Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Just one small correction for Carl Trueman

No Co Ever: Episode 1 from No Compromise Radio on Vimeo.

This was a very good video discussion, regarding the problems with modern Evangelicalism and "The Elephant Room 2" and compromises with T. D. Jakes and his modalism and anti-Trinitarian doctrines and his word of faith/prosperity theology, two very dangerous heresies.  And, as Phil Johnson says, "damnable heresies".

I agree with everything these gentleman said on the issues of doctrine and the problems with the Elephant Room 2

. . . except for one small side comment that Carl Trueman made that I think is important for Christians to understand.

The one small comment was one that Carl Trueman made and I am very surprised that he said it.   I really appreciate Carl Trueman, and I enjoy his blog at Reformation 21; and I tried to find his email at the Westminster Seminary Website, but I could not.  I respect him greatly, and his work in church history and historical theology is very important.  So nothing personal is meant here, and I know he is very mature and will take this for the merit of the issue.

When talking about the Christians at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, Professor Trueman said they were Turks.  [around the 31 minute mark] Professor Trueman was right that the men at the Council of Nicea were not "white men", but they were not Turkish either.  They were Greeks and Egyptians and Syrians (The Syrians before the Arabs conquered them in the 600s AD.)  That is an amazing mistake by a church history professor, in my opinion.  They were mostly Greeks, Syrians, 2 Latins from Rome, and Egyptians (Athanasius, for one) and others from around the Roman Empire.  The Turks did not live in what is today called Turkey at the time of the Council of Nicea.   The Turks (Seljuk and Ottomans) did not come to that land until before the Crusades (1071 AD) and they did not completely conquer the area known as Anatolia and Constantinople until 1453 AD.  No Turks lived in these areas in the New Testament days nor in early church history until the 900s AD!  It is possible that there were some Turkic peoples there from the time of Attila the Hun in the 400s, but not that many, and not any in 325 AD.

It is amazing to me that people don't take the time to study what happened to the Greeks and the Byzantine Empire.  The Arabs first attacked after they conquered Syria/Palestine and Persia and N. Africa.  (632-722 AD)  They tried to take Constantinople in the 600s and 700s but failed.

The Arab Muslims converted the Persians by force (Jihad, Qatal, Harb)  from the 630s into the 900s.  Jihad جهاد  (struggle/effort/striving) and Qatal قتل (the word for "slay" or "fight" = "fighting to the death" in battle - Surah 9:5, 9:29) and Harb حرب (War) are integral aspects of Islam from the time Muhammad conquered Medina in 622 AD.

Then the Arab Muslims converted the Turkic peoples of Central Asia, starting in the 600s, and by the 900s AD, the animist Turks had become Muslim.  (Today these areas are called Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kirghestan, etc.  Tajikistan is mostly a Persian speaking area - ethnically the Tajiks and southern areas of Uzbekistan are Tajik-Persian (Bukhara and Samarqand) ethnically and were part of the old Persian Empire.  The Arab Muslims also converted the Kurds to Islam by force.  Saladin ("Salah e din" = صلاح دین = "genuine religion"), the famous Muslim leader against the Crusaders, was Kurdish.  Today the Kurds are spread throughout western Iran, Northern Iraq, Eastern Turkey, and the top corner of Syria.

The Seljuk Turks were hired as the palace guards and military force for the Arabs in Baghdad.  The Turkic peoples became the dominant fighting force.  the Seljuk Turks attacked the Greek Byzantine Empire in 1071 AD at the Battle of Manzikurt near Van in the east (was part of Armenia).  The Byzantines were defeated by the Seljuk Turks.

This caused the emperor in Constantinople to call for help from the Pope in France.  The Crusades were launched.  (1095-1299)

After the Crusades, the Ottoman Turks became the dominant Turkish people and eventually conquered all of Anatolia and then Constantinople fell in 1453 and it was renamed Istanbul.

So, today, the area known as Nicea (The Turks call it Iznik today, and it is about one hour outside of Istanbul), where the Council of Nicea was held in 325 AD is in the same area as the country of Turkey; but at the time of Nicea there were no Turks there.

The Turks never heard the gospel.  The Crusades are still major stumbling block to Muslims, especially the Turks.  The Crusades were somewhat understandable in the sense of a "just war" and self-defense, but the horrible mistakes, and the slaughter of the Greek Eastern Orthodox by the Latin Crusaders is a major scandal and shame, as was the Crusading against Jews along the way to the "holy land".   Today the Turks are still 99 % Muslim and there is some outreach to them, but not much.  The Arab Muslims have not been evangelized much either in history.  The Persians were not much either.  The ancient Persian church before Islam was mostly the ethnic Assyrians in Mesopotamia (today's Iraq); not the ethnic Persians farther east.  Henry Martyn translated the first complete copy of the Persian NT in the 1800s.  He died in 1812.

Let us reach out with the gospel to Muslims.

Why make such a big deal about a minor comment not related to the main topic?

The reason why this so important to get right is that the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19; Luke 24:46-47) is to peoples, nations, ethnic people groups, not "countries" or "political boundaries".  The Greek word for "nation" is ethna (εθνη) and carries with it the idea of a cultural-ethnic people group that is unified by language and culture.  So even though the land of Turkey (and Egypt and N. Africa and Syria and Mesopotamia) had the gospel in earlier centuries, it was snuffed out by Islam in most of these areas, and eclipsed in places where there is some small evangelical witness left.

This is important because God is saving people from all the nations, peoples, tribes, and tongues, as the gospel goes out.  (see Revelation 5:9 and 7:9)   Some "nations" are spread over several political boundaries (countries) and some peoples/nations are within political boundaries and don't have their own country.  A classic example of this is the Kurdish people, who have never had their own political country and are spread over 4 countries.  (Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria)

The OT background of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19 and Luke 24:46-47 is in Genesis 12:1-3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; Psalm 2:8, 67:1-7, 96:3-6, 87:4-6, Isaiah 49:6 and many other passages that use the word "families" (Mishpakha = משפחה ) and "nations" = "goyeem" גוימ and peoples  עמימ  ("ameem") .

A good book that explains the Biblical idea of nations and peoples is John Piper's Let the Nations Be Glad! (Baker) and the articles by Ralph Winter and John R. W. Stott and others in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement.    The Perspectives book is, overall, a good missions book, but there are some articles in it that I would disagree with, just in case any one wonders.

Addendum: (August 31, 2012)
I want to apologize if it seems I was being too nit-picky on Professor Trueman's statement.  I think if someone reads the whole thing that I wrote above, they can see why I wrote what I wrote, and that it was not meant as a "potshot", but an honest pointing out of the importance of understanding that aspect of church history in relation to missions and the spreading of the gospel among unreached people groups.  A big problem is that missions people are weak in theology and historical theology and church history; but also sometimes theologians are weak in missions.  I noticed that in seminary also, they have their separate disciplines and yet there is a great need for more inter-connectedness of these disciplines because they all come together in the challenge of Islam in today's world.  Islam is what should cause us who believe the Bible to also understand it and evangelize Muslims and also integrate it with church history and historical theology. (and politics, culture, just-war theory, etc.)   The challenge of Islam will force us to deal with the implications of it to all of these areas of study and knowledge.

Someone (D. Waltz) pointed out an article that Professor Trueman wrote, in which he was a little more accurate on the situation:

"Still, let us go back to the fourth century and see how the `middle aged white guy' critique measures up.  Well, at the Council of Nicea in 325, many of the participants were no doubt middle aged -- which Paul in the Pastorals would actually seem to think is quite a good thing in a church leader.  But white?    I suspect they were ethnically more akin to modern day Turks or south eastern Europeans, not that racial categories really meant anything then.  The key category in the fourth century was that of Roman citizenship, not skin color."

The modern Turks are a mixture of many peoples.  But they originally came from Central Asia, and they were not at Nicea in 325 AD and they were not in those lands in NT days that is now called "Turkey"; and they were never reached with the gospel in history; as I pointed out earlier.  They did Islamic wars/Jihads/killing against the Byzantine and Armenian men, and probably took many of the women as wives from the original people groups that lived there.  So, there is probably some Greek, Syrian, Arab, Galatian, Armenian, and other ethnicities within the modern day Turks who live in Turkey.  Today, Turkey is officially 99 % Muslim and very unreached with the gospel.  


45 comments:

Rhology said...

The Perspectives book is, overall, a good missions book, but there are some articles in it that I would disagree with, just in case any one wonders.

Yes, as I recall, a friend of mine who's now doing PhD studies for a theology degree once told me that the Perspectives book hosts an article that claimed the Reformers didn't really engage in much mission work. He was quite peeved with that claim.

Ken said...

Those that say that the Reformers didn't engage in much mission work forget that the Roman Catholics needed the gospel in Biblical evangelism all over again - people who make that statement don't include the Roman Catholics, because they are considering them "Christian" in culture, etc. (Christendom, a general cultural understanding of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, etc.)

That is probably why it "peeved" your friend - because they didn't think preaching the gospel to RCs was "missions" - right?

That is a common statement, (one of the missions profs I had in seminary said that also)

What they mean is that they did not engage much in foreign missions/pioneer missionary work to new areas/peoples/nations.

But one could argue that Wycliff (before the Reformation) and Tyndale and getting the Bible into English was a foreign mission effort.

The RC Jesuits were ahead of them in that area - the Jesuits were the main "missionaries" in the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries. They went to China, Japan, India, and Latin America. (The Movie, "The Mission" illustrated some of their efforts in Latin America.)

Protestant foreign missions did not really get going until William Carey in 1792. (There was some before then - to the American Indians - Brainard, Elliot, and the Moravians)

The Reformers were more busy in establishing sound doctrine and teaching and pastoring and running for their lives in Europe.

I was taught that Luther seems to have thought that Matthew 28:19 was only for the apostles, but James Swan may have some more accurate research on that.

Calvin and his training school sent out John Knox back to Scotland, and the French Hugenots to France and then to Latin American countries later. So, that commonly held statement by "missions" people is not exactly accurate.

Kelly said...

In context, I think that was just a throw-away comment from Dr. Trueman, a silly statement piggy-backing off the idea that concern for Trinitarianism is a "white," "middle-aged" concern.

I don't think he was doing church history there, just poking fun at the zeitgeist.

My two cents.

Ken said...

Kelly,
Thanks for the comment; and you are probably right.

However, 3 issues make it important to point out that "throw away" off the cuff statement:
1. The Turks have never really been reached with the gospel, and we need to educate people on that. The Bible lands were not Turkish in NT days - the areas of Ephesus, Galatia, Cappadocia - are in Turkey today, but in NT days, no Turks were there.

2. The great commission is to ethna (ethno-linguistic people groups), not countries or political boundaries.

3. The need to challenge the church on evangelism to Muslims and missions and language learning - Turks, Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis, Kurds, Indonesians, Maylays, Turkomen, Balouch, Kazakh, etc.


Ken said...

and Africans and Americans and Europeans who have turned from their Christian background and become Muslims.

Reformed Apologist said...

I trust you're right. Good catch. :)

Ken said...

Thanks Reformed Apologist!

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

IMO, there other, probably more important, "corrections" that need to be pointed out from the video presentation (LINK).


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

David Waltz wrote:
Apart from some particulars concerning the ethnic and geographical background of some of the bishops that attended "the Council of Nicea in 325 AD", Ken has been pretty accurate in his above assessment, though he appears to be unaware of some background information that seems to qualify Carl's remark in the video (see THIS LINK for Carl's article, "Gnosticism, Nicea and Celebrity").

Thanks for positive confirmation on the accuracy; and you are right in that I was not aware of Carl Trueman’s article that appears to be more accurate.

My big burden for that was the missionary aspect of it, and that they Turks and other groups that are now Muslims have never been reached much with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

1. The Turks have never really been reached with the gospel, and we need to educate people on that. The Bible lands were not Turkish in NT days - the areas of Ephesus, Galatia, Cappadocia - are in Turkey today, but in NT days, no Turks were there.



2. The great commission is to ethna (ethno-linguistic people groups), not countries or political boundaries.



3. The need to challenge the church on evangelism to Muslims and missions and language learning - Turks, Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis, Kurds, Indonesians, Maylays, Turkomen, Balouch, Kazakh, etc.


Ken said...

David Waltz wrote, quoting Dr. White:

In the early Church, as was mentioned before, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios is, is a HUGE gap, but it is only one letter...

In my opinion, you are over-reacting to this, when you consider the rest of Dr. White was saying. You should let the quote go on farther to get more of the context. He was emphasizing that people were talking about these issues and they were important in those days in history (“the lay people were talking about it in the streets”), but in today’s Evangelicalism, doctrine is not treated as important, as evidenced by the way Mark Driscoll, James McDonald, and Bryan Lorittz failed to grasp the importance of challenging T. D. Jake’s modalism and their utter failure to confront him on the prosperity gospel. The concept of a “huge gap” in doctrine (substance of the issue), but small in form (one letter) is subjective . What you seem to be saying is that when compared with Arianism, it seems small, not “huge” (in seeing the quote you provide from Athanasius) but, by itself, it may be a huge doctrinal dividing line. Hopefully Dr. White will make comments on this. Dr. White is well aware of the Eusebian party as I recall, because I remember he mentioned that in his article on the Council of Nicea.

http://www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea/

Here is an excerpt from Dr. White’s article that seems to correct the claims you have made.


“The middle group, led by Eusebius of Caesarea (and hence often called the “Eusebian” party), distrusted the term homoousios, primarily because it had been used in the previous century by the modalistic8 heretic Sabellius and others who wished to teach the error that the Father and the Son were one person. This middle group agreed with the orthodox party that Jesus was fully God, but they were concerned that the term homoousios could be misunderstood to support the false idea that the Father and Son are one person. The middle group therefore presented the idea that the Son was of a similar substance (Greek: homoiousios) as the Father. By this means they hoped to avoid both the error of Arius as well as the perceived danger of Sabellianism found in the term homoousios.”

Here, Dr. White asserts that Sabellius and others wished to teach the error that the Father and the Son were one person.

Ken said...

David Waltz wrote:
James White does not know what he is talking about here, Oneness Pentecostals DO NOT teach, "that Jesus was literally two persons".

I think you should let the quote go farther in order to understand what he is trying to say. Again, Dr. White hopefully will see your comments and choose to respond to you.

How could he debate Robert Sabin and not understand the Oneness Pentecostals?

See http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL48EE3B15EF57D8A4

Ken said...

David Waltz wrote:

Sabellius DID NOT teach any of the "different forms of dynamic monarchianism, and things like that in ancient Church history"; fact is, Sabellius was a modalist monarchian. (FYI: Oneness Pentecostals ARE NOT dynamic monarchians, they are modalistic monarchies).

I think Dr. White knows that. He debated one of their primary theologians/spokespersons, Robert Sabin. The modalistic monarchianism, the way the sentence was structured, could be included in the phrase “and things like that in ancient Church history” – he is being brief and giving a summary. His main point is that Sabellius was a modalist and the Oneness Pentecostals today are modalists and they are heretics and T. D. Jakes was given a pass on that issue; but in the early church they cared about doctrine and theology.
How could he debate Robert Sabin and not understand the Oneness Pentecostals? See http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL48EE3B15EF57D8A4


Turretinfan said...

Re: "James White does not know what he is talking about here, Oneness Pentecostals DO NOT teach, "that Jesus was literally two persons"."

What an epic blunder on the critic's part. He seems to misunderstand Dr. White as though Dr. White were saying that OP's tell people, "We believe that Jesus was two persons."

The critic should read Dr. White's book, "The Forgotten Trinity," to see Dr. White's familiarity with various trinitarian errors.

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Thanks much for responding; you wrote:

==I think Dr. White knows that. He debated one of their primary theologians/spokespersons, Robert Sabin. The modalistic monarchianism, the way the sentence was structured, could be included in the phrase “and things like that in ancient Church history” – he is being brief and giving a summary.==

Me: The issue at hand is not what "Dr." White may know, but rather, what he actually said in the video, wherein he lumps Sabellianism with dynamic monarchianism, "and things like that." Dynamic monarchianism IS NOT "like" Sabellianism/modalistic monarchianism—not even close. The only way to harmonize the gaff would be to broaden the definition of "like" to the extent that it becomes virtually meaningless; it would be "like" saying that the God of the Reformed confessions is "like" the God of Mormonism because both affirm that the Godhead has 3 persons...

==His main point is that Sabellius was a modalist and the Oneness Pentecostals today are modalists and they are heretics and T. D. Jakes was given a pass on that issue; but in the early church they cared about doctrine and theology.
How could he debate Robert Sabin and not understand the Oneness Pentecostals? See
==

Me: I am sure that was the point he was attempting to convey; but, the attempt contained significant blunders that misrepresented the actual theology of the Oneness Pentecostals and Sabellius.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

== What an epic blunder on the critic's part. He seems to misunderstand Dr. White as though Dr. White were saying that OP's tell people, "We believe that Jesus was two persons."==

James White: "but leaving that to, to, uhh, to the side, Oneness Pentecostals, Jesus only Pentecostals, uhh, teach that Jesus was literally two persons"

My-oh-my...

Ken said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken said...

David Waltz wrote:
Me: I am sure that was the point he was attempting to convey; . . .

Thank you. Then you recognize he knows the details and has debated and written on this before, and was just in a rush during the video, lumping a lot of stuff together, "things like that" - could include all types of Monarchianism, both dynamic and modalistic - you are demanding him having to explain all that, when the main point was showing that the early church condemned all of those things, even before Arianism at the Council of Nicea in 325. The point was that it is sad and a shame that church leaders today do not care about doctrine or church history enough to stand against heretics like T. D. Jakes and call him to repentance.

Ken said...

the automatic spell check changed "modalistic" to "moralistic" and other typo mistakes is why I deleted my earlier comment.

Lockheed said...

Seems that Waltz and his commenters are only out for White's blood. The comments on his various pages (where he seems intent to ignore the actual content of what James said in order to put words in his mouth) seem only to be from a bunch of folks who don't like James White. I don't get it, why accurately quote the guy in one paragraph and then use a quote from the Forgotten Trinity as if he said it in the video?

Ken said...

David,
Dr. White answered all your nick-picky points on the Dividing Line yesterday. I am sure you are probably aware of that.

You are smart, very widely and deeply read, and you have a massive library, (and I learn a lot of church history and historical theology by asking you questions) –

But,

Dr. White doesn’t have time to read all your articles at your blog and has accurately labeled you as an unstable person - Ephesians 4:14 type of person – you are blown about by every wind of doctrine, since your history has taken you from Jehovah’s Witnesses to Orthodox Presbyterian to Roman Catholicism and now have rejected the RCC as the true church and you seem to be in some mysterious no-man’s land (no stable church life) of somewhere back in how you judge the church before the council of Nicea (between the homo-ousians, homoi-ousians and homoions and Arians) you are open to Bahai’ism.

I thought you also went to a Dispensational Bible church (or Plymouth Brethren) for a while also? I had asked you that before, but, it seems you never answered that question. You doubted John Henry Newman and the RCC for a while when you had articles by John Nelson Darby and his critique of Newman.


That you still entertain that Bahai’ism might be a future revelation to the NT and it might be the fulfillment of the second coming of Christ, is, quite frankly, disturbing and so weird that is it hard to take you seriously. Someone who claims to be somekind of a Christian, and yet also be open to all that, is just really, really weird.

This openness to Bahai’ism as future revelation to the NT also means that you think Islam was true revelation in between the NT and Bahai’ism; and Bahai’sm sees Buddhism and Zoroastrianism as legitimate revelations for those periods and peoples also.

You also have seemed to have a positive affinity for Mormonism in your articles and musings, etc.; and seemed to defend Mormonism by quoting some statements that Irenaeus made; and you also think that the original NT had the tetragrammaton ( YHWH – יהוה or Yahveh instead of “kurios” (κυριος). This seems to add to what others looking in can only evaluate as the a kind of Twilight Zone in your mind of how you entertain all things but never settle on what you believe the ultimate truth is.

For anyone interested, below is where David Waltz himself gives his history of the different churches he has been through:

In the comboxes of this post on Eusebius of Caesarea:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/08/eusebius-of-caesarea-catholic-bishop_30.html


David Waltz wrote:
“Me: I was born into the JW's (4th generation), left them in 1983 (and have NEVER returned as you suggested), and entered the OPC via baptism on March 25, 1984. Then on March 30, 2002, I entered the RCC via confirmation and first communion. Finally, I ceased attending the RCC and mass at the beginning of 2010 due to critical issues I elaborated on here at AF.” [AF is his blog = “Aticuli Fidei” ]

Rhology said...

That you still entertain that Bahai’ism might be a future revelation to the NT and it might be the fulfillment of the second coming of Christ, is, quite frankly, disturbing and so weird that is it hard to take you seriously.

It's not hard for me. It's impossible.

Ken said...

[AF is his blog = “Aticuli Fidei” ]

should have been

Articuli Fidei

Ken said...

I have also written an addendum to the article above.

David Waltz said...

Earlier today, you posted:

==David,
Dr. White answered all your nick-picky points on the Dividing Line yesterday. I am sure you are probably aware of that.==

Me: No, I was not aware of that. Thanks for the heads-up. Well check it out later today after I finish this comment, and pressure wash my decks.

==You are smart, very widely and deeply read, and you have a massive library, (and I learn a lot of church history and historical theology by asking you questions) –==

Me: Thanks Ken; but, "smart" is a very subjective term; as such, personally speaking, I would not describe myself as "smart".

==But,

Dr. White doesn’t have time to read all your articles at your blog and has accurately labeled you as an unstable person - Ephesians 4:14 type of person – you are blown about by every wind of doctrine, since your history has taken you from Jehovah’s Witnesses to Orthodox Presbyterian to Roman Catholicism and now have rejected the RCC as the true church and you seem to be in some mysterious no-man’s land (no stable church life) of somewhere back in how you judge the church before the council of Nicea (between the homo-ousians, homoi-ousians and homoions and Arians) you are open to Bahai’ism.==

Me: Sigh...guess you think I should have remained a JW...WOW (BTW, guess James is "unstable" because he split from the SBC [wink]).

==I thought you also went to a Dispensational Bible church (or Plymouth Brethren) for a while also? I had asked you that before, but, it seems you never answered that question. You doubted John Henry Newman and the RCC for a while when you had articles by John Nelson Darby and his critique of Newman.==

Me: Never attended a PB church in my entire life.

==That you still entertain that Bahai’ism might be a future revelation to the NT and it might be the fulfillment of the second coming of Christ, is, quite frankly, disturbing and so weird that is it hard to take you seriously. Someone who claims to be somekind of a Christian, and yet also be open to all that, is just really, really weird.==

Me: To say something is 'possible' is a far cry from accepting it as so. I am not Bahai.

==This openness to Bahai’ism as future revelation to the NT also means that you think Islam was true revelation in between the NT and Bahai’ism; and Bahai’sm sees Buddhism and Zoroastrianism as legitimate revelations for those periods and peoples also.==

Me: And this relates to modalistic monarchianism in what sense ???

==For anyone interested, below is where David Waltz himself gives his history of the different churches he has been through:

In the comboxes of this post on Eusebius of Caesarea:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/08/eusebius-of-caesarea-catholic-bishop_30.html

David Waltz wrote:
“Me: I was born into the JW's (4th generation), left them in 1983 (and have NEVER returned as you suggested), and entered the OPC via baptism on March 25, 1984. Then on March 30, 2002, I entered the RCC via confirmation and first communion. Finally, I ceased attending the RCC and mass at the beginning of 2010 due to critical issues I elaborated on here at AF.” [AF is his blog = “Aticuli Fidei” ]==

Me: You forgot to mention the core doctrines that I have held to my entire adult life, and have NEVER waivered or changed (I have given you the list at least twice here at BA).

Further, your forgot to mention that subscribe to both the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian definition.

Anyway, off to pressure wash my decks; will check the DL you mentioned later today, the Lord willing.


Grace and peace,

David


P.S. Sincerely hope that James addresses my actual arguments instead of focusing on ad hominem arguments and/or character assassination.

Ken said...

David,
I am glad you left Jehovah's Witnesses.

You should have stayed in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, then you would be orthodox doctrinally.

But you left for Rome and in recent years you have realized that that is wrong. That's a good thing also, but you don't like any Protestant group either, it seems. And openness to Bahai'ism betrays something really weird and strange.

I am glad you still believe in the Nicean Creed and Chalcedonian definition.

if so, why do you question the Trinity so much?

Being open to Bahai'ism makes all of that fall apart - it shows you don't understand the NT or those theological definitions in a Christian way, because to be open to Bahai'ism means that Islam came in between and that Buddhism came in history as a valid relegation for the people in India, Tibet, China, etc. and Zoroastrianism was a real revelation for the Persians before Islam. to even be open to those things means you would have to be open to change the definition of everything in the NT and OT that orthodox doctrine means.

You are not unstable for leaving Jehovah's Witnesses, you are unstable for leaving the Presbyterian Church and going to Rome and now, it seems, as far as the last time I interacted with you; you don't have a stable orthodox church as a member (just visiting), and/or won't reveal where you go.

You seem to have rejected every historical church understanding of the Trinity, (except it appears you argue for the Eastern Orthodox view and you write against the Western Augustinian view; and you have written against Calvin's view). You have, it seems a unique understanding of the Nicean Creed and your belief that the original NT was Yahweh instead of kurios (κυριος) . (which seems to me to be influenced by your Jehovah's Witness background and their emphasis upon the word "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" יהוה .

Ken said...

David Waltz wrote:
Me: Never attended a PB [Plymouth Brethren] church in my entire life.

how about a "Bible church" ?

How did I get that idea? Was it because you were looking into John Nelson Darby's book, "Analysis of Dr. Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua" ?

Your journey sounded like another gentleman you had as a guest post - he was dispensational, JW, Orthodox, etc. - I will try to find his name. Sorry I forgot his name.

Ken said...

I finally found the post by Ken Guindon (couldn't remember his name) (ironic since my first name is the same)

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/07/setting-record-straight-public.html

As I recall, he also switched churches many times more that David Waltz has, but apparently they are friends and know each other's "journeys". Ken Guindon went to Dispensational churches, Jehovahs Witnesses and Eastern Orthodoxy and others ( I think). I will have to review to get the precise outline.

Because I remember some of that, and it was on your blog, I mixed you two together. Sorry for that.

I am getting older and getting more frustrated with my loss of memory.

Ken said...

In the combox of David Waltz' post of Ken Guindon's "Setting the Record Straight" and his return to the Eastern Orthodox church:

Ken Guindon's journey:

1. Roman Catholic (born and raised)
2. Jehovah's Witnesses
3. Independent Baptist (Dispensational, Fundamentalist, Landmark type)
4. Roman Catholic (Eastern Rite, 8 years)
5. Eastern Orthodoxy
6. Evangelical Christianity
7. Now, back to Eastern Orthodoxy

Wow; what a roller coaster!

Ken said...

Wow. I had forgotten that James Swan did an article on this before here at Beggar's All. (one month before my time here; I must have missed it; I will have to review it. I remember the issue more at David Waltz' site, but don't' as much here.)

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/07/setting-record-straight-instability-of.html

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Got way too busy with outdoor projects yesterday to listen to the DL program; and the weather was much better today than forecasted, so I spent most of this morning staining decks. Anyway, I am finally getting around to listening to the 08/30 DL program, and wow, what a bunch of petty insults. For over ten minutes it is nothing but asperions, ad hominems, wild conjecture and outright falsehoods directed at yours truly.

But, that is not why I writing and posting this comment; a little after the 21:00 minute mark, James White stated:

== Alright, so, the first article uhh was posted uhh yesterday, "James R. White: you should have stayed out of 'the deep water'." I just love this (chuckles), the, the Waltz is, does not make any pretense to humility, uhh and he talks about someone taking a pot-shot at Carl Trueman, and uhh, well not everyone at the Council of Nicea was Turks, and , and basically what these guys want to do is they, they sit around going, "look how smart I am about Church history, I'm smarter than that person there. I can disagree with you, I can nit-pick anything." That's what these guys are. It's like they never leave their libraries to do anything else. And I don't think David Waltz has ever actually debated a Oneness person, or actually gone out in the front-lines and done it like that. They sit in the back and toss stones and look how smart I am.==

My goodness, I know the man detests me, so his remarks to me come as no surprise, but to treat you, and your post, in a similar fashion does come as quite a shock. It's just me, but I think he owes you a big apology.

Back to the 'inspirational' DL program, for what I am sure will entail yet more verbal abuse...


Grace and peace,

David

Drake Shelton said...

Ken,

"You are not unstable for leaving Jehovah's Witnesses, you are unstable for leaving the Presbyterian Church "

>>>That is unfair to say the least. I used to be a member of a real Presbyterian Church (Scottish puritan) and these American "Presbyterians" are a mixed bag of Anabaptist and Anglican theology. Most of them now introduce elements into their worship that Scotland and England went to war over in the 17th century. There may be a few slight exceptions but American religion, and yes I am including the reformed, is a complete circus. This is exactly what Samuel Rutherford said would happen if we followed Roger Williams and his to-be Jeffersonian pluralism. Seeing that the world has followed our lead for centuries now it is no surprise that the world has no international alternatives.

When i brought up these issues to my presbytery they did not have a clue what to say and they referred me to Robert Letham who has all but admitted most of my complaints with the Latin (and Hindu don't forget) Triune God.


David's reluctance to be a part of anything organized here is completely understandable.

"You seem to have rejected every historical church understanding of the Trinity, (except it appears you argue for the Eastern Orthodox view and you write against the Western Augustinian view; and you have written against Calvin's view). You have, it seems a unique understanding of the Nicean Creed"

I have recently shown: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/homoouiosgeneric-or-numeric/

that the original established view was a generic unity among the persons with a Monarchy/hypostatic source/origo with the Father.

That is what both David and myself believe. So your first statement is fallacious on its face.


Your second statement that our view is Eastern orthodox is equally erroneous. As David has shown, Constantinople 381 departed from the Generic unity of nicea 325 to affirm only numeric unity yet strangely maintaining the Monarchy of the Father. 381's Numeric unity-monadism is the established Eastern orthodox view which both David and I reject. There are individual theologians within that communion that explain things how we do (Thomas Hopko) however, as you probably know there is not one established comprehensive view in any Christian Church that I am aware of. To say that we criticize the Augustinian Western Church only is erroneous. John of Damascus' book on Holy Images explains God exactly how a Latin theologian would.

Sir, with reference to Calvin's view, there are strong reasons to criticize him. John Murray followed Calvin into denying the eternal generation of the Son which methinks puts him completely out of the pale of Christianity. http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/more-problems-for-western-trinitarianism-john-murray-confirms-my-suspicion-that-calvin-did-not-believe-the-nicene-creed/

Ken said...

Hi David,
I honestly don't think Dr. White read my post. He seems too busy to read it. Someone directed him straight to your post David.

Oh well.

Ken

Ken said...

Drake,
Thanks for commenting.

I don't have enough knowledge of the background in the history of the Scottish Reformed church to comment on that. (Rutherford and the wars with the English - was about the doctrine of the Trinity ?)

Didn't Knox hold to Calvin's view?

I would have to study your issues a lot more to be able to intelligently interact with them.

But, I do think that God wants us in a local, Biblical church - Acts 2:38-46, Ephesians 1, 2, 3, 4; Heb. 10:25; 1 Timothy 3:15 - "the church of the living God, the bulwark and buttress of the truth."

Ken said...

If Dr. White does get time to read my article, i hope he will also read the comments and see that I defended him against David Waltz's criticisms; by citing his article on "What Really Happened at Nicea" and his debates with Robert Sabin - and to add to that now - his debate with Roger Perkins - two oneness Pentecostal spokespersons.

Maybe Turretinfan can let him know.

Ken said...

Constantinople 381 departed from the Generic unity of nicea 325 to affirm only numeric unity yet strangely maintaining the Monarchy of the Father. 381's Numeric unity-monadism is the established Eastern orthodox view which both David and I reject.

Drake,
My understanding is that Nicea (325 AD (Deity of Christ, homo-ousias, eternal); Constantinople (381 AD) (Deity of the Holy Spirit, and condemned Apollonarius; 3 hypostasis /persons developed by the Cappodocian fathers); and Chalcedon (451 AD) (Hypostatic Union - Christ is one person in two natures; 100 % Human and 100 % God) - are legitimate theological developments based on Scripture, as heresies came about - Arianism, Apollonarianism, Tropici, Eutychianism, Monosphysites, etc.

Ken said...

Didn't Knox hold to Calvin's view?

I meant -

Didn't John Knox hold to Calvin's view of the Trinity?



Ken said...

Hoping Turretinfan sees this.

I don't think Dr. White had the time to read my article, in reference to D. Waltz's new posts at his site.

If Dr. White does get time to read my article, i hope he will also read the comments and see that I defended him against David Waltz's criticisms; by citing his article on "What Really Happened at Nicea" and his debates with Robert Sabin - and to add to that now - his debate with Roger Perkins - two oneness Pentecostal spokespersons.

Maybe Turretinfan can let him know. (Since Dr. White never reads blog comments at all - which he has said many times on the DL)

Ken said...

The modern Turks are a mixture of many peoples. But they originally came from Central Asia, and they were not at Nicea in 325 AD and they were not in those lands in NT days that is now called "Turkey"; and they were never reached with the gospel in history; as I pointed out earlier. They did Islamic wars/Jihads/killing against the Byzantine and Armenian men, and probably took many of the women as wives from the original people groups that lived there. So, there is probably some Greek, Syrian, Arab, Galatian, Armenian, and other ethnicities within the modern day Turks who live in Turkey. Today, Turkey is officially 99 % Muslim and very unreached with the gospel.

Ken said...

And it is mostly the Kurds in eastern Turkey, who most scholars believe came from the ancient Medes of the "Medes and the Persians". Persians are the ancient equivalent of Iranians; and Kurds are the modern equivalent of the Medes.

The Kurds have never been reached with the gospel either.

Turretinfan said...

Ken:

You are thinking of the author of "History is Not Enough."

http://www.amazon.com/History-Not-Enough-Kenneth-Guindon/dp/1604770066

-TurretinFan

Ken said...

Thanks Turretinfan;
yes, you are right; I got DW and Ken G. mixed up.

Have you read his book?

If you have, what did you think?

It looked really great, but then he later has turned away from what he wrote and went back to the Orthodox church.

Ken said...

The only regret I have is the title of my post :

After thinking about it, it should have been:

"The Turks were not at the Counsel of Nicea in 325 AD; they have never been reached with the gospel"

instead of "just one small correction for Carl Trueman" that way, I could have kept it more focused on the issue I was emphasizing, rather than it being construed as an attack on him.

Ken said...

Council

not

Counsel

Turretinfan said...

Ken, I will try to make sure to put it on Dr. White's radar screen (regarding the nature of the post). But I doubt he even realized it was a post from you.

Ken said...

Thanks; I agree - it seems like he didn't realize who is was or even that it was at Beggar's All.