There is no "Trinity" and Jesus Christ is not God

[TEPO]

According to Jehovah’s Witnesses who use the Bible, the Trinity is a false doctrine. This article from the Watchtower’s offical website clearly show they use the Bible to support their position:
watchtower.org/e/ti/article_01.htm
Of course if they don’t believe in the Trinity, then they don’t believe that Jesus Christ is God (they use the Bible to support their position on this as well):
watchtower.org/e/20050422/article_02.htm

Anyone who denies that Jesus Christ is the Word made Flesh works with the antichrist movement!

 

[TriuneUnity]

Just the fact that TriuneUnity decided to set up a strawman argument (though, maybe TU misread/misunderstood what was being said), shows that TU may not know what he is talking about.

JeanneH mentioned the East and West Catholics (the 23 Rites) who do all share the same dogma & theology; TU posted on the Orthodox, not the Eastern Catholics.

Since no one brought up Eastern and Roman rite Catholics, it would be natural that that is what Jeanne was talking about. Jon wrote exclusively about the differences among those churches that do not accept sola Scriptura…i.e. Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[TriuneUnity]

So, do you reject many of these Orthodox claims (I notice your profile says Lutheran - WELS)?

On some things yes, on some things, no. That wasn’t, however, the point of the post. It was to show the differences among Roman Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[mariahloves]

I would like to ask everyone (particularly those who are Protestant) a few questions about the Bible, Truth, Holy Spirit, etc.

This is asked with the assumption that in order to interpret Scripture properly, one must be guided by the Holy Spirit:

1. Who does the Holy Spirit guide? What are the requirements one must meet in order to be guided by the Holy Spirit?
2. Can there be more than ONE truth (For example, can Moses be both a prophet and not a prophet? Can Jesus both be “a” god and THE One True God?) please explain your reasoning.
3. Is our God a God of confusion? If not, why are there thousands of different dogma flying around from the same Bible?
4. Is the King James Bible the only one you use/prefer/find the most reliable? Why/why not?
5. Petty things like worship on Sunday vs Saturday may not seem important but what about SALVATION…how do you know you’ve got it right?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I would like to ask everyone (particularly those who are Protestant) a few questions about the Bible, Truth, Holy Spirit, etc.

This is asked with the assumption that in order to interpret Scripture properly, one must be guided by the Holy Spirit:

1. Who does the Holy Spirit guide? What are the requirements one must meet in order to be guided by the Holy Spirit?

The proper interpretation of Scripture is not a magical formula. It follows the same rules for interpretation as any other document. The Bible is not written in Holy Spirit language. The illumination of the Holy Spirit is needed for a saving understanding of Scripture…i.e., regeneration.

1. Can there be more than ONE truth (For example, can Moses be both a prophet and not a prophet? Can Jesus both be “a” god and THE One True God?) please explain your reasoning.

No, there cannot be more than one truth.

1. Is our God a God of confusion? If not, why are there thousands of different dogma flying around from the same Bible?

Can you please provide one statement in any historic Protestant document that states that it is legitimate for a multiplicity of dogma “flying around?” This charge is repeated ad nauseam, but never substantiated. There are “thousands” of different dogmas because people are fallible and Scripture is misinterpreted for a number of reasons.

1. Is the King James Bible the only one you use/prefer/find the most reliable? Why/why not?

No, I do not prefer the King James Bible (though it sounds great being read publicly). Any translation that is faithful to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts will suffice.

1. Petty things like worship on Sunday vs Saturday may not seem important but what about SALVATION…how do you know you’ve got it right?

Because Scripture is clear enough on the basics of salvation that anyone can understand it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**All of the thousands of Protestant denominations claim to have the illumination of the Holy Spirit as do the Catholic and Orthodox. Obviously the Holy Spirit cannot be guiding people in diverse, opposite, chaotic directions. Someone has to be right. **

The proper interpretation of Scripture is not a magical formula. It follows the same rules for interpretation as any other document. The Bible is not written in Holy Spirit language. The illumination of the Holy Spirit is needed for a saving understanding of Scripture…i.e., regeneration.

How does on know the truth (a la Pilate) when individual interpretation is so blatantly present in reading Scripture outside of the Church’s interpretations? Again, someone has to be right. Take Matthew 16, Orthodox say the Rock is the confession, Catholics say it’s the person of Peter himself. Both cannot be right. Or the Eucharist, ole Zwingli and his symbolic language is incompatible with the Catholic real presence principle. Both cannot be right. So without the magisterium, just trusting our own individual selves to translate and “know” the truth, how can we be sure we’re not under the influence of the evil one and our own prejudices, vices, and frail understandings?
No, there cannot be more than one truth.

Can you please provide one statement in any historic Protestant document that states that it is legitimate for a multiplicity of dogma “flying around?” This charge is repeated ad nauseam, but never substantiated. There are “thousands” of different dogmas because people are fallible and Scripture is misinterpreted for a number of reasons.

No, I do not prefer the King James Bible (though it sounds great being read publicly). Any translation that is faithful to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts will suffice.

**But it’s not clear on a great many things. Otherwise how would we get such diverse interpretations from John 6 about the Bread of Life? Or the Last Supper? Or Matthew 16? Or Revelation? Or ordination and the priesthood of all believers or faith vs. works, etc.? The Bible is definitely not self-translating and it’s everyone has a different take on the Scriptures. **
Because Scripture is clear enough on the basics of salvation that anyone can understand it.

 

[TriuneUnity]

All of the thousands of Protestant denominations claim to have the illumination of the Holy Spirit as do the Catholic and Orthodox. Obviously the Holy Spirit cannot be guiding people in diverse, opposite, chaotic directions. Someone has to be right.

I do not disagree with that. I do not think that Presbyterians, Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists are all correct on the eucharist, baptism, justification, etc.

How does on know the truth (a la Pilate) when individual interpretation is so blatantly present in reading Scripture outside of the Church’s interpretations? Again, someone has to be right. Take Matthew 16, Orthodox say the Rock is the confession, Catholics say it’s the person of Peter himself. Both cannot be right. Or the Eucharist, ole Zwingli and his symbolic language is incompatible with the Catholic real presence principle. Both cannot be right. So without the magisterium, just trusting our own individual selves to translate and “know” the truth, how can we be sure we’re not under the influence of the evil one and our own prejudices, vices, and frail understandings?

I understand your point here, gurney. One cannot rely on personal interpretations of Scripture. That much is certainly true. The right of private interpretation does NOT mean a right to a distorted interpretation of Scripture. Having an infallible magisterium, however, doesn’t solve the problem. It only moves it one step back. Okay, we know what this verse of Scripture means because a supposedly infallible magisterium has interpreted it. Now, how do we know the magisterium is infallible? If the magisterium isn’t infallible, then how does their interpretation of the verse solve its meaning? One must approach the Roman interpretations of Scripture with a presupposition of infallibility in order to be certain that their interpretation is correct. The only problem is that this presupposition is based on an already applied statement by the church that it is infallible. It’s a circular argument. “Rome is the only church that can interpret Scripture, because Rome has interpreted Scripture to say that it is the only infallible church.” When it comes to disagreements about the meaning of the text, one, again, looks at the language of the text in the same way as any other document. Church tradition is extremely important in proper interpretation; that does not mean that it is infallibly important.

But it’s not clear on a great many things. Otherwise how would we get such diverse interpretations from John 6 about the Bread of Life? Or the Last Supper? Or Matthew 16? Or Revelation? Or ordination and the priesthood of all believers or faith vs. works, etc.?

We do not say that it is clear on everything, only on that which is necessary for salvation.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I do not disagree with that. I do not think that Presbyterians, Catholics, Lutherans, and Baptists are all correct on the eucharist, baptism, justification, etc.

Then what’s the alternative? The papacy and magisterium itself cannot be infallible so how can one have assurance that Martin Luther or Melancthon or Martin Bucer or Calvin’s views are correct? In essence then, NOBODY could have any assurance of truth. As a result then, morality and Biblical truths become relative and maleable. What’s the answer? When you say “the right of private interpretation does not mean a right to a distorted interpretation of Scripture,” what is distorted and what is true all becomes relative with Sola Scriptura. The Baptist who isolates that line about confessing that Christ is your saviour and you will be saved and believes that is all this necessary views that section of scripture far differently from the Catholic who looks at Scripture holistically. I don’t see how one can claim the other is distorted or right?
I understand your point here, gurney. One cannot rely on personal interpretations of Scripture. That much is certainly true. The right of private interpretation does NOT mean a right to a distorted interpretation of Scripture. Having an infallible magisterium, however, doesn’t solve the problem. It only moves it one step back. Okay, we know what this verse of Scripture means because a supposedly infallible magisterium has interpreted it. Now, how do we know the magisterium is infallible? If the magisterium isn’t infallible, then how does their interpretation of the verse solve its meaning? One must approach the Roman interpretations of Scripture with a presupposition of infallibility in order to be certain that their interpretation is correct. The only problem is that this presupposition is based on an already applied statement by the church that it is infallible. It’s a circular argument. “Rome is the only church that can interpret Scripture, because Rome has interpreted Scripture to say that it is the only infallible church.” When it comes to disagreements about the meaning of the text, one, again, looks at the language of the text in the same way as any other document. Church tradition is extremely important in proper interpretation; that does not mean that it is infallibly important.

We do not say that it is clear on everything, only on that which is necessary for salvation.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Then what’s the alternative? The papacy and magisterium itself cannot be infallible so how can one have assurance that Martin Luther or Melancthon or Martin Bucer or Calvin’s views are correct? In essence then, NOBODY could have any assurance of truth. As a result then, morality and Biblical truths become relative and maleable. What’s the answer? When you say “the right of private interpretation does not mean a right to a distorted interpretation of Scripture,” what is distorted and what is true all becomes relative with Sola Scriptura. The Baptist who isolates that line about confessing that Christ is your saviour and you will be saved and believes that is all this necessary views that section of scripture far differently from the Catholic who looks at Scripture holistically. I don’t see how one can claim the other is distorted or right?

I disagree that Biblical truths become relative when they are removed from infallibility. There is nothing that humanity knows infallibly, because only God is capable of not making an error. Man can be inerrant, but cannot be infallible. Because you do not know the law of gravity infallibly, does that make gravity relative? Have you ever decided that since you don’t know gravity infallibly, it would be perfectly logical to throw yourself off a building? We know which views are correct based on diligent, prayerful study of Scripture.

I have an assurance of truth because Christ is the truth. Not a church body.

I can claim the Baptist has distorted Scripture on certain issues by simply examining his beliefs and comparing them with tota Scriptura. Yes, church tradition here is important, but it needn’t be infallible.

Can you please tell me from where your infallible certainity that the Roman Catholic magisterium is infallible comes from?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Can you please tell me from where your infallible certainity that the Roman Catholic magisterium is infallible comes from?

**One could just as easily (and respectfully I might add!) ask, where does your certainty that the Bible contains all things necessary to salvation come from? Where does the inerrant certainty that you interpet Scripture correctly and the Seventh Day Adventist doesn’t come from? I would say personally, for me, Matthew 16 is the starting place. The Gates of Hell not prevailing, IMO, means that the Church, grounded upon Peter in the context of the conversation in Matt 16, will not let error through its gates. The Rock, Peter, keeps the Truth visible and assured or else the gates become compromised and Satan penetrates victoriously. That’s been my starting point. **

 

[TriuneUnity]

One could just as easily (and respectfully I might add!) ask, where does your certainty that the Bible contains all things necessary to salvation come from?

It is based on Christ as the starting point. Since Christ is God incarnate and proved Himself so, then His statements about the nature of Scripture, and the purpose of the apostolic writings are certain and true. The apostolic writings themselves confirm that the purpose of their writings is to call God’s people to salvation. “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (John 20).”

I would say personally, for me, Matthew 16 is the starting place. The Gates of Hell not prevailing, IMO, means that the Church, grounded upon Peter in the context of the conversation in Matt 16, will not let error through its gates. The Rock, Peter, keeps the Truth visible and assured or else the gates become compromised and Satan penetrates victoriously. That’s been my starting point.

Okay… that’s your interpretation of Matthew 16. How is your interpretation any more infallible than my interpretation of Matthew 16? The point being, you have interpreted Scripture to say that the Church is infallible; but that is NOT an infallible interpretation. So the basis of your belief in the magisterium’s authority is not based on an infallible source. By your own standards, you still don’t have assurance that what you believe is true.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But Matt. 16 is not the sole point of my belief in Catholicism being infallible. Holistically many factors lead to my belief in infallibility, not just one scripture. Like I said, that is a starting point. And we could take your logic on anything. What you’re essentially saying is that being a Christian is pure chaos. There is no order to it, no way to know the truth, all we can do is individually interpret things from the Bible, argue about it, hope to God we’re right and there is no way to know if the Gates of Hell have prevailed or not, no way to know if something is guided by the Holy Spirit or not, my opinion is just that, my opinion, and anywhere I come to a conclusion is subjective…And of course we would know that Luther is correct in his assessments how? He has deviated from the Church polity that existed in Christendom for centuries and centuries before he was ever born but because he felt a certain way, it was right? It’s the chaos theory. Nothing is certain. It goes with my signature quote at the bottom I think. Benedict hit the nail on the head…we’re all doomed to our own little prison cells of truth, isolated, apart, and uncertain if sola scriptura is true. Alright, it’s bed time!

It is based on Christ as the starting point. Since Christ is God incarnate and proved Himself so, then His statements about the nature of Scripture, and the purpose of the apostolic writings are certain and true. The apostolic writings themselves confirm that the purpose of their writings is to call God’s people to salvation. “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name (John 20).”

Okay… that’s your interpretation of Matthew 16. How is your interpretation any more infallible than my interpretation of Matthew 16? The point being, you have interpreted Scripture to say that the Church is infallible; but that is NOT an infallible interpretation. So the basis of your belief in the magisterium’s authority is not based on an infallible source. By your own standards, you still don’t have assurance that what you believe is true.

 

[TriuneUnity]

But Matt. 16 is not the sole point of my belief in Catholicism being infallible. Holistically many factors lead to my belief in infallibility, not just one scripture. Like I said, that is a starting point.

Yes, I know that, however… if you follow your logic and interpretations of Scripture to conclude that Rome is infallible… that’s still not an infallible source! Again, by your own standards that would mean you don’t have infallible assurance that Rome is infallible. That would mean, again by your standards, you have no assurance at all. The only reason you could say that you know the magisterium is infallible is because the magisterium says so.

And we could take your logic on anything. What you’re essentially saying is that being a Christian is pure chaos. There is no order to it, no way to know the truth, all we can do is individually interpret things from the Bible, argue about it, hope to God we’re right and there is no way to know if the Gates of Hell have prevailed or not, no way to know if something is guided by the Holy Spirit or not, my opinion is just that, my opinion, and anywhere I come to a conclusion is subjective…And of course we would know that Luther is correct in his assessments how? He has deviated from the Church polity that existed in Christendom for centuries and centuries before he was ever born but because he felt a certain way, it was right? It’s the chaos theory. Nothing is certain. It goes with my signature quote at the bottom I think. Benedict hit the nail on the head…we’re all doomed to our own little prison cells of truth, isolated, apart, and uncertain if sola scriptura is true. Alright, it’s bed time!

It’s way too late for me to respond to that, but I will try, Lord willing, tomorrow LOL. God bless and good night. Nice talking with you again!

 

[surritter]

Can you name one from his very erudite post? Somehow…I doubt it.

Um… yeah, let’s try #1, 2, 3…

I’ll pick on #2 for now: “2. Jesus Christ, as Son of God is divine by nature, as born of the Virgin Mary, True Man by nature, alone is the head of the Church. No hierarch, no bishop, no matter how exalted, is the earthly head of the Church, since Jesus Christ’s headship is enough.”

The view he is promoting seems to be an either/or kind of mentality. Of course Jesus is the ultimate head. But I would ask: Isn’t a pastor head of his parish community? Yes.

But wait, doesn’t that conflict with the headship of Jesus? No.

So it is a strawman argument. Jesus most certainly tasked Peter with feeding His sheep. That was an act of conferring authority. Not ultimate authority, of course. But the pope today also does not have ultimate authority to do whatever or proclaim anything.

Shall I continue? Or was one enough…

 

[JonNC]

=mariahloves;6336253]I would like to ask everyone (particularly those who are Protestant) a few questions about the Bible, Truth, Holy Spirit, etc.

This is asked with the assumption that in order to interpret Scripture properly, one must be guided by the Holy Spirit:

1. Who does the Holy Spirit guide? What are the requirements one must meet in order to be guided by the Holy Spirit?

1. Can there be more than ONE truth (For example, can Moses be both a prophet and not a prophet? Can Jesus both be “a” god and THE One True God?) please explain your reasoning.

These are always such interesting questions. Of course, there is only one truth, and the Holy Spirit guides whom He wishes, and in ways that may make sense only to Him. The Catholic Church recognizes this when in its catechism it states:
**"819 ***"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity.“276” *
Now it may claim for itself the entrustment of the fullness of grace to itself, but it does not question the fact that the Holy Spirit acts (guides) believers outside the Catholic Church to grace and salvation.

1. Is our God a God of confusion? If not, why are there thousands of different dogma flying around from the same Bible?

Why is there this tendancy to blame God for man’s confusion? God is not a God of confusion, but man is sinful and gets things confused. One thing I do know: when we transfer to the Church Triumphant, all of our confusion will be resolved, and the Holy Spirit will have led us into all Truth.

1. Is the King James Bible the only one you use/prefer/find the most reliable? Why/why not?

Is the Douay Rheims Bible the only one you use/prefer/find the most reliable? Why/why not? I kind of like the NKJV, but also the ESV. And on line I sometimes read the NAB on the USCCB website.

1. Petty things like worship on Sunday vs Saturday may not seem important but what about SALVATION…how do you know you’ve got it right?

If it is petty, why did you feel the need to bring it up?

Jon

 

[mariahloves]

. Why is there this tendancy to blame God for man’s confusion? God is not a God of confusion, but man is sinful and gets things confused. One thing I do know: when we transfer to the Church Triumphant, all of our confusion will be resolved, and the Holy Spirit will have led us into all Truth.

I wasn’t blaming God, rather I was trying to make a point with my question. God is not a God of confusion, therefore all confusion that is caused involving God is the direct result of humans.

Is the Douay Rheims Bible the only one you use/prefer/find the most reliable? Why/why not?

No I’ve never had a DR Bible in my hands lol. I use the KJV and the NAS. I don’t have a reason not to use the DR Bible I’ve just never come across one.

If it is petty, why did you feel the need to bring it up?

I was raised Seventh-day Adventist, where we go to church and rest on Saturday rather than Sunday. I always thought this was a sort of random thing to do and it was the first thing that came to mind when I thought of petty doctrines.

 

[mariahloves]

But Matt. 16 is not the sole point of my belief in Catholicism being infallible. Holistically many factors lead to my belief in infallibility, not just one scripture. Like I said, that is a starting point. And we could take your logic on anything. What you’re essentially saying is that being a Christian is pure chaos. There is no order to it, no way to know the truth, all we can do is individually interpret things from the Bible, argue about it, hope to God we’re right and there is no way to know if the Gates of Hell have prevailed or not, no way to know if something is guided by the Holy Spirit or not, my opinion is just that, my opinion, and anywhere I come to a conclusion is subjective…And of course we would know that Luther is correct in his assessments how? He has deviated from the Church polity that existed in Christendom for centuries and centuries before he was ever born but because he felt a certain way, it was right? It’s the chaos theory. Nothing is certain. It goes with my signature quote at the bottom I think. Benedict hit the nail on the head…we’re all doomed to our own little prison cells of truth, isolated, apart, and uncertain if sola scriptura is true. Alright, it’s bed time!

I think this is a good point.

Is it possible to find the Truth? Not a truth or a couple truths, but the full Truth that Jesus revealed to His apostles?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Mariah, many thanks. Are you currently in RCIA about to become Catholic? I notice it says “future Catholic” on your profile. Thanks be to God! When are you becoming fully Catholic?

I think this is a good point.

Is it possible to find the Truth? Not a truth or a couple truths, but the full Truth that Jesus revealed to His apostles?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I wasn’t blaming God, rather I was trying to make a point with my question. God is not a God of confusion, therefore all confusion that is caused involving God is the direct result of humans.

Yes, you’re absolutely right, Mariah. I realize that there are hundreds of denominations floating around out there. However, it is my contention that all of them have truth mixed with error, except for the confessions that I hold to. I do not believe that Baptists, Presbyterians, and Catholics are equally correct to the Lutheran confessions, or I wouldn’t be Lutheran. However, all of them have true Christians as members. The Roman Catholic Church claims its doctrines to be truth. It is up to individual Christians to discern truth from error, based on our available resources. Doctrinal error is a result of humanity, not the Spirit.

 

[TriuneUnity]

But Matt. 16 is not the sole point of my belief in Catholicism being infallible. Holistically many factors lead to my belief in infallibility, not just one scripture. Like I said, that is a starting point.

Yes, I understand that. I am sure that you came to those conclusions based on studying Scripture and history. That’s fine. I wouldn’t presume to say you became Catholic out of ignorance. My point here is that YOU still determined that, after reading Scripture and history, that Roman Catholicism was the truest expression of the teachings of Scripture. Therefore, your assurance based on Rome’s claim of infallibility is no more of an assurance than mine. YOU still had to make the decision to submit to the teachings of Rome and you are not infallible. Roman Catholic apologists claim that the infallibility of the magisterium gives them assurance that the doctrines taught are the doctrines of Christ. However, they still must decide through their own reasoning that Rome is, indeed, infallible. There is no objective infallible source that states that Rome is infallible, other than Rome itself. Rome’s claims of infallibility are just that, claims. It is still a subjective decision on your part that that infallibility is true.

And we could take your logic on anything. What you’re essentially saying is that being a Christian is pure chaos. There is no order to it, no way to know the truth, all we can do is individually interpret things from the Bible, argue about it, hope to God we’re right and there is no way to know if the Gates of Hell have prevailed or not

The promise of Christ that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church do not rest on the church, but on the promise of Christ. There are still, last time I checked, billions of Christians in this world and the Lord has not returned. Therefore, the promise is holding up just fine. Christ never stated that the church would not fall into periods of error and false teaching. There is never a promise of this in Scripture. In fact, we are warned numerous times about false doctrine creeping into the church, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and even that a man of sin would sit at the heart of the church. If a church founded by Paul himself (Galatia) could fall into doctrinal error, who are we to presume that simply submitting to whatever the church hierarchy says is a guarentee of freedom from false teaching?

no way to know if something is guided by the Holy Spirit or not, my opinion is just that, my opinion, and anywhere I come to a conclusion is subjective…And of course we would know that Luther is correct in his assessments how?

By studying, thinking, praying, and reading Scripture. The way the church has always decided what is true and what is not.