A great many trinitarians dislike the commentary / notes in NET, and also criticize the translation. Do you know why that is? (If I remember correctly, the Berean Patriot wasn’t impressed with the NET. I am.)
Unitarianism vs Trinitarianism
- Thread starter RLT63
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
A great many trinitarians dislike the commentary / notes in NET, and also criticize the translation. Do you know why that is? (If I remember correctly, the Berean Patriot wasn’t impressed with the NET. I am.)
I never memorized a sermon before delivering it; just the two or three main points I intended to expound on - and often I didn’t get to them all because of the style of preaching I used. Dialogue Preaching encourages the audience to interrupt the preacher with their questions and comments.
So far I've found that it supports the deity of Christ. It sides with other modern versions on omitting some verses but gives detailed notes on what was omitted and why. The Berean Patriot has a test scripture and the notes in the NET give both sides of the argument.
1Co 7:36
¶
But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry
1Co 7:37
But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well
1Co 7:38
So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.
This is about a father choosing whether or not to let his daughter marry. Paul was talking about how the married person is concerned about pleasing their spouse in verse 34 he said,
There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband.
So this verse is about a father letting his daughter get married or not.
What does the NIV say?
1Co 7:36
If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.
1Co 7:37
But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing.
1Co 7:38
So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.
The NIV has notes on this section as well
The NET is disliked by it’s critics, especially critics of the notes, because it gives a balanced approach which is often considered weak on the issue of the deity of Christ’s person.
Either yesterday or today - days blend together when you’re retired - I referred readers to the NET commentary on Genesis 1:26. Almost universally, the average trinitarian rejects it.
You might also recall that I use NET commentary and rendering on Psalm 110:1. Another passage which NET critics and the average trinitarian rejects.
Tertullian. A trinitarian?
”Hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for [Tertullian] does not apply the words [which were later applied to Trinitarianism] to Trinitarian theology.”
(Michael O’Carrol, Trinitas: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, p. 208)
A dilemma for the reader who hasn’t read Tertullian for himself or herself. Which trinitarian source writing about Tertullian and the Trinity is correct?
“Tertullian defended the Trinity” or “Tertullian did not apply the words to Trinitarian theology”?
“There was a time when the Son did not exist” - Tertullian (and Arius).
How many defenders of the Trinity has the reader heard say that in their defense of the Trinity?
”Hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for [Tertullian] does not apply the words [which were later applied to Trinitarianism] to Trinitarian theology.”
(Michael O’Carrol, Trinitas: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, p. 208)
A dilemma for the reader who hasn’t read Tertullian for himself or herself. Which trinitarian source writing about Tertullian and the Trinity is correct?
“Tertullian defended the Trinity” or “Tertullian did not apply the words to Trinitarian theology”?
“There was a time when the Son did not exist” - Tertullian (and Arius).
How many defenders of the Trinity has the reader heard say that in their defense of the Trinity?
So far I'm very impressed with the notes in the NET. That's what I bought it for. My only complaint is the print. I have to use a magnifying glass. The online version is great too
Does anyone in the history of the Church defend the Trinity?
Absolutely.
Where do we first come across them?
In the 4th century.
Readers should prove it for themselves. Easily done, by reading the early Church Fathers.
Absolutely.
Where do we first come across them?
In the 4th century.
Readers should prove it for themselves. Easily done, by reading the early Church Fathers.
Since no one is defending the Trinity until the 4th century, should we believe in the Trinity?
[That’s a far more complex question to answer than was Tertullian a trinitarian.]
Trinitarians. Yes.
Non-trinitarians. No.
But why?
[That’s a far more complex question to answer than was Tertullian a trinitarian.]
Trinitarians. Yes.
Non-trinitarians. No.
But why?
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Yes. Genesis 1:4 God looked at the light and saw that it was good. He separated light from darkness. (singular, emphasis added)
You're welcome. It's not psychology but epistemology, specifically, axiomatic analysis.
“The New Testament gives no inkling of the teaching of Chalcedon. That council not only reformulated in other language the New Testament data about Jesus’ constitution, but also reconceptualized it in the light of the current Greek philosophical thinking. And that reconceptualization and reformulation go well beyond the New Testament data.”
(Joseph Fitzmeyer, A Christological Catechism, p. 102)
Is there any problem with going “well beyond the New Testament data”? Not in trinitarianism.
(Joseph Fitzmeyer, A Christological Catechism, p. 102)
Is there any problem with going “well beyond the New Testament data”? Not in trinitarianism.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Well, 2+2=4 is also an opinion, but it is an objective opinion. Opinions Aren't Facts: Math Doesn't Care What you Think
The Trinity is Christianity’s most unique, defining, incomprehensible, and awesome mystery. It is the revelation of who our Almighty Creator actually is—not just a god, but an infinite Being existing in eternity as three co-equal, infinite Persons, consubstantial yet distinct. The origin of the doctrine of the Trinity is the Bible, although the word Trinity is not used in the Bible.
As all orthodox Christians agree, the doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one essence but three Persons; God has one nature, but three centers of consciousness; God is only one What, but three Whos. Some unbelievers mistakenly call this a contradiction. Rather, the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery revealed by God in His Word. A contradiction would be to claim that God has only one nature but also three natures, or that He is only one Person but also three Persons.
From the very beginning of the church, Christians have understood the mystery of the Trinity, even before they began using the term Trinity.
For example, the first Christians knew the Son was the Creator (John 1:1–2), the “I Am” of the Old Testament (Exodus 3:14; John 8:58), equal to the Father (John 14:9), and the Judge of all the earth (Genesis 18:25; John 5:22), who is to be worshiped as only God is allowed to be (Deuteronomy 6:13; Luke 4:8; Matthew 14:33).
The first Christians knew the Holy Spirit was a separate Person with His own thoughts and will (John 16:13), who intercedes for us with God (Romans 8:27), proving He is a distinct Person from God the Father—since intercession requires at least two parties (no one intercedes with himself). Furthermore, a human can be forgiven for blaspheming God the Son, but not for blaspheming God the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:32).
New Testament writers mention all three Persons of the Trinity together numerous times (e.g., Romans 1:4; 15:30; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 1:13–14; 1 Thessalonians 1:3–6). The early believers knew that the Father and the Son sent the third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit—“another counselor”—to live in our hearts (John 14:16–17, 26; 16:7). These mysteries were accepted fully by the early church as revealed truth, yet without the label of “the Holy Trinity.”
The Old Testament gave glimpses of the Trinity, and no passage of Scripture contradicts the doctrine. For example, in Genesis 1:26 God says in the plural, “Let us make mankind in our image.” God declares that He was completely alone when He created everything, stretching out the heavens and spreading out the earth “by myself” (Isaiah 44:24). Yet Jesus was the instrument of God’s creation (John 1:1–3; Colossians 1:16), in the company of the Holy Spirit who was hovering over the primordial waters (Genesis 1:2). Only the doctrine of the Trinity can explain it all.
The Torah hinted at the idea of God existing in multiple Persons and predicted His coming in the flesh. The Old Testament is filled with references to a coming world ruler (Genesis 49:10) to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), who was not only God’s Son (Isaiah 9:6) but a Messiah who would be God in the flesh (Isaiah 7:14; Zechariah 2:8–11). But the Jews were looking for—and, under Roman occupation, desperately hoping for—a triumphant, conquering Messiah, not a lowly, suffering Servant (Isaiah 53). Israel failed to recognize the Son of God due to His ordinariness (Isaiah 53:2; Matthew 13:54–58; John 10:33), and they killed Him (Zechariah 12:10; Acts 2:36).
In the years after the death of the last apostle, John, there were many attempts by Christian theologians to define and explain God to the church. Explanations of spiritual reality to earthly beings will always fall short; some teachers’ explanations were a bit off, while others sank into heresy. The errors put forward in post-apostolic times ranged from Jesus being all God and only appearing to be human (Docetism), to His being created rather than eternal (Adoptionism, Arianism, and others), to there being three separate gods in the same family (Tritheism), to the one God playing three different roles at different times (Modalism, Monarchianism).
As no religion can exist without knowing who or what its followers worship, there was a great need to define God in a way that all followers of Christianity would agree upon as “official” or orthodox doctrine. And, if Jesus were not God, all Christians were heretics for worshiping a created being.
It seems that the church father Tertullian (AD 160–225) was the first to apply the term Trinity to God. Tertullian uses the term in Against Praxeus, written in 213 to explain and defend the Trinity against the teaching of his contemporary Praxeus, who espoused the Monarchian heresy. From there, we can jump forward over a century of church discussion, schisms, and debate to the Council of Nicea in 325, when the Trinity was finally confirmed as official church doctrine.
A final observation. Theology is the attempt by flawed humans to understand the words of the Bible, just as science is the attempt by flawed humans to understand the facts of nature. All the facts of nature are true, just as all the original words of the Bible are true. But humans are limited and make lots of mistakes, as history continually shows. So, where there is error or disagreement in science or theology, both disciplines have methods of correction. The history of the early church reveals that many sincere Christian believers “got it wrong” when it came to defining God’s nature (a great lesson on the need for humility). But, through a careful study of God’s Word, the church was finally able to articulate what the Bible clearly teaches and what they knew to be true—God exists as an eternal Trinity.
What is the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity? | GotQuestions.org
What is the origin of the doctrine of the Trinity? Did the early church believe in the Trinity? Does the doctrine of the Trinity come from the Bible?www.gotquestions.org
“At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian … It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the New Testament and other early Christian writings.”
(Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, editor James Hastings, Vol 12, p. 461)
Which trinitarian source is correct? Is it yours? Is it mine?
Can we know? Yes, we can know.
How can we know? By reading the early Christian writings.
There are people who studied the history and concluded that the Trinity is the correct way to describe God and others who concluded it was not
Why would a trinitarian who studied the history conclude that the Trinity was not the way God is described in those early centuries?
Remember, all trinitarians conclude that the Trinity is the right way to describe God. (They wouldn’t be trinitarians if they didn’t.)
I know the saying about those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.
I see it this way even though history is my favorite subject shouldn't we rather be saying " let's see what God says about this"?
The Word states there is nothing new under the sun and we have seen ancient things, crude as they are that represent something in our own times.
We ought instead have this testimony....." he/ she PLEASED God". What we do and say will be what we stand on before God not whether the ancients believed this or that or when it became a doctrine.
I see it this way even though history is my favorite subject shouldn't we rather be saying " let's see what God says about this"?
The Word states there is nothing new under the sun and we have seen ancient things, crude as they are that represent something in our own times.
We ought instead have this testimony....." he/ she PLEASED God". What we do and say will be what we stand on before God not whether the ancients believed this or that or when it became a doctrine.
That’s right. Which of the trinitarians I quoted ”aren’t trinitarians anymore”?
If we’re going to insist that Tertullian is a trinitarian then we must also insist that trinitarianism teaches that there was a time when the Son did not exist.
I’m not prepared to do that. Are you?
A trinitarian who studies the history and concludes that the Trinity was not the way God is described in those early centuries does so because the writings of those early centuries which the trinitarian studied do not describe God as trinitarianism describes God.
Should then a trinitarian who has studied the history - and concluded from his or her reading of the writings of the earliest Christians that they weren’t describing God as the trinitarian describes God - cease being trinitarian?
I did. Church history was a major factor in my decision, but not the only factor.
Many have. Most haven’t.
For those who haven’t, why haven’t they?
- Status
Similar threads
