The Ground Of The Church

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by Igzy

UntoHim makes a very important point here. Ground of locality apologists like to make a parallel between the way the Trinity is presented in the New Testament and the way locality is, suggesting that if these two matters are presented in similars ways and if the Trinity is accepted then by the same logic the local ground should be as well.

But if one suggests there is really such a similarity between the way these two matters are presented in the New Testament then one must answer as to why one (the Trinity) has become a foundational element of the Christian faith-- seen, taught and defended by virtually all Christians since the church Fathers, while the other (locality) has been almost completely ignored.

Seems to me then that they are not presented similarly at all.

Local grounders need to honestly ask themselves why has the local ground, which they claim to be so plainly presented in the Bible, passed virtually unseen by Bible scholars for 2000 years. I know the pat answer is that people are too attached to their own choices to receive the "truth" of the local ground. But that is the answer of a crank*.


* An annoyingly eccentric person ; also : one who is overly enthusiastic about a particular subject or activity.

Igzy,

So, I want them to see what is presented in the Bible.

However, Trinity has caused a lot of contentions among Christians.

My understanding of Trinity is quite different from Igzy’s.

As the Christian history confirmed, the so called Church Fathers fought a battle against heretic teachings on Trinity (which automatically includes the issue of the Person of Christ and the Holy Spirit). Now, even among so called fundamental Christians, the understanding of Trinity is not the same.
To me, the ground of locality has not caused as many contentions as Trinity. And the ground of locality does not use such big words as homoousios in order to explain the truth. So, the ground of locality is less problematic than Trinity in terms of the process of inducing into a prescriptive truth from some descriptive verses in the Bible.

So, It is I who is saying that the ground of locality should be accepted because it is presented in the Bible the same way Trinity is presented, but in a simpler process and clearer verses. If you accept Trinity and its process of being confirmed as valid, the ground of locality should be accepted on condition that that the process is the same with the case of Trinity. Now, if you want to attack this logic, you should prove that the ground of locality is not presented the way Trinity is.

But, your logic does not make sense. You just denied the ground of locality to begin with, without proving that the process of formulating it is different from Trinity, and just said the process was wrong. This means that if Igzy had been a brother in 3~4 century, he could have rejected Trinity on the ground that Trinity is controversial.

Igzy, you are using a circular logic to deny the ground of locality. What matters now is whether the ground of locality is valid or not. So, you cannot start your argument by denying the assertion to begin with. And in #130, you seem to have admitted that the process of formulating the ground of locality is okay, but problem was the shortage of enough information.

In summary,

Are you saying that the ground of locality should be rejected because
a. the process of formulating it is different from the case of Trinity?
b. the process of formulating it is the same with the case of Trinity, but enough information is in short compared to the case of Trinity?

Gubei

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Gubei

In summary,

Are you saying that the ground of locality should be rejected because
a. the process of formulating it is different from the case of Trinity?
b. the process of formulating it is the same with the case of Trinity, but enough information is in short compared to the case of Trinity?

Gubei

Gubei,

I'm saying the pattern of the Trinity in the Bible is much clearer and plainer than the ostensive pattern of locality, evidenced by the fact that almost everyone believes in the Trinity and almost no one believes in the local ground.

It is just more evidence to discount claims of the existence of some overriding locality truth. It's not the only reason, but it certainly doesn't help your case.

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Gubei,

I'm saying the pattern of the Trinity in the Bible is much clearer and plainer than the ostensive pattern of locality, evidenced by the fact that almost everyone believes in the Trinity and almost no one believes in the local ground.

It is just more evidence to discount claims of the existence of some overriding locality truth. It's not the only reason, but it certainly doesn't help your case.

Igzy,

Now you admit that Trinity and the ground of locality, both, are patterns drawn from some dscriptive verses in the Bible. I'm happy to hear this.

But, Trinity is much unclearer and less plainer than the ground of locality, as you said Trinity is somewhat vague.

I have never seen any posters here who do not understand what the ground of locality is. This means the truth is so straightforward, clear, and plain.

The reason some people reject this truth is not that they do not understand, but that they do not want to accept it.

Gubei