will protect it and those inside. You are welcome and encouraged to come through the front door instead of trying to break in.

Luther stepped outside that wall and the stones you throw at Her (the Church) becasue of him cannot be deemd good in any sense of the Word.

Where do you people come from? I stated that the scripture tells me that I should listen to and discuss ‘gifts’ of wisdom/knowledge given unto others. Are you telling me that the scriptures are wrong? Who are you to say such things?

Thorwald Johansen

 

[Verisimilitude]

Where do you people come from? I stated that the scripture tells me that I should listen to and discuss ‘gifts’ of wisdom/knowledge given unto others. Are you telling me that the scriptures are wrong? Who are you to say such things?

Thorwald Johansen

Quote the Scripture you are relying on as I said no such thing. You are the one making interpretations that says such things as divining some new wisdom or knowledge.

 

[Thorwald]

Quote the Scripture you are relying on as I said no such thing. You are the one making interpretations that says such things as divining some new wisdom or knowledge.

I am currently involved with personal, business & corporate tax returns. I had to log out after writing my previous comment, as a client arrived. I will most certainly respond with the explicit scripture that I am referring to, later this evening. The way that the scripture is written, leaves us ‘no room’ for any misinterpretation.

I remember it also stating in the ‘same area’ of scripture, that speaking in a foreign language should be reserved for communication with God, because your audience doesn’t understand you, and as such, you glorify yourself, and not God. I believe, that it is found in the same ‘area’ as the listing of the different ‘levels’ of hierarchy (ie. Disciples/Apostles/Prophets/Teachers/Speaking in foreign tongues/Those with special Gifts), but I will have to verify this.

I am surprised, that you have no idea of this scripture.

Thorwald Johansen

 

[Verisimilitude]

I am surprised, that you have no idea of this scripture.

Thorwald Johansen

You may be assuming something incorrect. I am not surprised you may have a different understanding of what you will quote. I look forward to your response.

 

[Thorwald]

Quote the Scripture you are relying on as I said no such thing. You are the one making interpretations that says such things as divining some new wisdom or knowledge.

Further to my last response:

I very quickly opened my Bible, and for some strange reason, it opened on the page that I needed. 1 Corinthians chpt 12 has some of the info that I was looking for (and referencing in my previous response). I will have to search (later) for the specific scripture that I was referring to (per your request).

Thorwald Johansen