Rando

I can explain it.... It is the doctrine that the Godhead is composed of three distinct persons in one essence. And why is it a "must?" Because it is one of the most distinctive doctrines of the Christian Church for the last 2,000 years. I understand that YOU can't speak knowledgeably on the topic.... But, fortunately, others can, and they have done so for countless hundreds of years. Says whom? Did God say this? Did God simultaneously give to you a doctrine you can neither DEFINE or EXPLAIN........(that's what you just said actually read your own posts.) And then insist you "believe" this un-defined doctrine???? My explanation and definition is quite open to critique....But it IS a definition of what it is, and it is an explanation of how it is understanded and grasped. You provide nothing. God is not an "infinite being". "Infinity" is a mathematical concept which, while valuable, in a way.....is understood by the brightest of minds to be a self-defeating concept. It contains self-defeating absurdities.. We've understood that for nearly a hundred years. Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel - Wikipedia You cannot teach nor believe a doctrine you don't understand and can't elucidate. If you don't understand the doctrine you can't teach it. if you can't elucidate the doctrine, you can't believe it. Brilliant minds have for thousands of years taught the doctrine. I'm making up nothing out of whole cloth.... I have studied FAR more brilliant minds than mine own, and my definition is a distillation of the teachings that more brilliant minds than mind have taught for literally THOUSANDS of years. God did not provide us an inexplicaple, un-intelligible, un-explanable doctrine that we must "believe" as some weird test of faith: As though claiming to adhere to something you cannot define and cannot elucidate is a test of faith: It is not a test of "Faith"...it's a test of stupidity. The Doctrine of the Trinity is either explanable, testable, sensible, and can be defined, or it is no doctrine at all. You are welcome to critique my explanation and nuance it, find fault with it, explain it in better terms, and take issue with my presentation of it. It's certainly not perfect. But, what I do NOT do: Is claim that there's a doctrine which can't be defined, can't be explained........but Christian's have to believe it, because some dude said there's a word you have to love called "trinity" and (don't ask me what it means because even I don't know) ????????? There is a word for that: It's called "Gaslighting" people.

..

I have passion for the Theology of the Trinity: It is one of my passions to explain it faithfully without analogy and make sense of it to the Christian believer. I am of the opinion that analogies are not helpful: The reason for that, is that there is nothing in the created Universe which we can observe and identify with, which IS a "trinity". I don't think there are "pictures" of it. That is o.k....we can still make sense of the teaching. I believe that the best definition for the Trinity is that God is three "persons" in one "essence". What that means, is that we have to identify, define an explain what it means to be a "person" and an "essence". I would define a "person" roughly as an independent mind, source of consciousness and will. Within the Godhead, we have seen the Father, the Son and the Spirit act as independent minds with purpose and consciousness, and an awareness of their own self-identity which is also distinct from the other members of the Godhead. This is sufficient to mean that they are distinct "persons". An "Essence" is slightly more difficult. An "Essence" is possibly best explained as opposed to what philosophers call a "property thing"..... A "Property thing"... is a composite composed of parts: By way of example: An automobile is a composite of individual parts.... Each part has an identity separate from the whole. The identity of the parts also precedes the whole. Thus, we have alternators, tires, wires, pistons et al: Therefore, an automobile is a "property-thing"...a composite where the parts precede the whole. They are inter-changeable. Any Ferrari can be restored with parts not original to that exact Ferrari, and as long as the original is extant, then, a few inter-changed parts makes it the same Ferrari....fully restored. Generally, this would include all non-living beings of all sorts, to include a table, chair, or even a hard-wood floor. Those individual composite parts precede the whole. But "Essences" are different. With an "essence" the whole precedes the part: Generally, living beings are NOT composites..They are not only MORE than a sum of their parts....but their individual parts do not have identity outside of the Whole. The whole comes first. I have a head. My head has no identity, no purpose, no meaning except the person the "essence" that is already me is in place: Thus, my arms, legs, or any parts have no purpose or identity except my who person is in place. This is not different in that sense as simply a dog or a rat actually..........But the distinction is established. The whole of an "Essence" is prior to its parts......and therefore has an identity which proceeds the parts. God, then is a singular "essence"....comprising three distinct "persons"....none of which are composites of parts..... This is not a fun analogy: But, there is no visible created thing which can adequately serve as an analogy for the Godhead. The Godhead is unique. Thus, we must make sense of the doctrine. We must explain it in terms which make sense. What we cannot do is believe a self-contradictory set of statements, and call it "mystery". Self-contradictory statements aren't "mystery"........They are non-sense. I only propose a definition which can make sense of the doctrine, preserving the person-hood. distinction, and identity of all persons within the Godhead while understand that they comprise a unique whole. This is the challenge of Biblical Christianity. And we must define that doctrine. .

Makes sense... It is lovely.

It doesn't... But, upon what basis do you insist that it's a "calling"? In order for your position to have merit, you must define what you mean by a "calling"... You must find it in the Biblical text, and you must demonstrate why it is critical for us to understand. You have failed on all accounts. I know you have, and I know you will because "calling" is simply NOT Biblical verbiage. I realize that is irrelevant to you, and your traditional manners of speaking take precedence. But "calling" is not the Biblical injunction. It's a tradition you are in love with. But, I love the Bible text, and "calling" isn't the over-arching Biblical emphasis used,. I'm an Independent Baptist... I love the Bible, NOT the traditions of men.

Um.....That's my point: "Call to preach" isn't Biblical terminology. Definite guidelines for pastor/bishop are.... I appreciate your agreement.

Yes....many people have utilized the positive teachings, the discipline (both mental and physical) to help teach young ones. Karate is Not a world-view.......It's a skill-set and discipline which benefits young ones (and old really.) At my Independent Baptist Church one of our lay-preachers teaches karate also.... And our kids learn discipline, self-defense, and respect through his program. It is open to non-church members as well, and the gospel is shared through the program. There's nothing wrong with that.

This is ABSOLUTELY beautiful. This is also beautifully executed. I have one question though.... What does "When the world reflects your image through a mirrored facade". mean? I found that distracting: I'm o.k with setting aside Theological perfection for the sake of poetic license......I understand that. That line, however, seems glaringly superfluous. It doesn't help, it means nothing, and says nothing. It almost sounds like a Stream-of-Consciousness dump of random words. I do LOVE this....It's beautifully executed, it sounds great. But, that particular line may need to be rewritten. It makes no sense (as far as I can tell.) Otherwise, it's a lovely song.

A New Testament Christian is not capable of "tithing". Tithes are agricultural produce garnered exclusively from the productivity of the promised land. The tithe is always: "of the land"... (meaning "of the land" of Israel). Tithes cannot be given in currency, and never are. A landowner can even buy back their "tithe" with currency if they so choose....at an interest rate making it more than 10% in terms of monetary value. (That's likely because they wanted a particularly good harvest crop as seed). Then, they could lawfully use currency to buy their "tithe" back! The tithe was the inheritance given to the tribe of Levi who received no land in Israel. Thus, as the eleventh part, their inheritance was a "tithe" of the produce of all the land in Israel. It is exclusive to agricultural products. Non land-owners paid Temple taxes etc....They did not "tithe". No "tithe" ever was, nor even CAN be paid in currency. The New Testament believer does not owe ten percent....We owe 100%. We are to recognize that God has, in Christ, given everything for us; and therefore: everything we have and are, is to be sacrificed as our due response. We should give (in currency) far more than 10%. Indeed, we are commanded to. We should sacrificially surrender everything to him. Rendering 20-30-40+ percent if possible. We are not to lay up treasures on Earth in any way. The "tithe" however, has nothing to do with the New Testament believer. One can only "tithe" off of the produce of the Promised Land. No matter what a gentile believer gives in monetary terms, it is not ever, by definition, a "tithe".

I agree with this. I also agree that the intense "burden" felt is quite real and I appreciate your bringing it up. One can as you seem to suggest consider that burden as part of what we could reasonably call a "calling to preach". I would consider it as much to be a man "desiring" the office of Bishop. Intense burden will express itself in a desire to preach as well. The Scripture certainly speaks of such a desire. These two things are not in an adversarial relationship with each other. It's not either/or as such. I also think it is often over-emphasized while the Biblical qualifications are under-emphasized.

That's good, I also heartily agree with your last sentence. I would argue the converse is true. Whom God has equipped, that is whom he also called. My major concern is that we don't make subjective experiences no matter how well-intentioned or heart-felt the focus of the "calling to preach." (a phrase, not really used in the New Testament). Subjective experiences cannot be challenged by anyone. A wolf in sheep's clothing can have the most tear-jerking and captivating story about his "calling to preach". One can no more deny another's calling than they could argue with someone's claim to have a headache. This is, after all, why some teach that personal testimony is an excellent evangelistic tool. No one can debate it. The Scriptures are quite specific, however, about the qualifications (which are generally verifiable) of a bishop. By way of example: I briefly attended a nice charming country church where the pastor could no more exegete the text, nor preach or teach his way out of a paper bag. He was a perfectly nice, kindly gentleman, and his congregation rather adored him. They learned very little. I would have wished that when this man expressed his desire to function as a Bishop that his status as a novice to the pulpit, who was particularly unlearned, and not "apt to teach" would have excluded his consideration. Qualifications matter. Qualifications are verifiable. Qualifications are Biblically mandated. I see little evidence in the Scriptures that that is true of a "calling to preach". The O.P. asked about Scriptural evidences. That is my larger concern. I wouldn't argue that one can't derive from various Biblical texts with some Spiritual wisdom that it is completely improper to speak of such a thing as a "calling to preach". But, I would argue that we over-emphasize it often, and under-emphasize the Biblical qualifications. I am often concerned that it creates, or can be used to create, a nicolaitane practice in various congregations where dictator clergy Lord over their congregations while using/citing their "calling" (unique to themselves and their allies of course) as a cudgel against concerned church members and other believers. How, after all, can anyone argue with the special claim of a "calling?" They can't. They can no more do so than argue with the experiences of charismatics. Whatever they are, the phenomena they experience are "real" in that they exist. But, they are not a good guide Christian praxis. Similarly; quite often their phenomena are experienced after much prayer and fasting.

I know....it was just a way of sharing something I like. Not everything is a debate. But it means that Paul had a specific "calling". That "calling" cannot be assumed to be the same as anything we experience. It could be argued that his "calling" was unique even amongst the other Apostles. God had a very specific role in mind for Paul.

When hearing this brings you to tears......... You have been called.

By offering the humble suggestion that you are not Paul, and that Jesus has (most likely) not appeared to you audibly and in person to tell you that you are particularly special.

Has nothing to do with a "calling" to preach. And yet, that is the clearest and most obvious manner in which the Scriptures speak of a man going into ministry, at least, specifically, the office of bishop. The text, speaks of desire, our traditions speak of "calling". I do not doubt, or even minimize your (rather common) experience, I'm just saying it is a story based upon personal and often shared experience which is not spelled out in the text in any meaningful sense. We must only consult our own feelings emotions etc....for that experience. We have no way to verify the validity of those personal experiences any more than a charismatic does. One could utilize examples if we press the stories of O.T. prophets into service here, I suppose. Thus, arguing that it is "Biblical" in some ways. That's fair enough, as long as we don't press the similarities between preaching (and admittedly there are similarities) and the role of the OT prophet too far. My only concern is that we put too much stock in "calling" as opposed to desire and qualifications which are specifics the Scriptures give.