Is Conservatism Wrong?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Wow. They actually used the T word!

Basically, the old-timers were real trinitarians at heart. They objected to the use of the non-Biblical word "Persons" to describe the Godhead because they found that this language led inevitibly toward tritheism.

The famous campmeeting in 1913, at Arroyo Seco began with a move among some to start performing triple immersions - one immersion in the "name" of each of the three titiles from Matthew 28:19.

This proposal led to a back lash of sorts that culminated in the famous "revelation" of Jesus name baptism. Oneness began as a reaction against tritheism, not Trinitarianism.

[hometown guy]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Basically, the old-timers were real trinitarians at heart. They objected to the use of the non-Biblical word "Persons" to describe the Godhead because they found that this language led inevitibly toward tritheism.

The famous campmeeting in 1913, at Arroyo Seco began with a move among some to start performing triple immersions - one immersion in the "name" of each of the three titiles from Matthew 28:19.

This proposal led to a back lash of sorts that culminated in the famous "revelation" of Jesus name baptism. Oneness began as a reaction against tritheism, not Trinitarianism.

Oneness of God has been right since…..well eternity.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Basically, the old-timers were real trinitarians at heart. They objected to the use of the non-Biblical word "Persons" to describe the Godhead because they found that this language led inevitibly toward tritheism.

The famous campmeeting in 1913, at Arroyo Seco began with a move among some to start performing triple immersions - one immersion in the "name" of each of the three titiles from Matthew 28:19.

This proposal led to a back lash of sorts that culminated in the famous "revelation" of Jesus name baptism. Oneness began as a reaction against tritheism, not Trinitarianism.

Your half-right. The word "person" is found on the original Nicene manifesto, originated by our friend Tertullian. Tritheism was introduced at the great council, though not explicitly as such.

EDITED: When (actually) was the word "persons" used to describe the godhead first? It's not found in the 325 council's creed or 381.

[The Only Way]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You would only "have an idea" if you were very familair with the debates within the OP camp and how the terms have been co-opted. Your general social observer would classify "conservatives" and "ultra-cons" as "radicals bent upon implementing massive and sweeping changes."

A real conservative wouldn't behave like that.

Lol, how would you know? Thats a question for both highlights!

[The Only Way]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I was startled when I first came onto this forum to find people calling themselves "conservative" who owned and watched television. In my conservative circle, all televisions should be beaten with sledgehammers. (unless they're being used as "monitors" )

So the label is a little subjective depending upon the group you're with. On this forum, conservative tends to be applied to the people who mostly keep the traditional dress standards.

Hey quiet, you are surprising me! You are starting to sound like most of the conservatives I know!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Your half-right. The word "person" is found on the original Nicene manifesto, originated by our friend Tertullian. Tritheism was introduced at the great council, though not explicitly as such.

EDITED: When (actually) was the word "persons" used to describe the godhead first? It's not found in the 325 council's creed or 381.

Tertullian coined the phrase "personae" into Latin from the old Etruscan word for a theater mask. He did so around the time of 180 A.D. "Personae" was intended to be a Latin translation for the Greek word "hypo-stasis." Until that time there was no word in Latin for this idea.

- hypo-stasis means "hupo" or "under" + "stasis" or condition, nature or state of being. Hypo-stasis was the term for the fundamental nature of a thing or a being, in this case the fundamental state of God's being.

He also coined many new terms like "trintas" and so forth. Modern scholars have counted well over 100 words that Tertullian introduced into the Latin vocabulary.

Most importantly, he did NOT use the word "personae" in the same sense that the word "person" is used today. After he died and in the midst of the terrible persecutions and the later civil wars within the Roman Empire his writings were lost. They were not rediscovered until after the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

That means the guy who could best explain what he meant by "Person" and "Trinity" - the guy who coined the terms - was silent for over 1,000 years of theological debate and formulation. His writings were not even extant at the time of Nicea in 325. He was only known from second hand references in the writings of others.

It is "modern scholarship" that has unraveled the mysteries around Tertullian's theology, and "modern scholarship" that has shown just how shaky the ground is beneath "Orthodox Trinitarianism."

Sadly, OP's tend to revile "modern scholarship" more vociferously than they do their hated Trinitarian foes. It's amazing what we could learn if we set aside our prejudices. We might even discover - much to our own amazement! - that we were right about a few things and that most people have come to see that.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You would only "have an idea" if you were very familair with the debates within the OP camp and how the terms have been co-opted. Your general social observer would classify "conservatives" and "ultra-cons" as "radicals bent upon implementing massive and sweeping changes."

A real conservative wouldn't behave like that.

Originally Posted by The Only Way

Lol, how would you know? Thats a question for both highlights!

A fair question - and a very good one!

The answer goes to the heart of what a "conservative" is and what a "conservative" does. What types of behavior are "conservative?"

In Western political thought, Conservatism was first coined as a phrase around 1819 to describe the policies of those who wanted to "conserve" the older principles of European governance that had been overthrown by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Empire. Basically, conservatives "wanted things to be the way they were."

Of course, anything that stops moving is dead - so accommodations had to be made with the various processes of change. One method for managing change that was championed by conservatives was known by the French phrase of "laissez-faire" = "let do" or "hands off." On this point the conservative movement favored limited government and limited tariffs and taxation.

If there was going to be change, the conservatives wanted as much freedom to exist as possible to allow different forms of change to be experimented with. Then, after careful study and consideration, larger changes might be allowed across the system. This was - and is! - conservatism.

Compare this to the radicalism of those who call themselves "conservative" within the OP world.

How can we describe the Westberg resolution of 1992 as "hands off?" If we can't - it's not "conservative."

The OP "conservatives" have demanded tremendous change to people's lifestyle, beliefs and the way in which we treat and dialog with other Christians. They have introduced sweeping changes with their "dress codes" and "standards" and have worked to deliberately isolate us from the rest of Christendom.

As has been documented here many times - see the old PCI Manual, look at the old family pictures of our founders and their loved ones, read the writings of Andrew Urshan and John Dearing... the list goes on!

The radicals have sought to disguise their moves with pleas of "following the old paths" - but upon investigation, we find those so-called "old paths" are all novelties introduced in the mid-twentieth century.

[Scott Hutchinson]

This might help.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/index.htm

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/...ertullian.html