Monday, January 07, 2019

Did Luther Think the Trinity Was Found in the Bible?

I've covered Luther and the term "Trinity" before. See my entries, Luther Condemned the Word "Trinity? and Luther on the term "Trinity."  Recently, I was involved with a brief conversation on this subject which derailed as follows below. There were some deletions from the moderators. It was nothing I wrote. The person I was interacting with resorted to personal insults at one point calling me "a low down dirty em...pigeon", so those comments were deleted, but do pop up elsewhere in the discussion.

#1

For Those Who Say Trinity is Clearly Stated in Text...

Your own compatriots do not agree.

Finally a compendium of veritable, I mean verifiable data which no one can diss, agree with.

Luther:

“It is indeed true that the name ‘Trinity’ is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man.”[102]

[102] Martin Luther, Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 406-407.

Chandler, Kegan. The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma (Kindle Locations 940-942). Restoration Fellowship. Kindle Edition. 

#4
Originally posted by nothead View Post
Your own compatriots do not agree.

Finally a compendium of veritable, I mean verifiable data which no one can diss, agree with.

Luther:“It is indeed true that the name ‘Trinity’ is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man.”[102]

[102] Martin Luther, Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 406-407.
One can read Luther's entire sermon here. The sermon is not about denying the "Trinity" or the word, "Trinity."

Luther goes on to immediately state:

For this reason it sounds somewhat cold and we had better speak of "God' than of the "Trinity."

This word signifies that there are three persons in God. It is a heavenly mystery which the world cannot understand. I have often told you that this, as well as every other article of faith, must not be based upon reason or comparisons, but must be understood and established by means of passages from the Scriptures, for God has the only perfect knowledge and knows how to speak concerning himself.
He concludes a few sections later, "Therefore we cling to the Scriptures, those passages which testify of the Trinity of God, and we say: I know very well that in God there are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; but how they can be one I do not know, neither should I know it" (Ibid., 410).

Elsewhere Luther comments on the inadequacy of the term "Trinity": "The words trinitas, unitas are really mathematical terms. And yet we can't talk about God without using such words. But at the same time, it is also true that when we use human language to speak about God, it seems to have a ring to it, a whole new connotation" [Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 6, pp. 206-207]. "True (Trinity) is not choice German, nor has it a pleasing sound, when we designate God by the word 'Dreifaltigkeit' (nor is the Latin, Trinitas, more elegant): but since we have no better term, we must employee these" [Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 4.2, pp. 7-8].

I'm sure a plentiful supply of similar sentiment from Luther could be brought forth as testimony to the fact he didn't deny the Trinity, and also used the word positively.

JS
Last edited by James Swan; 09-13-18, 09:45 PM. Reason: typo
    •  Quote
    •  Flag
    • Like

    #5
    Originally posted by James Swan View Post

    One can read Luther's entire sermon here. The sermon is not about denying the "Trinity" or the word, "Trinity."

    Luther goes on to immediately state:



    He concludes a few sections later, "Therefore we cling to the Scriptures, those passages which testify of the Trinity of God, and we say: I know very well that in God there are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; but how they can be one I do not know, neither should I know it" (Ibid., 410).

    Elsewhere Luther comments on the inadequacy of the term "Trinity": "The words trinitas, unitas are really mathematical terms. And yet we can't talk about God without using such words. But at the same time, it is also true that when we use human language to speak about God, it seems to have a ring to it, a whole new connotation" [Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 6, pp. 206-207]. "True (Trinity) is not choice German, nor has it a pleasing sound, when we designate God by the word 'Dreifaltigkeit' (nor is the Latin, Trinitas, more elegant): but since we have no better term, we must employee these" [Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 4.2, pp. 7-8].

    I'm sure a plentiful supply of similar sentiment from Luther could be brought forth as testimony to the fact he didn't deny the Trinity, and also used the word positively.

    JS
    "...it seems to have a whole new RING to it, a whole new connOTATION? Whoo HOO, A'll SAY. All say HALLELUYAH since SHEMA SAYS God is ONE not three in the PEAPOD of God sir.

    What is ONE but a SINGULAR mathematical connotation in the ECHAD? I'll echad your trinitas and raise you a deuteronomous theos sir.

    Luther thought "trinitas" was more elegant than "drafaltigkeit?" Whoo MOO. They mean the same thing, Luther must be a GENIUS discriminating between the GUTTERAL sounds of German
    compared to Latin?

    Inadequacy of human language? Did God ever say in Text, the Shema is INADEQUATE sir? WHOO butta BEAVIS says the First Command is INADEQUATE? God being ONE (and not another) is the very MEANING of Shema as described by the scribe Mk 12, "no other one but HE," sir. What you are describing is a JUXTAPOSITION between the entirely ADEQUATE Shema, and the inordinately DEFICIENT "Trinity" sir. And the thoughts that accompany each in turn sir. One set of thoughts sacred and pristine in faith. The odder one philosophical
    as a philosopher might ponder.

    What is Shema, Lutheran? Does ANY Lutheran know what Shema is sir? YHWH our elohim, YHWH one. You shall love YHWH with all of your heart soul and strength.
    Last edited by nothead; 09-14-18, 03:08 AM.
    Shema will change the Christian World.

    Turn it upside down. To where it once was, the POV of JESUS, his DISCIPLES and his SERVANTS.

    Know God YHWH Elohim is One. And love Him with all. Mk 12, red letter words.
      •  Quote
      •  Flag
      • Like0

      #6
      Originally posted by nothead View Post

      "...it seems to have a whole new RING to it, a whole new connOTATION? Whoo HOO, A'll SAY. All say HALLELUYAH since SHEMA SAYS God is ONE not three in the PEAPOD of God sir.

      What is ONE but a SINGULAR mathematical connotation in the ECHAD? I'll echad your trinitas and raise you a deuteronomous theos sir.

      Luther thought "trinitas" was more elegant than "drafaltigkeit?" Whoo MOO. They mean the same thing, Luther must be a GENIUS discriminating between the GUTTERAL sounds of German
      compared to Latin?

      Inadequacy of human language? Did God ever say in Text, the Shema is INADEQUATE sir? WHOO butta BEAVIS says the First Command is INADEQUATE? God being ONE (and not another) is the very MEANING of Shema as described by the scribe Mk 12, "no other one but HE," sir. What you are describing is a JUXTAPOSITION between the entirely ADEQUATE Shema, and the inordinately DEFICIENT "Trinity" sir. And the thoughts that accompany each in turn sir. One set of thoughts sacred and pristine in faith. The odder one philosophical
      as a philosopher might ponder.

      What is Shema, Lutheran? Does ANY Lutheran know what Shema is sir? YHWH our elohim, YHWH one. You shall love YHWH with all of your heart soul and strength.
      I have no idea what you're talking about, but it's blatantly clear you cited Luther out of context... That's because you cut-and-pasted something from someone else without checking your facts first. I suggest that if you "love YHWH with all your heart soul and strength," YHWH would also like you to love your neighbor as yourself by quoting him accurately. Quoting someone out of context and attributing a false position to that person is doing harm to one's neighbor, even if that neighbor has been dead for 500 years.

      JS
        •  Quote
        •  Flag
        • Like0

        #7
        Originally posted by James Swan View Post

        I have no idea what you're talking about, but it's blatantly clear you cited Luther out of context... That's because you cut-and-pasted something from someone else without checking your facts first. I suggest that if you "love YHWH with all your heart soul and strength," YHWH would also like you to love your neighbor as yourself by quoting him accurately. Quoting someone out of context and attributing a false position to that person is doing harm to one's neighbor, even if that neighbor has been dead for 500 years.

        JS
        For all of your brouh ha ha, Luther did say a fact, that the WORD "trinity" in whatever language is not Text itself.

        What you have therefore is a SUPPOSED concept in Text WITHOUT a coining term, pertaining to or referencing.

        DEMEANING the possibility of that concept even BEING in Text at all, wonderkund. I can chew my kund all day listening to WONDERKUNDS like you sir.
        Shema will change the Christian World.

        Turn it upside down. To where it once was, the POV of JESUS, his DISCIPLES and his SERVANTS.

        Know God YHWH Elohim is One. And love Him with all. Mk 12, red letter words.
          •  Quote
          •  Flag
          • Like0

          #8
          Originally posted by nothead View Post

          For all of your brouh ha ha, Luther did say a fact, that the WORD "trinity" in whatever language is not Text itself.

          What you have therefore is a SUPPOSED concept in Text WITHOUT a coining term, pertaining to or referencing.

          DEMEANING the possibility of that concept even BEING in Text at all, wonderkund. I can chew my kund all day listening to WONDERKUNDS like you sir.
          Yes Luther says the word "Trinity" is not in sacred scripture, but he did not deny the concept. Does YHWH want you to quote Luther out of context? Why would YHWH want you to spread false information about Luther?

            •  Quote
            •  Flag
            • Like0

            #9
            Originally posted by James Swan View Post

            Yes Luther says the word "Trinity" is not in sacred scripture, but he did not deny the concept. Does YHWH want you to quote Luther out of context? Why would YHWH want you to spread false information about Luther?
            What false information was that James?

            I just said you are DELEGATED to affirming the CONCEPT without any word REFERENCING in Text. What did I say that was false, falsehoodminer?
            Shema will change the Christian World.

            Turn it upside down. To where it once was, the POV of JESUS, his DISCIPLES and his SERVANTS.

            Know God YHWH Elohim is One. And love Him with all. Mk 12, red letter words.
              •  Quote
              •  Flag
              • Like0

              #10
              Originally posted by nothead View Post
              What false information was that James? I just said you are DELEGATED to affirming the CONCEPT without any word REFERENCING in Text. What did I say that was false, falsehoodminer?
              Let's backup. You began by saying:

              For Those Who Say Trinity is Clearly Stated in Text...
              09-13-18, 07:53 PM
              Your own compatriots do not agree.

              Finally a compendium of veritable, I mean verifiable data which no one can diss, agree with.

              Luther: "It is indeed true that the name 'Trinity' is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man."
              In the context of Luther's statement, he goes on to say:

              "Therefore we cling to the Scriptures, those passages which testify of the Trinity of God, and we say: I know very well that in God there are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; but how they can be one I do not know, neither should I know it" (Ibid., 410).

              So Luther believes the Trinity is clearly stated in the text. This was just one comment from Luther, based on the context you cited. I could provide more.

              Does YHWH want you to quote Luther out of context?
              Last edited by James Swan; 09-14-18, 11:55 AM. Reason: typo
                •  Quote
                •  Flag
                • Like0

                #12
                Originally posted by James Swan View Post

                Let's backup. You began by saying:



                In the context of Luther's statement, he goes on to say:

                "Therefore we cling to the Scriptures, those passages which testify of the Trinity of God, and we say: I know very well that in God there are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; but how they can be one I do not know, neither should I know it" (Ibid., 410).

                So Luther believes the Trinity is clearly stated in the text. This was just one comment from Luther, based on the context you cited. I could provide more.

                Does YHWH want you to quote Luther out of context?
                Yes by concept but not by any singular term as in...Trinity, trinitas, tripartite, tri-prosopons, tri-anythingyouwantaboogywith.

                What you have is a concept without anything to term, as we have today. This both makes the concept itself, more UNLIKELY, and the addition of the TERM Trinity, trinitas, Plokenspurer or whatevers...an ADDITION to Text sir. An ADDITION added to authorial INTENT sir.
                Shema will change the Christian World.

                Turn it upside down. To where it once was, the POV of JESUS, his DISCIPLES and his SERVANTS.

                Know God YHWH Elohim is One. And love Him with all. Mk 12, red letter words.
                  •  Quote
                  •  Flag
                  • Like0

                  #14
                  Originally posted by nothead View Post

                  Yes by concept but not by any singular term as in...Trinity, trinitas, tripartite, tri-prosopons, tri-anythingyouwantaboogywith.

                  What you have is a concept without anything to term, as we have today. This both makes the concept itself, more UNLIKELY, and the addition of the TERM Trinity, trinitas, Plokenspurer or whatevers...an ADDITION to Text sir. An ADDITION added to authorial INTENT sir.

                  So, YHWH wants you to misquote Luther? What a strange god you worship.
                    •  Quote
                    •  Flag
                    • Like0

                    #15
                    Originally posted by James Swan View Post


                    So, YHWH wants you to misquote Luther? What a strange god you worship.
                    Every word I quoted, he quoted. The common perception is that this was out of context, but NO...I am only saying what I think Luther MEANT by the words I quoted.

                    We can haggle onnis all day already. You wantoo go'on with you onnis here thingybobber, Swan Song?
                    Shema will change the Christian World.

                    Turn it upside down. To where it once was, the POV of JESUS, his DISCIPLES and his SERVANTS.

                    Know God YHWH Elohim is One. And love Him with all. Mk 12, red letter words.

                      #23
                      Originally posted by nothead View Post

                      Every word I quoted, he quoted. The common perception is that this was out of context, but NO...I am only saying what I think Luther MEANT by the words I quoted.

                      We can haggle onnis all day already. You wantoo go'on with you onnis here thingybobber, Swan Song?
                      You've been corrected as to what Luther said, and even the context he said it in was linked to. Is YHWH honored by pouring your own meaning into someone else's words?
                        •  Quote
                        •  Flag
                        • Like0

                        09-15-18, 08:01 AM
                        This topic by nothead has been deleted by Mod10
                         rule 12

                        #24
                        EDITED

                        You stated, "For Those Who Say Trinity is Clearly Stated in Text...Your own compatriots do not agree." You then cited "verifiable data which no one can diss, agree with" which included Luther. I checked your "verifiable data" on Luther, and contrary to your claim, Luther did believe the concept of the Trinity was in the Bible, and could be clearly expounded from the text of scripture. I corrected your error, but instead of taking the correction, you then said, "I am only saying what I think Luther MEANT by the words I quoted." Is YHWH honored when you misquote Luther? Is YHWH honored by pouring your own meaning into his words? Is YHWH honored by calling me, "a low down dirty em...pigeon"? I don't know anything about you or your theology, but I'm not in any way interested in a religious view that allows for falsehood, misrepresentation, and slander. What a strange god you worship..
                        Last edited by Mod10; 09-15-18, 08:02 AM.
                          •  Quote
                          •  Flag
                          • Like0

                          #25
                          Originally posted by James Swan View Post

                          You stated, "For Those Who Say Trinity is Clearly Stated in Text...Your own compatriots do not agree." You then cited "verifiable data which no one can diss, agree with" which included Luther. I checked your "verifiable data" on Luther, and contrary to your claim, Luther did believe the concept of the Trinity was in the Bible, and could be clearly expounded from the text of scripture. I corrected your error, but instead of taking the correction, you then said, "I am only saying what I think Luther MEANT by the words I quoted." Is YHWH honored when you misquote Luther? Is YHWH honored by pouring your own meaning into his words? Is YHWH honored by calling me, "a low down dirty em...pigeon"? I don't know anything about you or your theology, but I'm not in any way interested in a religious view that allows for falsehood, misrepresentation, and slander. What a strange god you worship..
                          By what you just said, I did not misQUOTE Luther, and in fact, I didnet even consider Luther to be anything BUT a Lutheran buttmutt sir.

                          Lutherans are trinitarian as we well know.

                          The point I was making was that even Luther ACKNOWLEDGED the word TRINITY or TRINITAS or TRIPARTITE or anything SIMILAR which COINS or TERMS Trinity by a single word is NOT EXTANT IN TEXT.

                          I've repeated the same thing three times, and you still don't geddit. NO WONDER we haggle on this here forum until the COWS COME HOME.
                          Shema will change the Christian World.

                          Turn it upside down. To where it once was, the POV of JESUS, his DISCIPLES and his SERVANTS.

                          Know God YHWH Elohim is One. And love Him with all. Mk 12, red letter words.
                            •  Quote
                            •  Flag
                            • Like0

                            #35
                            Originally posted by nothead View Post
                            The point I was making was that even Luther ACKNOWLEDGED the word TRINITY or TRINITAS or TRIPARTITE or anything SIMILAR which COINS or TERMS Trinity by a single word is NOT EXTANT IN TEXT.
                            This sounds suspiciously like backpedaling.

                            Your post was entitled, "For Those Who Say Trinity is Clearly Stated in Text...". I did not interpret that to mean the mere word "Trinity." If that's really what you meant, please provide a list of people who believe the word "Trinity" is found in the Bible. If there really is someone simple enough out there that believes the word "Trinity" is in the Bible, they should have their Bible taken from them so they don't hurt themselves.

                            "Clearly Stated" sounds much more like you meant the concept of the Trinity, which means blatantly that you've mis-cited Luther with your cut-and-paste.
                              •  Quote
                              •  Flag
                              • Like0

                              #36
                              Originally posted by James Swan View Post

                              This sounds suspiciously like backpedaling.

                              Your post was entitled, "For Those Who Say Trinity is Clearly Stated in Text...". I did not interpret that to mean the mere word "Trinity." If that's really what you meant, please provide a list of people who believe the word "Trinity" is found in the Bible. If there really is someone simple enough out there that believes the word "Trinity" is in the Bible, they should have their Bible taken from them so they don't hurt themselves.

                              "Clearly Stated" sounds much more like you meant the concept of the Trinity, which means blatantly that you've mis-cited Luther with your cut-and-paste.
                              No backtrack, Jack.

                              You are the sushpishush one. I explained to you FOUR times now and you INSIST I said something else?

                              How about just understanding I said what I said and I'll say it again...TRINITY is NOT IN TEXT. You wantoo say qualified by CONCEPT then FINE.

                              I say the Word is FACTUALLY not in Text so the CONCEPT HARDLY LIKELY in Text. Know the difference and slow your pie hole down JUST A BIT ST. NICK?
                              Shema will change the Christian World.

                              Turn it upside down. To where it once was, the POV of JESUS, his DISCIPLES and his SERVANTS.

                              Know God YHWH Elohim is One. And love Him with all. Mk 12, red letter words.
                                •  Quote
                                •  Flag
                                • Like0

                                Posted by at
                                Labels: , ,

                                7 comments:

                                Don S said...

                                Goodness. James, you have infinitely more patience that I would've in a situation like that. My head hurts.

                                4:30 PM, January 14, 2019
                                RJ Patten said...

                                Hi James,
                                Today at Sunday School (Reformed Baptist Church) during a discussion of the WCF on justification, someone said Calvin "approved the drowning of anabaptists."
                                I could neither prove nor disprove this comment.
                                Can you tell me where to find the truth on this matter?
                                Thanks

                                3:17 PM, January 20, 2019
                                James Swan said...

                                Hi R.J.,

                                I'm super-busy elsewhere at the moment, but I appreciate you dropping by with this question.

                                Off the top of my head, I don't recall John Calvin ever being a participant in the drowning of Anabaptists. Certainly Calvin did not approve of Anabaptists in general, and wrote negative comments against them, but I do not recall him saying to that he approved their drowning. I would have to look into it further to see if in his extant writings he ever intimated as such. It sounds to me like the person at your Sunday School confused Calvin with Zwingli.

                                This is one of those times I wish had some more time, because I would love to survey Calvin's writings to see if he ever said he approved of drowning anabaptists. Certainly, Calvin believed in punishing heresy, so it would not be too hard to believe he said as much about anabaptists. On the other hand, given all the clamor in the execution of Servetus, I find it interesting that if Calvin wanted the anabaptists drowned, his detractors would not have already have plastered such comments all over the internet!

                                James

                                2:20 PM, January 21, 2019
                                PeaceByJesus said...

                                I commend your perseverance with the exasperating sophist, whose question "For Those Who Say Trinity is Clearly Stated in Text" as strategically carefully phrased in order to enable winning a point by misrepresenting the argument,. For the question is based on the premise that something must be "Clearly Stated in Text" to be valid, which is what is refuted, since it means that even the word Bible or "Biblical" cannot be valid since they are not "Clearly Stated in Text."

                                But there is nothing invalid about using theological terms for a teaching that is based on clear statements (Jesus being call God, as well as God being one God) and which cannot be reconciled except by a theological conclusion based on objective reading of pertinent texts, such as manifest the deity of Christ . .

                                On the other end is the hermeneutic of many Catholics which argues that the fact that God can do something and does not explicitly forbid is enough to disallow any objection to something contrary to it, such as praying to created beings in Heaven.

                                But while our opponent nothead (Suspended/Banned) resorted to undue calling you some sort of bird, yet he may be a disciple of a buzzard, that of Sir Anthony Buzzard of the "Restoration Fellowship" which knothead referenced.

                                You can search my Custom Google search here on him, which shows that CARM and James White, among others, has engaged with some of his arguments, while Tektonics has an extensive counter of him by the grace of God.

                                11:24 AM, February 04, 2019
                                James Swan said...

                                PBJ:

                                Interesting info. I'm not familiar with Sir Anthony Buzzard of the "Restoration Fellowship."

                                I interact with the CARM crazies for probably selfish reasons... sometimes they will lead me to areas of study I would never have thought to venture to.

                                9:49 AM, February 13, 2019
                                PeaceByJesus said...

                                Yes, often you realize that the "well" of heresy, deception and aberrations is deeper than your thought.

                                A few days ago a poster on FR cited Luther as saying that God was a "scoundrel," referencing one Adam Weishaupt (pseudonym of a senior member of the Pythagorean Illuminati). To which I responded telling the poster to do some searching here before posting some more propaganda.

                                10:44 PM, February 14, 2019
                                James Swan said...

                                Thanks for linking to that Luther entry. I don't recall if I've ever joined or posted on FR.

                                10:07 AM, February 16, 2019

                                Post a Comment

                                Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)