Glenn M.Millers' defense of the Trinity
Here are some links to one Protestant Christian Layman's (Glenn M. Miller) attempt at using Sola Scriptura to explore Biblical data and test the Trinitarian hypothesis.You may or may not agree with all he has to say but his presentation very well developed and easy to follow. I first encountered some the linked articles 10 years ago and I continue to value the effort Mr. Miller into the writing of the articles.
Testing the Trinitarian 'hypothesis'...in the Old Testament
http://christianthinktank.com/trin02.html
The NT Witness: The Ancient Church Formulas in the NT
http://christianthinktank.com/trin03a.html
Good question…does Jesus' submission to the Father disprove His deity?
http://christianthinktank.com/theoudelphia.html
Christian Distinctives: The Trinity
http://christianthinktank.com/trin01.html
Let's Talk about.... the "Trinity"
http://christianthinktank.com/trinity.html
Comments
-
@Mitchell said:
Here are some links to one Protestant Christian Layman's (Glenn M. Miller) attempt at using Sola Scriptura to explore Biblical data and test the Trinitarian hypothesis.You may or may not agree with all he has to say but his presentation very well developed and easy to follow. I first encountered some the linked articles 10 years ago and I continue to value the effort Mr. Miller into the writing of the articles.Testing the Trinitarian 'hypothesis'...in the Old Testament
http://christianthinktank.com/trin02.htmlThe NT Witness: The Ancient Church Formulas in the NT
http://christianthinktank.com/trin03a.htmlGood question…does Jesus' submission to the Father disprove His deity?
http://christianthinktank.com/theoudelphia.htmlChristian Distinctives: The Trinity
http://christianthinktank.com/trin01.htmlLet's Talk about.... the "Trinity"
http://christianthinktank.com/trinity.htmlI’m impressed by the dimensions of the argument the author makes in these articles - he gathers an enormous number of verses/passages - but I am not impressed by the care with which he addresses his subject. A few examples:
He claims 2 Cor 13.14 describes the source of blessing as “trinitarian.” But there’s nothing necessarily trinitarian about mentioning Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit in the same clause, ESPECIALLY when the verse makes NO effort to equate the three references AND when one of the three mentions singles out God, to the apparent exclusion of the subjects of the other two mentions. Such a singling out, in my view, is in fact a reflection of Paul’s belief that Jesus was not God.
In a parenthetical note about Rom 16.20, he asks whether Paul’s reference to “the grace of our Lord Jesus” means grace comes from Jesus alone. The verse in question makes no such suggestion.
He quotes several NT “benedictions,” then concludes that they “move in and out of single-Father, single-Christ, dual-Father/Son, triune statements,” when in fact the “single-Father” statements make clear distinctions between God and Jesus, while the other statements simply reference God and Jesus and the Spirit in the same clause - which is not proof of their equality, especially when the God statements identify God as “God,” while references to Jesus do not identify him as God.
He refers to “plurality data,”which I take to mean references to both God and Jesus in the same clause. His argument leads him to overlook the impact of several verses on the “Trinity”debate. 1 Cor 15.3-4, for example, says Jesus “was raised,” a clear indication that someone other than he did the raising. And 1 Cor 8.6 says there is one God (the “Father”) and one Lord (Jesus Christ) - another clear distinction between God and Jesus.
Due to the size, scope, and length of these articles, none of us can comment on all aspects of them. For this quick response after a brief review of their contents, I applaud the author’s faith, intentions, and efforts, but call into question the care with which he approaches the subject.
-
Having read through several of the linked articles, I would almost applaud the author for trying to be very extensive in his coverage of the matter and his efforts to sort of collect many verses in one place that are often used by Trinitarians to prove their theology as Biblical truth.
However, I am not impressed a bit by his assertions, assumptions and his method of approach to the subject. Basically, even though he uses sometimes a bit more "fancy and scientific sounding language", he does not really attempt to provide a careful and detailed study of the various Biblical passages he cites. There is no real detailed study of the text and context of passages from a more objective point of view ... instead his starting points are always the assumption that the Trinity is true. He does admit though in one article that he does not understand "God" to be an individual single acting person/being ... rather that "God" is like a "composite unit(y) of three persons" ... an idea which Scripture clearly debunks even just in those passages where God and Jesus are said to be distinct and separately acting Beings/Persons.
Also, you may find that quite many of the scriptures he lists have been addressed here in these forums in various posts as well ... and they have been shown to not quite teach what the author thinks they teach.
-
I think we can argue skilfully, but unless the Lord grants understanding, Christian apologetics can only strengthen and edify those who agree.
-
@Wolfgang said:
However, I am not impressed a bit by his assertions, assumptions and his method of approach to the subject. Basically, even though he uses sometimes a bit more "fancy and scientific sounding language", he does not really attempt to provide a careful and detailed study of the various Biblical passages he cites. There is no real detailed study of the text and context of passages from a more objective point of view ... instead his starting points are always the assumption that the Trinity is true. He does admit though in one article that he does not understand "God" to be an individual single acting person/being ... rather that "God" is like a "composite unit(y) of three persons" ... an idea which Scripture clearly debunks even just in those passages where God and Jesus are said to be distinct and separately acting Beings/Persons.Also, you may find that quite many of the scriptures he lists have been addressed here in these forums in various posts as well ... and they have been shown to not quite teach what the author thinks they teach.
I've highlighted two points of your reaction, Wolfgang, because they make important points: The author DOES seem to assume (without proof) the truth of Trinitarian thinking, and we HAVE engaged many of the texts he cites, most often coming to a very different conclusion about their meaning than he does.
Thanks for pointing out those
-
@Dave_L said:
I think we can argue skilfully, but unless the Lord grants understanding, Christian apologetics can only strengthen and edify those who agree.You seem to assume that if we had the Lord's "understanding," we would agree with the doctrine of the Trinity. What if the Trinity is NOT correct? Would the Lord's "understanding" still lead us to agree with the Trinity?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
I think we can argue skilfully, but unless the Lord grants understanding, Christian apologetics can only strengthen and edify those who agree.You seem to assume that if we had the Lord's "understanding," we would agree with the doctrine of the Trinity. What if the Trinity is NOT correct? Would the Lord's "understanding" still lead us to agree with the Trinity?
The doctrine of the trinity is correct for the whole of Christendom, along with the deity of Christ. It is deviation from these two doctrines that constitute the cults of Christendom or other non christian religions. That is, Christiandom is defined by adherence to these two doctrines.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
You seem to assume that if we had the Lord's "understanding," we would agree with the doctrine of the Trinity. What if the Trinity is NOT correct? Would the Lord's "understanding" still lead us to agree with the Trinity?@Dave_L said:
The doctrine of the trinity is correct for the whole of Christendom, along with the deity of Christ. It is deviation from these two doctrines that constitute the cults of Christendom or other non christian religions.Well, at least I understood you correctly.
-
I would like to thank everyone who has posted so far sharing their observations and opinions.
-
Holy Spirit, a Divine Being or "Influence?"
**The Holy Spirit **
That the Holy Spirit is a divine person, equal in substance, power, and glory with the Father and the Son, is manifested throughout Scripture.
1. The Holy Spirit is a Personal Being
(a) Some have questioned whether the Holy Spirit is a distinct person or only the “power” or “force” of God. There are a number of verses where the Holy Spirit is mentioned together with the Father and the Son (Matt 28:19; 1 Cor 12:4-6; 2 Cor 13:14). This indicates that the Father and the Son are persons, the Holy Spirit, therefore should also be a person.
(b) Frequently, the masculine pronoun “he” is used in reference to the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13,14), in spite of the fact that the word for Spirit in Greek (pneuma) is neuter and not masculine.
(c) The word “counselor” or “comforter” (parakletos) uniformly refers to a person not a force.
(d) The Holy Spirit is said to:
- Speak (Acts 8:29)
- Teach (John 14:26)
- Bear witness (John 15:26)
- Intercede on behalf of others (Rom 8:26-27)
- Distribute gifts to others (1 Cor 12:11), and
- To forbid or allows certain things (Acts 16:6-7).
According to Ephesians 4:30, the Holy Spirit can also be grieved by people. All these activities are characteristic of a person, not a force.
- The Holy Spirit is God
Scripture views the Holy Spirit as God. From eternity God the Holy Spirit lived within the Godhead as the third member of the Trinity.
(a) Matthew 28:19 “...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” This text places the Holy Spirit on an equal level with the Father and the Son.
(b) Peter told Ananias that, in lying to the Holy Spirit, he had lied not “to men but to God” (Acts 5:3-4).
(c) “The Holy Spirit is omnipotent. He distributes spiritual gifts ‘to each one individually as He wills’ (1 Cor. 12:11).
-- He is omnipresent. He will “abide” with his people “forever” (John 14:16). None can escape His influence (Ps. 139:7-10).
-- He also is omniscient, because “the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God” and “no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:10,11).”The jury may be out, but the conclusion is in. No argument, let the Bible speak. Truth found truth shared. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
No argument, let the Bible speak.I am curious what was your reaction to the articles linked in the opening post.
Glenn M. Miller the author of those articles is defining the Trinity using Sola Scriptura. -
Brethren,
Since I am a believer in God, the Bible, and understand the true import of Sola Scriptura, I am thankful for the presentation.I don't need every question answered in details to fill every crevice of human thought of inquisitiveness. God is a spirit. One must believe that He is and a rewarder those who diligently seek Him. some of my fellow users of these forums apply too many human standards to things that are beyond their comprehension. Their "because I can't understand it" or "it doesn't make sense to me" Reasoning Approach; they sit on the barrels of doubt cursing God and the dark.
The Ideological Roots of Biblical Criticism
Biblical Criticism developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, partly as a reaction against the rigid Protestant teachings which were based on a verbal concept of inspiration. To counteract Catholic teachings, during the Post-reformation period, Protestants theologians exalted the authority of the Bible by teaching the radical concept of verbal inspiration. The Liberals reacted against this radical view by going to the other extreme in rejecting any form of divine revelation.
Rationalism. Two major philosophical ideologies influenced the development of Biblical Criticism, namely rationalism and evolutionism.
Rationalism, an outgrowth on the Enlightenment Movement of the eighteenth century, attempted to reduce Christianity to a religion developed by human reasoning, rather than by divine revelation. e.g. Friedrich Schleimacher (1768-1834), who is rightly regarded as the most influential liberal theologian of the nineteenth century, sought the essence of Christianity in intuitive feelings rather than in an objective divine revelation. This rationalistic, subjective approach to Scripture led to the rejection of any miraculous elements in the biblical texts because they could not be empirically proven.
Evolutionism. The second philosophical ideology that influenced the rise of Biblical Criticism is the evolutionary philosophy, which applies to the biblical text Darwin's theory of the evolution of the species from simple to complex. The result was that the religion of the Bible was viewed as a product of religious evolution. As Church Historian Earl Cairns explains, "critics emphasized the development of the idea of God from the primitive storm god of Mount Sinai to the ethical monotheistic god of the prophets" (see source).
The end result was that within a relatively short period of time, the Bible came to be viewed as a distinctively human document, stripped of any transcendent authority. Hence, the Bible must be studied and interpreted in the same way as other literature, according to the methods of literary research. Unfortunately, this forcing of the Bible into the categories of secular literature distorts its message and weakens its capacity to transform human lives.
Fundamentally, the Critical Movement is anti-supernatural and anti-miraculous. It rejects the idea that God acts in any supernatural way in the history of mankind. It views all religious movements as human developments determined strictly by natural causes. The religion of the Bible is no exception. Consequently, the Bible contains no revelation, but a gradual development of the human apprehension of God, from the primitive beliefs of cave-dwellers to the refined monotheism of our day. Biblical writings have only a historical value by providing a record of remarkable manifestations of religious experience. In the end, human reason and experience supersede biblical revelation.
While the Reformation weakened ecclesiastical authority, Biblical Criticism has weakened biblical authority. The result is that for many seminary professors and preachers the Bible is no longer the normative, authoritative Word of God that reveals His will and purpose for mankind, but a fallible book that contains gems of truth mixed with error (See source).
In the Bible and through the revelation of Jesus, we have enough to believe, form a relationship with God and to experienced salvation; not have every question answered. Some humans can't accept that they are the created and not the Creator. What eyes can't see, brains can't comprehend; based on God revelation and the historical record or dealing with humanity faith, trust, and humble obedience completes the chasm.
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
-- Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids 198)1, p. 412.
-
Have you always been UPC? Or did you opt for being UPC after studying beyond it's confines?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
