I see that the Trinity is this months topic. Can anyone suggest the best books (preferably in logos but not necessarily on discount) with 'arguments' that could be useful when dealing with persons who do not accept the conventional view of the Trinity?
i highly recommend this one
https://www.logos.com/product/52776/oneness-pentecostals-and-the-trinity
good preview of it here
JohnB:dealing with persons who do not accept the conventional view
I know you're carefully tippy-toeing, but make sure your review breaks out between the various Christian doctrines (typically 3rd century and thereafter, as Robert demos), vs earlier 2nd Temple concepts/wording best displayed in Enochian Judaism (the more technical contra to 'trinity').
"I didn't know God made honky tonk angels."
An excellent site which speaks about Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity:
http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/Oneness_pentecostalism.htm
In Christ,
Charles
2017 27" iMac 5K, Mojave, 10.5" iPad Pro, iPhone 7+, iPhone 8, iOS 12.0, Catalina beta, iPadOS Beta
Robert Neely: i highly recommend this one https://www.logos.com/product/52776/oneness-pentecostals-and-the-trinity good preview of it here
Boyd’s shoddy research into Oneness Pentecostals is a classic example of straw man attack—that has been thoroughly refuted point by point in this work: https://mikeblume.com/dryframe.htm
Please pardon the self reference, but, if you’re *SINCERELY* interested in allowing Oneness Pentecostals to speak for themselves you can view my blog that has an emphases on original languages and exegesis. While I certainly have a lot to learn still, I’ve been researching this issue for approx. 25 years now (I used to attend a Trinitarian church until honest research into the Scriptures forced me out if I were to remain faithful to God’s Word).
Link below:
https://apostolicacademics.com/
Charles: An excellent site which speaks about Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity: http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/Oneness_pentecostalism.htm In Christ, Charles
Since we’re posting links, in the spirit of equality for those wanting to hear both sides out (and since Admin. has allowed y’all to post anti-Oneness links), here’s an excellent site which speaks about the errors of the Trinity:
https://www.onenesspentecostal.com/
If interested, here’s a couple of congenial-scholarly debates on this topic w. a member of the CRI site (Robert Bowman)—who was also connected w. the link you posted above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGcE1U2ZH48
Here’s another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6LXshQf2i0
Much more available upon request.
Puddin’:Boyd’s shoddy research into Oneness Pentecostals is a classic example of straw man attack—that has been thoroughly refuted point by point in this work: https://mikeblume.com/dryframe.htm
A process theologian like Dr. Boyd trying to correct false views on the Trinity can't really go well...
My suggestion would be "The forgotten Trinity" by James White. https://www.logos.com/product/43398/the-forgotten-trinity
He works very closely with the Greek text, but explains everything so that non Greek speakers can understand.
Past IT Consultant. Past Mission Worker. Entrepreneur. Future Seminary Student.Why Amazon sucks: Full background story of my legal dispute with the online giant
Jan Krohn: Puddin’:Boyd’s shoddy research into Oneness Pentecostals is a classic example of straw man attack—that has been thoroughly refuted point by point in this work: https://mikeblume.com/dryframe.htm A process theologian like Dr. Boyd trying to correct false views on the Trinity can't really go well... My suggestion would be "The forgotten Trinity" by James White. https://www.logos.com/product/43398/the-forgotten-trinity He works very closely with the Greek text, but explains everything so that non Greek speakers can understand.
Actually, White has openly conceded that his “Trinity” consists of “3 divine individuals, each w. their own SEPARATE centers of eternal consciousness’s apart from the other 2 divine individuals” 😳—his own words.
Or, you can see my blog (and my debate w. White) wherein I offer a point by point rejoinder to White’s attacks (😊).
Again, please pardon the self reference (☹️): https://apostolicacademics.com/2016/03/02/response-to-dr-james-white/
Puddin’:but in all sincerity the link you posted demonstrates little more than the usual dodge-ball antics of Trinitarians
Come on Puddin' - you usually use your language more carefully. And you make it so tempting to up the language anty
BTW can someone explain to me the original post? Where is the topic "Trinity"?
Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
MJ. Smith: Puddin’:but in all sincerity the link you posted demonstrates little more than the usual dodge-ball antics of Trinitarians Come on Puddin' - you usually use your language more carefully. And you make it so tempting to up the language anty BTW can someone explain to me the original post? Where is the topic "Trinity"?
There you go - https://www.logos.com/topic-of-the-month
Keep well Paul
MJ. Smith:Come on Puddin' - you usually use your language more carefully. And you make it so tempting to up the language anty
Okay MJ—you’re right. I have edited my response. A little difficult to not return the fire when folks are posting inflammatory links like above. Sooo much more I want to say, but I have taken your advice (which I wouldn’t do from just anyone🤓).
Puddin’: A little difficult to not return the fire when folks are posting inflammatory links like above
Thank you. Believe me, I know what it is like to be in your position. But unlike forest fires where a back fire can help control the main fire, in the forums fire + fire can quickly become a raging inferno which harms everyone. Quiet facts are much more effective.
Paul:There you go - https://www.logos.com/topic-of-the-month
Thanks - I'd never seen that!!
Thanks for the comments and suggestions. Clearly I was not as carefully tip toeing as I thought I was. I apologise to anyone who felt marginalised by any comment on the thread. That is not what I would ever want. Any thoughts on the following? ie does the author put over his/her views in a clear manner that I can use to share with an interested lay person. https://www.logos.com/product/30811/making-sense-of-the-trinity-three-crucial-questions ?https://www.logos.com/product/30809/god-in-three-persons-a-contemporary-interpretation-of-the-trinityand any others on https://www.logos.com/topic-of-the-month
Quote... According to the church father Augustine anyone who denies the Trinity is in danger of losing her salvation, but anyone who tries to understand the Trinity is in danger of losing her mind. For "her" please read "their"!
JohnB:I see that the Trinity is this months topic. Can anyone suggest the best books (preferably in logos but not necessarily on discount) with 'arguments' that could be useful when dealing with persons who do not accept the conventional view of the Trinity?
Well, if St. Augustine's De Trinitate isn't your cup of tea, I highly recommend the Dominican theologian Gilles Emery's The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God, which is very readable and rather thorough, both historically aware and attentive to Scripture. It also sports a helpful glossary at the end; you will be interested in the entry on Modalism. Please do not be put off by the title (or author); the 'classical' Protestant understanding of the Trinity does not differ from Catholic doctrine on the Trinity. (As a historical matter, the Reformers inherited, as it were, their understanding of the Trinity from the Catholic Church.)
Exult, let them exult, the hosts of heaven...!
Catholic Products Forum - Suggest Books Here
MJ. Smith: Puddin’: A little difficult to not return the fire when folks are posting inflammatory links like above Thank you. Believe me, I know what it is like to be in your position. But unlike forest fires where a back fire can help control the main fire, in the forums fire + fire can quickly become a raging inferno which harms everyone. Quiet facts are much more effective.
Good analogy.
Also, there are several straw man attacks on this thread. Oneness Pentecostals are *NOT* “Modalists”—and I have never even heard anyone in Oneness use that derogatory term to explain what we believe. We openly and vehemently oppose ancient Modalism, which, as always, was defined by hostile witnesses such as Tertullian (whom, BTW, was an ontological subordinationist—and, comically, would be labeled a “heretic” by contemporary Trinitarians🤫).
But, even Tertullian stated in his Against Praxeas (which I have) that the Oneness Believers of his day “constitute the majority of believers😳).” Shall we talk about Ignatius who has been classified by J.N.D. Kelly, Virginia Corwin, etc. as a “Modalistic Monarchian”—as my blog linked above quotes.
To illustrate, how would Trinnies like it if we continually referred to them as Tritheists—when Trinitarians vehemently *SAY* otherwise (although...well, never mind🙄).
Might want to allow others to actually speak for themselves prior to attempting to define what we believe—on both sides of the debate.
Puddin’: Oneness Pentecostals are *NOT* “Modalists”—and I have never even heard anyone in Oneness use that derogatory term to explain what we believe.
It would have never occurred to me that someone would take "modalist" as negative; reminds me of when we had a forum user who did not know "papist" was a pejorative
Do you have a reference for the Tertullian quote? My attempt to find it via google have led to amusing not useful answers. I have found this:
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 598–599.
Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 598–599.
or
All simple people, not to say the unwise and unprofessional (who always constitute the majority of believers), since even the rule itself removes them from the plurality of “the gods” of this world to “the one true God,”* become greatly terrified through their failure to understand that,* while He must be believed to be one, it is along with His economy, because they judge that economy, implying a number and arrangement of trinity, is really a division of unity, whereas unity, deriving trinity from itself, is not destroyed by it, but made serviceable. W. J. Sparrow-Simpson and W. K. Lowther Clarke, eds., Tertullian: Against Praxeas, trans. Alexander Souter, Translations of Christian Literature: Series II: Latin Texts (London; New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Company, 1920), 31.
All simple people, not to say the unwise and unprofessional (who always constitute the majority of believers), since even the rule itself removes them from the plurality of “the gods” of this world to “the one true God,”* become greatly terrified through their failure to understand that,* while He must be believed to be one, it is along with His economy, because they judge that economy, implying a number and arrangement of trinity, is really a division of unity, whereas unity, deriving trinity from itself, is not destroyed by it, but made serviceable.
W. J. Sparrow-Simpson and W. K. Lowther Clarke, eds., Tertullian: Against Praxeas, trans. Alexander Souter, Translations of Christian Literature: Series II: Latin Texts (London; New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Company, 1920), 31.
but it doesn't quite say what you implied.
MJ. Smith: Puddin’: Oneness Pentecostals are *NOT* “Modalists”—and I have never even heard anyone in Oneness use that derogatory term to explain what we believe. It would have never occurred to me that someone would take "modalist" as negative; reminds me of when we had a forum user who did not know "papist" was a pejorative Do you have a reference for the Tertullian quote? My attempt to find it via google have led to amusing not useful answers. I have found this: The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 598–599. or All simple people, not to say the unwise and unprofessional (who always constitute the majority of believers), since even the rule itself removes them from the plurality of “the gods” of this world to “the one true God,”* become greatly terrified through their failure to understand that,* while He must be believed to be one, it is along with His economy, because they judge that economy, implying a number and arrangement of trinity, is really a division of unity, whereas unity, deriving trinity from itself, is not destroyed by it, but made serviceable. W. J. Sparrow-Simpson and W. K. Lowther Clarke, eds., Tertullian: Against Praxeas, trans. Alexander Souter, Translations of Christian Literature: Series II: Latin Texts (London; New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Company, 1920), 31. but it doesn't quite say what you implied.
That’s the quote (the first one is more accurate I think just off the top of my head). Tertullian was writing against an early “Modalist” named Praxeas, who some believe may have been Sabellius (I have not checked this out). The point is, if contemporary Oneness Pentecostals are the supposed equivalent of ancient modalism—then according to Tertullian writing in ca. AD 200—they were the “majority of believers.” Trinitarian apologists are not free to lump us in w. ancient Modalism...and then disregard or explain away the fact that they constituted the majority of believers (I have an entire word document rife w. direct quotes from early writers that speak to this end).
Just pointing out the inconsistent approach—not leveling this charge at you (I have always enjoyed your congenial, yet academic approach).
Puddin’:Tertullian (whom, BTW, was an ontological subordinationist—and, comically, would be labeled a “heretic” by contemporary Trinitarians🤫)
I don't believe all Trinitarians would think that.
Regardless of what group we're talking about, it seems to me that there exists a diversity, a range of beliefs. Members of a group don't think exactly the same, or believe exactly the same, or come to the same conclusions.
Puddin’:Might want to allow others to actually speak for themselves prior to attempting to define what we believe—on both sides of the debate.
Church, for me, was the inexpressible joy in the worship of God. I was happy when God was my focus.
The downside was the expectation that I should believe what the denomination believed. It made me wonder, has God's house become man's house?
Perhaps I am overly simplistic or overly idealistic, but it seems that there was a contentment in simply worshipping God, rather than disagreeing over what we should believe about God. Conflicts like that just took the focus off God, and made man more important than God.
We can be vain, or arrogant, or stubborn, or boastful, or proud, or selfish, etc., but God is not like us. He's perfect; upright. God's judgements are not wrong.
I think we all can get caught up with thinking and saying what seems right to us, but isn't necessarily good or acceptable or pleasing in God's sight. If there are two sides of the debate, perhaps they're not Trinitarian vs. Oneness. Perhaps they're God's ways vs. man's ways?
My top three Logos 9 Wishlist items: Carta, Dark mode, and Hebrew audio bible, please.
Puddin’: and then disregard or explain away the fact that they constituted the majority of believers (I have an entire word document rife w. direct quotes from early writers that speak to this end). Just pointing out the inconsistent approach—
and then disregard or explain away the fact that they constituted the majority of believers (I have an entire word document rife w. direct quotes from early writers that speak to this end).
Just pointing out the inconsistent approach—
Ah ... I see we put things in a very different frame of reference - because I define "church" primarily as "those who worship together" (a gross over-simplification), I see Tertullian as saying that the majority of the assembly stumble over the concept of the Trinity despite proclaiming it in the creed (rule of faith). Whereas you appear to be more concerned with the beliefs themselves even though they are contrary to what the church members profess. If that is a reasonably fair description of your perspective, it is easy to guess how far back in our presuppositions we would have to go to correctly understand each other's position. A useful tidbit to stick in memory as you represent a tradition I know little about.