William Lane Craig is one of the premier Christian philosophers and apologists of the past century. He is staunchly conservative and evangelical. I recently watched his entire 11-part “Defenders” series on the Trinity, which is excellent: Defenders 3: Doctrine of God: The Trinity - YouTube.
His take on the Trinity is something I’m guessing you haven’t heard in Sunday School. He believes there was no Father-Son-Spirit dichotomy before the Incarnation. The First Person of the Trinity now called the Father could have incarnated as the Son and the Second Person now called the Son could have been the Father. And the Spirit could have been either of them!
His point, with which I agree, is that the notion of the Son being “eternally begotten” by the Father (and the Spirit “eternally proceeding” from the Father) inevitably makes the Son and Spirit subordinate to the Father. It just does, period. Craig believes the Nicene formula is simply flawed and incoherent, the result of Greek “Logos” influence.
Craig distinguishes between what he calls the “ontological” Trinity (the Trinity as it really is, simply Three Persons) and the “economic” Trinity (the way the Three Persons relate to the world as Father-Son-Spirit in the plan of salvation). The “begetting” of the Son occurred not in eternity but at the Incarnation, when Jesus the man was begotten as the Son.
Anyone ever notice that on forums such as these - i.e., all Christian forums - the prevailing perspective is Sunday School La-La Land? Introduce a nothing topic - “Did Baby Jesus need diapers?” - and the La-La Land Thinkers are prepared to dive in and offer their La-La Land views. Introduce a topic of actual theological or historical significance, however, and … crickets. Those in La-La Land not only don’t want to deal with legitimate theological or historical issues, they FEAR them.
I really don’t understand this species of Christianity, to which every Crosswalk article posted here seems to pander. It’s the Christian equivalent of Scientology. I have complete disdain for it. It constantly reminds me of Mark Twain’s famous quip: “Faith is believing things you know ain’t so.” I prefer not to live in La-La Land in any area of my life.
Hey Bingo. Not sure if you’re still around, but I figured I’d give you a well-deserved response. I can’t speak to whether Crosswalk is guilty of it, specifically, but many refer to the dynamic of the modern mainstream churches as “churchianity”. It’s not authentic Biblical Christianity - it’s a ‘version’ thereof. And, yes, it is very widespread.
My take, from years of research, is that it is so systemic that it begins with the seminaries and carries over into all the churches. I find the doctrine that you’re describing interesting. It seems to be pretty accurate to Scripture. I would say though that the Bible makes clear that Christ is second to none … so that’s a contradiction.
I don’t find any teaching of the trinity concept in the Bible (i.e. that God is “three persons”), but your presented version seems about as close as it might get to what the Bible actually teaches.
It may I am myself not concerned with the huge pile of defense of not that which God has said, but which various church “fathers” (called so in disobedience of the Lord!) decided. And concerning who God is and the descriptions of Himself, I shall recommend the use of words He has said, and I shall not recommend others. I use others, only redefined with His Own words carefully in mind, and only in order to make peace with people of the churches whom the Lord has not caused to learn better yet.
Hi @Stand -No, @Bingo took his ball and went home.
He was suspended from the Forum, for what in my opinion is the worst possible reason. It’s tantamount to censorship and topic-banning. This can quickly become a terminal disease on Forums like this. It’s a slightly polite way of saying-- you must believe exactly what we do, or you are not welcome to participate.
This user is suspended. Reason: Engaged in forceful and sustained responses contrary to the beliefs or teachings of Christianity as articulated by the historic creeds, as understood by Evangelicalism, and as interpreted by Salem Web Network in its sole discretion.
I see… To avoid any misunderstandings, I would like to understand the forum’s overall beliefs. Is there a resource or guidelines I can review to get a sense of what this community values and believe in as a whole?
Hi jonathan-- I understand why you might think that, but I don’t agree-- and there always has to be room for disagreement. If Crosswalk is to be a community of folks you meet in the street, it should never be limited to only those people who think and believe like you.
We need to meet people right where they are, as they are-- rather than creating artificial litmus tests for beliefs- to participate. That wouldn’t work in other areas of life.
Pretty benign, seemingly-- but don’t let the nice sentiments fool ya.
These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.
Everyone is welcome to participate in all of the categories, unless otherwise stated and even if it the category does not seem to relate to them. (For example: a single person discussing a topic on marriage or a teen engaging in a topic on parenting.)
No member is being asked to hold his or her personal beliefs less firmly or to refrain from discussing or even arguing for those beliefs when appropriate.
Instead, members are being asked to model wise and gentle tolerance of and respect for the range of conclusions on controversial questions known to be held by those who are indisputably brothers and sisters in Christ. It is possible to understand how brothers and sisters in Christ can view as biblical and reasonable points of view with which one has a strong personal disagreement.
It is essential in all areas of life in this world, to define acceptable behavior. Where you don’t have such definitions, you have chaos and destruction.
On this forum, we meet people here. It is definitely a good idea for us to meet people elsewhere, where the definitions are very different. But here is here. They come here for certain input – or they do not belong here.
I am myself not concerned with the huge pile of defense of not that which God has said, but which various church “fathers” (called so in disobedience of the Lord!) decided. And concerning who God is and the descriptions of Himself, I shall recommend the use of words He has said, and I shall not recommend others. I use others, only redefined with His Own words carefully in mind, and only in order to make peace with people of the churches whom the Lord has not caused to learn better yet.