how to tell the biblical story in a way that makes a difference

Add new comment

Hi Ed,

Obviously you have not been formally schooled in logic. fortunately, I have studied logic and know that we don’t call them “flaws.” We call them fallacies, and they have names. I did not see one single named-fallacy. All I saw was you assertiong that I committed about 50.

I’m not phased in the least by your impressions of me. The logic you’ve been employing up to now has proven to be nothing more than a shambles.

I didn’t make threats or call you names Jaco. The Church has dealt with oneness theology already in her past more than once. And every time she has been forced to formally deal with, she has rightly weighed it in light of Scripture and deemed it heresy. It contradicts the clear teachings of Scripture concerning the actual existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as One God ever existing in three persons. Hence, anyone who teaches it would be guilty of heresy.

The problem with name-calling is that it’s thought terminating. Someone doing that is obviously not interested in constructive, reciprocal discussion of an issue, and is most probably stuck in indoctrinated permafrost. I’ve repeated myself so many times, I can just as well do it again; depending on who you ask, you are a heretic yourself. So what? Where does that leave you, Mr. Heretic? Has that contributed to the discussion in any way? Ad hominem is ad hominem. So go right ahead, you’re just strengthening my case…

Furthermore, you’re clearly giving priority to the Church’s understanding of Scripture as if it were the Ultimate Truthful Understanding (“Is the Church divine?” is the question I’m reminded of…). This sentimentality did not hinder the Reformers from condemning the Church – you’re a product of such dissent, but your logic is so inconsistent; else you’d be a staunch anti-Protestant… Elevating the Church to the level of Divine Authority earns you the slogan of prima traditione yet again.

What is more, you reveal a moral character which is quite disturbing. By elevating the Church’s history of bloodshed to an acceptable level, you show yourself to be approving of the brutality, the atrocities, the blood-curdling cruelty she made herself guilty of. What is so sad is that peace-loving Christians living in non-Christian countries are suffering and are subjected to cruelty precisely because of this dastardly history you’re so proud of. That which you delight in results in the shedding of innocent blood – blood of saints. And you dare condemn the cruelty of Islam? You’re cut from the same fabric, my friend!

The ultimate flaw in your argument above is your reference to “clear teachings of Scripture” re. the Nicean/Chalcedonian trinity fabrication. There’s no such teaching in Scripture, no matter how hard you search for it. Mohammed is not in the Bible, and neither is your trinity.

Looking at your syllogisms, I find quite a few errors. First of all, a conditional requires an IF-THEN construct, but that’s just a technicality – I could still understand what you were trying to prove. Otherwise your syllogisms are structurally valid, but one premise in each of them is factually unsound. So your arguments are fallacious on that basis:

All human who believe oneness theology are humans who are heretics.

Jaco is a human who believes oneness theology.

Therefore, Jaco is a heretic.

P2 above is unsound, so your conclusion is fallacious.

Trinitarion theology is the teaching of Scripture

Oneness theology contradicts Trinitarian theology

Therefore, oneness theology contradicts Scripture.

P1 is unsound, so your conclusion is fallacious.

I don’t see the relevance of Oneness to our discussion. I’m not a Oneness believer (Theology 101).

Excommunication is as old as the Church Jaco. Leave it to the heretics to cry they are being persecuted. Heretic is not name-calling Jaco. It describes someone who has abandoned orthodox dogma. Paul called men who taught false doctrine ministers of Satan. Was he guilty of name-calling?

Equivocation upon equivocation. Church discipline in response to post-biblical fabrication is not equivalent to apostolic discipline in response to non-Scriptural falsehood. Dissenters who are persecuted have the right to cry out against persecution. The ancient apostles did in response to unjustified persecution by the Establishment; as did the Reformers; as do former Jehovah’s Witnesses against Watchtower brutality; as do former Calvinists against comparable brutality our friend Ed Dingess condones above, and the inconsistency in argumentation is deafening. The mere fact that defenders of the Establishment want to silence dissenters indicate an allegiance to Tradition, rather than an openness to see what Scriptural truths Tradition has missed (prima traditione contra sola scriptura). Another equivocation: Orthodox Church dogma is not identical to Orthodox Scriptural teaching. Unquestioning acceptance of Church doctrine as truth reveals allegiance to Tradition – something the ancient Reformers protested against. You are so unlike them (save Calvin the Murderer).

The rest of your comment is not really worth responding to. It must pain you to know that you cannot silence us anymore. You cannot kick us out of your Churches anymore. You don’t want to engage us either, lest we show how much you adore your Tradition. Our message is compelling and has solid historical, Scriptural, cultural, theological and logical grounds. People learn about the One single Yahweh and his grand plan for mankind as seen in the ministry of his human Messiah, King Jesus. People are set free and rejoice at learning about this suppressed truth and are delighted at renouncing the quasi-polytheistic doctrine of the trinity. You will have to learn to deal with it…