1. Runto’s Ricon. What if it is biblical facts colliding with your faith?
2. Miguel’s Weblog. First, Miguel, I have Portuguese friends in our church family in Ammon, Idaho. They are dear to my heart. Secondly, I think Jesus’ message in John’s Gospel is much more exclusive than your presentation. My concern is when any religion, Baptist or Mormon, tweak the Lord’s words by being selective in what only benefits their particular religion. None of us like to be confronted in our error.
3. Mormon Metaphysics. May Clark continue to sharpen me when I vaguely ramble.
4. Juvenile Instructor. Jared posts a Robert Millet interview. Bob mentions a presentation on Calvinism from a John in California that he listened to. Would it be this? The Doctrines of Grace (10 full-length lessons in MP3 & Grace to You TV program on DVD): 2008 Grace Community Church Shepherd’s Conference Edition.
And my heart sank when reading this:
Q: Is the Trinity really that big of an issue?
RM: Not in everyday life.
I just simply can’t believe that. I want to be a loving friend to others; and it is frivolous statements like this that cheapen what I should treasure most – with all my heart and soul and mind loving one God.
5. Straight and Narrow Blog. Jettboy writes a classic Southeast Idaho LDS conclusion: “Christianity never had the respect and numbers until Constantine made it a National Faith backed by the military.” And most LDS friends would think my Christian thought in 2008 is still corrupted by Constantine. It is definitely a S.E. Idaho thing.
6. LDS Doctrine. BRoz writes a short book review of Claiming Christ: A Mormon – Evangelical Debate.
BRoz’s post reminds me that I need to finish reading that book.
Todd, regarding the comment on the Trinity, surely you’d agree that for even the vast number of Evangelicals thinking about the Trinity is a pretty minor and insignificant portion of their religious life. It’s fine if it’s a big one to you. I honestly can’t quite figure out why you think it ought be the focus for everyone.
I think an over-obsession with trinity can easily trap a person in idolatry (i.e. worshiping a doctrine over the living God). Same for any doctrine – even the Atonement.
The important thing is to keep an openness and humility such that God can make course corrections in your life when needed.
Guys, I am studying two famous biblical books, John’s Gospel and Isaiah, simultaneously.
The prophet makes the one God his chief focus.
The apostle makes the three his chief focus.
Quite frankly, Jesus makes the three-in-one his chief focus throughout John’s Gospel.
Even in the Savior’s last fleeting minutes in the upper room just before his death, look what he is talking about.
Clark, I am hearing my emphasis cues from Scripture, not from the vast number of Evangelicals.
The vast number of professing evangelicals in America tend to be very unbalanced and lopsided.
But scripture? I think it carries the right obsession. And it isn’t about us in our man-centric concerns and ambitions. Searching, studying, and heeding the scriptures is the very hope for the evangelical movement in our country toward proper correction and adjustment of our thinking. I need this every week. Seth’s second sentence: “The important thing is to keep an openness and humility such that God can make course corrections in your life when needed” – this is right on.
_____
Guys, now catch this exciting lesson that I learned just this Easter week. I had been feasting on Isaiah 53.
http://idaho4hisglory.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/how-did-you-celebrate-easter-in-idaho/
But notice Isaiah 52:13 and the description of Yahweh’s Servant. Isn’t this the same Hebraic expressions for Yahweh in Isaiah 6:1, Isaiah 33:10, and Isaiah 57:15 (the One)?
This is incredible – the first time that I have ever seen this.
Clear distinction in the divine status (Yahweh, Servant, Spirit) and yet one most High God in Isaiah.
Also, the daughter of Babylon gets her butt kicked for saying, “I am, and none else beside me” (Isaiah 47:8, 10 – our current chapter of study this Wednesday night).
But Jesus smacks down every creature by saying he is the “I am” in John 8 (our current chapter of study for Sunday mornings).
“What if it is biblical facts colliding with your faith?”
I suppose you’d have to define “biblical facts.” I’m not really sure what you mean.
Runtu, to simply define what I mean:
Biblical facts: the revelation of God through His words and works as recorded in the Bible
Are the biblical facts the central rudder for your faith? And if they aren’t, what do you do when they are problematic to your faith system?
“Are the biblical facts the central rudder for your faith?”
Nope.
They’re pretty central, but not “the center.”
At the moment I don’t have a faith system, so I don’t exactly have a central rudder, either. The Bible makes certain supernatural and historical claims, but I’m not ready to call them facts at this point.
John emphasizes in some places the unity (I can’t on earth fathom how you can say it is his chief focus). However as we’ve noted, the unity is not the Trinity. The Trinity is a more complex metaphysical interpretation usually made by making inferences beyond the text. Those inferences are simply never clearly presented in the Bible. Folks can read them as a correct inference from the text. But that’s quite a different matter.
Most importantly though one can’t point to unity and then say, “here’s the Trinity” when there are many other ways to interpret the unity.
Todd,
You might find this post interesting.
Clark wrote The Trinity is a more complex metaphysical interpretation usually made by making inferences beyond the text. Those inferences are simply never clearly presented in the Bible. Folks can read them as a correct inference from the text. But that’s quite a different matter.
Nailed it Clark — thanks.
Todd doesn’t seem to understand that the one substance Trinity itself isn’t actually in the Bible but rather constitutes an inference outside the text. I have brought this up to him a dozen or more times on this blog but never get a straightforward answer but rather misdirection by some quote from John or Isaiah that simply doesn’t address the one substance Trinity.
The one substance theory of the Trinity is an extra-biblical extrapolation — there’s no way around that. It is certainly one way to reconcile the One God of the Old Testament with the appearance of three entities in the New Testament, but it is not the necessary and sufficient way. Other plausible solutions to the quandry exist — even if they weren’t favored by a committee of politician bishops several hundred years after the death of the last eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus Christ.
Yes, I did find that post interesting, Nick.