Bart's Invitation

DonCameron · Post by **DonCameron** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:04 pm

Hi Bart,

I wanted to thank you for your gentle way of expressing your concern for why I seem to be hanging on to the teachings of a religion that I came to realize that God and Christ have never had anything to do with.

You said...

If I understand correctly, you used to be a part of the Jehovah's Witnesses and over time, you became aware of issues within the leadership structure and accompanying motives, that lead you to leave as well as to write a book revealing what it was that lead you to that decision; an expose on the organization to help others involved or investigating decide against entering.

You understand perfectly.

You asked...

How can you separate entirely the doctrine of the JW with their structure and the resultant organization that has grown based upon that doctrine? Later you again asked, I just have to ask why you would want to hold so doggedly to the doctrine that resulted in the organization of the JW's? And then once again, "Why would you remain apart from any direct fellowship and continue to defend and promote the same doctrine?

Frustrating, I know!

There are many former Witnesses who now believe in the Trinity and hellfire, etc. But there are also many former Witnesses, like myself, who feel that the Society (and other religions) correctly understands what the Bible teaches about the identity of Jesus, the soul, hell, etc.

Since I still feel that what I believe about these things is what the Bible itself teaches, then the fact that I no longer believe that the Watchtower Society is God's organization has no effect on what I believe about such matters.

In the same way, if you found out that your religion was not what you thought it was, would that have any effect at all on what you believe the Bible teaches about God, hell, etc.? I would think that you believe what you believe because you are convinced that it is what the Bible teachers rather than just because it is what your religion teaches.

I would hope that if what I believe about the Bible is not true, then eventually I will be able to come to realize that fact. I suspect that you and everyone else on this Forum feels the same way. But if what we believe is not true, how is it possible to realize it? For, as you said, "I haven't seen much evidence of anyone changing their minds."

This is where I feel my favorite Scripture comes in. I'm sure I've referred to a time or two. It's the one where Paul explained to Timothy that all we can do is present what we believe as mildly and gently as possible, and then leave it up to God to help others to get the sense of it. As hard as we may try to help someone else see things the way we see them, I have come to the conclusion that only God has the power to make that happen. - 2 Timothy 2:23-25

Thank you again Bart for your Christian attitude.

Don

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:04 pm

Don,

Thank you for your response and I am glad to see that my asking it was not offensive.

I have the following thoughts that I would like to place before you for your consideration.

1. I do not know how far your identifying with the JW doctrine extends, but to my understanding which may be limited based upon study several years ago in terms of the history and doctrine of the JW's there is first of all the Arianism in terms of the rejection of the Trinity and the reduction of Jesus to a created being, more than man and angels but less than God. A great deal of the JW doctine, focused around the prediction by Russell of Christ's return in 1914 (hope i remember that correctly) with other dates following until the representation was made that the return had occured and was spiritual rather than physical.

All this ask, do you embrace everything the JW teach doctrinally and simply reject the organization around it?

2. If the JW's are unique doctrinally to where you cannot find another group that you may fellowship, then again, respectfully, I have to ask you why God would allow his Word to be so hijacked in this context and no other group to exist to preserve what you believe to be God's teaching. It begs the question as to what is cause and what is effect here.

But, the issue that I have address next is a delicate one and one which I hope you will understand.

I invited you to begin this thread. I confess that part of my motivation was the belief that if you accepted it would reveal the beliefs still concurrant with the JW's.

The issue I have is this.

If you examine the board standards, in this realm, the standard is one of honest seeker or Christian seeking to expand their knowledge.

It appears to me, although you may correct me, that you are firm in your beliefs and this is an exercise in promotion of them against arguments or interpretations that you have encountered before and are rejecting.

If I'm wrong please correct me, and I would be pleased to be wrong in this instance.

As you've been very polite and understanding thus far, I know I can rely upon your integrity to determine if your pursuing this topic would be in keeping with our board standards.

Again, I realize the awkwardness on my part, as I made the invitation. Now that the issues I suspected might be there are evidenced, I need to ask that.

Respectfully,

Bart

DonCameron · Post by **DonCameron** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:03 pm

Bart,

You said...

A great deal of the JW doctrine, focused around the prediction by Russell of Christ's return in 1914.

Note: Russell believed that Jesus' return ("Second Coming" or "invisible presence" as they prefer to call it) had occurred in 1874. It wasn't until 27 years after Russell died (in 1916) that the Society changed the date to 1914 (in 1943).

You asked...
'Do you embrace everything the JW teach doctrinally and simply reject the organization around it?

No.

You asked...

Why would God allow his Word to be so hijacked in this context and no other group to exist to preserve what you believe to be God's teaching.

I'm not too sure God is dealing with any particular "group." For some 20 years I thought He was - the Watchtower Society. If He is dealing with some group today I haven't figured out who it is yet. Do you believe that the Catholic Church is that group?

I admit that because of my previous painful experience with the above Watchtower group, I'm not overly anxious to find another group that will also require that I must accept their particular interpretations of the Bible in order to be accepted into their group; in order to be considered a true Christian brother.

For example, I get the impression that unless I am willing to confess that Jesus is God and that God is a Trinity, I will not be viewed by anyone on this Forum (or group) as a Christian - not even though I believe exactly what John said I must believe about Jesus (John 20:30,31), and confess exactly what Paul said I must confess about him (Romans 10:9).

Although the other day you invited me to express my views about God and Jesus, you are now very politely asking me to consider that I may have violated this Board's Standards buy answering questions and presenting my non-Trinitarian understanding.

You put it this way...

The issue I have is this. "If you examine the board standards, in this realm, the standard is one of honest seeker or Christian seeking to expand their knowledge."

You then said...

It appears to me...that you are firm in your beliefs and this is an exercise in promotion of them against arguments or interpretations that you have encountered before and are rejecting. If I'm wrong please correct me, and I would be pleased to be wrong in this instance.

I haven't of thought of what I have been doing as an "exercise in promotion" of my beliefs. But rather that there has been an interchange of our different ways if looking at what the Bible is trying to teach us about Jesus Christ.

I think it is possible that some of my ways of looking at things were new to some on this Forum. They are now better prepared to answer these arguments if they ever come up again. Some may be even more convinced that Jesus is truly God because they fell my arguments don't hold up.

I view our differences of opinions as differences in opinion rather then a means of determining who are and who are not the real Christians. I know I don't understand everything the Bible has to say about God or hell and many other subjects. Is there anyone on this Forum who does know everything?

If you feel that it is time to bring our discussions to an end, then I will certainly honor your request, especially since, as you acknowledged, you are the one who invited me into such discussions in the first place.

Don

DonCameron · Post by **DonCameron** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:52 pm

FFC,

A while back I had I had mentioned how I thought that the "Yehovah" ("LORD" or ",Jehovah") of the Old Testament was Father of Jesus. My reasoning was based on the fact that Jeremiah said that "Jehovah is the living God" and then later Peter said that Jesus was "the Son of the Living God."

You then explained...

You could also look at it this way. Jehovah is God...period...and God and The Father are interchangeable terms.

That is exactly how I understand it. Jehovah is "God." He is "God the Father."

But then you added...

Just Like Jesus and God, and The Holy Spirit and God are interchangeable terms since the three are God.

I have a difficult time seeing how all these terms are "interchangeable."

When trying to understand this, I've listed as many possible combinations of the Persons within the Trinity I can think of. If this list is not correct, please make whatever changes so that it is correct...

1) Jehovah is the name of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit — The Persons of the Trinity all together.
2) Jehovah is God the Father (1st Person only)
3) Jehovah is God the Son (2nd Person only)
4) Jehovah is God the Holy Spirit (3rd Person only)
5) Jehovah is God the Father and God the Son (1st and 2nd Person)
6) Jehovah is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit (1st and 3rd Person)
7) Jehovah is God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (2nd Person and 3rd Person )

Which one of the above applies in each occurrence of the word "GOD" in following Scriptures...

John 1:1,18
"The Word was with GOD. And the Word was GOD... No man has seen GOD at any time."

John 5:18
Jesus was accused of "making himself equal with GOD."

John 10:33
The Jews said that Jesus made himself GOD

John 19:7
The Jews said that Jesus "made himself GOD's Son"

John 20:28:
Thomas said, "My Lord and my GOD."

1 Corinthians 8:5
"Although there are many gods...there is actualy to us one GOD..."

Again, which of the above terms or expressions apply in each of these Scriptures?

Don

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:27 pm

Don,

I've given it considerable thought and prayer with regard to continuing this thread. We have had threads of this nature that have gone on for some length with people from non-Orthodox Christian perspectives that have been quite antagonistic.

Examining the characteristics of the posts here, I'm inclined, as long as no other moderators object, to leave it active with the provision that, as I think you have to this point, you or any others who may join it realize that this is Christian website which clearly states in its Statement of Faith, a firm belief and foundation in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Messiah and of Himself as a member of the Trinity.

We believe this without apology. If it becomes apparent to me or any of our other moderators that this is being compromised or attacked, then the thread will be locked and discontinued.

I'd encourage you if you have not already, to take a look at our main website, for our statement of faith as well perhaps, at our Discovery Course that provides basic doctine and teaching for new Christians and clearly outlines these beliefs. There are articles as well with regard to Jehovahs Witness Doctrine that you may find of interest.

Don, you're right in your previous post when you state that it is the view of many, including myself, that the acceptance of the Trinity and Jesus' deity is a foundational part of salvation. In the end, it is God who will make that determination. It would be disingenuous however, for us not to be clear on that and it would be uncaring of you and your future (regardless of whether you view it as annihilation or eternal torment) not to push the issue.

Don, I don't understand all that is at work with you in terms of your leaving the JW's although I've read Rich's review of your book and you've confirmed some basic things here.

I have a lot of respect that you were able to see after such a long time in such an organization the problems with their structure and then to do something about it and leave. That took courage and it must have been very difficult. Further it must be difficult to now be without a means of regular fellowship and communion with those of similar beliefs.

I don't understand entirely why God has brought you to our discussion board, but I'm going to believe that He has a reason for it.

My general appeal to you, would be that in discussing the differences that there are currently between us, that you ask God to show you if there is more than JW organizational structure that has been inflicted upon you. I will pray as well that I and others involved will learn and reinforce that which we believe to be true while maintaining a spirit of care and understanding for you and others watching.

If this is acceptable to you, I believe I can rely on you to be sensitive to our Board Purpose and Discussion Guidelines and I believe those who are engaging here are able to do so to and it can be a productive conversation.

Fair enough?

Regards,

Bart

FFC · Post by **FFC** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:46 pm

Don wrote:When trying to understand this, I've listed as many possible combinations of the Persons within the Trinity I can think of. If this list is not correct, please make whatever changes so that it is correct...

1) Jehovah is the name of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit — The Persons of the Trinity all together.
2) Jehovah is God the Father (1st Person only)
3) Jehovah is God the Son (2nd Person only)
4) Jehovah is God the Holy Spirit (3rd Person only)
5) Jehovah is God the Father and God the Son (1st and 2nd Person)
6) Jehovah is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit (1st and 3rd Person)
7) Jehovah is God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (2nd Person and 3rd Person )

Which one of the above applies in each occurrence of the word "GOD" in following Scriptures...

Don, I think you already guessed that I pick number one. Jehovah is a triune God. As the old hymn goes "God in three persons, blessed Trinity".

To not see it that way, for me, makes the scriptures very confusing. For you I'm sure it is the opposite.

Angel Cake · Post by **Angel Cake** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:59 pm

FFC wrote:Don, I think you already guessed that I pick number one. Jehovah is a triune God. As the old hymn goes "God in three persons, blessed Trinity".

The same goes for me.

puritan lad · Post by **puritan lad** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:15 am

Jehovah is the name of the Father (Psalm 110:1), Son (Isaiah 8:13-14 cf. 1 Peter 2:6-8; Jeremiah 23:6), and Holy Spirit (Jeremiah 31:31-34 cf. Hebrews 10:15-17).

DonCameron · Post by **DonCameron** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:03 pm

Hi FFC,

I had listed all the possible ways I can think of that the term "God" can refer to according to the definition of the Trinity depending on the context...

1) Jehovah is the name of the Trinity (All 3 Persons - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
2) Jehovah is God the Father (1st Person only)
3) Jehovah is God the Son (2nd Person only)
4) Jehovah is God the Holy Spirit (3rd Person only)
5) Jehovah is God the Father and God the Son (1st and 2nd Person)
6) Jehovah is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit (1st and 3rd Person)
7) Jehovah is God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (2nd Person and 3rd Person )

I don't think I explained myself very well in my last letter. I wasn't asking you to pick out which above listing you agreed with.

One of the things that gets in my way of seeing that God is a Trinity is the fact that under the Trinity concept the word “God” constantly changes as to who it refers to. Take John 1:1 for example…

“The Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD."

What I notice is that according to the Trinity the meaning of the first GOD and the meaning of the second GOD is not the same.

In the first occurrence, the word “Trinity” or “Triune God” does not seem to fit. Jesus was not with the Triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). He was with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. And so that's the way I would read that first part of John 1:1…

"The Word was with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. (See #6 in above list)

But when it comes to the second occurrence of the word “GOD” the meaning changes. Here too the word does not refer to the Triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). It refers only to the 2nd Person of the Trinity…

"The Word was God the Son." (See #3 in above list).

And so, when I read John 1:1 with the Trinity concept in mind, it looks like this to me:

[i]“The Word was with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, and the Word was God the Son.”[/i]

What about John 1:18 where is says, "No one has ever seen GOD.” Which of the above renderings would fit the word "GOD" in this case?

I guess "the Triune God” might fit because no one has ever seen “the Trinity.” But "God the Father" and "God the Holy Spirit" would definitely fit. “God the Son” would not fit because Jesus has been seen. And so when I read verse 18 it looks like this…

"No one has ever seen “the Triune God” or "God the Father" or "God the Holy Spirit."

My Point: According to the Trinity, in the above three occurrences of the one single word "God," it keeps changing who the word refers to.

1st occurrence: God = "God the Father and God the Holy Spirit"
2nd occurrence: God = "God the Son"
3rd occurrence: God = "The Triune God" or "God the Father or "God the Holy Spirit"

Again, this is one of the reasons that make it so difficult for me to see that God is a Trinity. In order to sustain it, the word for God has to keep changing who it refers to.

Don

Judah · Post by **Judah** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:04 pm

Don wrote:Again, this is one of the reasons that make it so difficult for me to see that God is a Trinity. In order to sustain it, the word for God has to keep changing who it refers to.

And yet to me, all this makes it obvious that God is triune. He is impossible to divide into three complete separations - He is one God, not three gods.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all of the one substance - God.
By trying to separate so completely each Person of the Godhead, you are trying to divide God and that cannot be done.

Perhaps the Athanasian Creed can describe these relationships within the Godhead more fully. Please note that the word "Catholic" here means "universal", not Roman Catholic - the "Catholic Faith" is the universal (orthodox) Christian faith.

WHOSOEVER WILL BE SAVED,
before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholic Faith is this:
That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity,
neither confounding the Persons,
nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father,
another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.

The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible,
and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.

And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated,
but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.

So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty,
and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three
Almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God,
and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord,
and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge
every Person by himself to be both God and Lord,
So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say,
There be three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son,
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons;
one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other;
none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons
are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid,
the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also
believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess,
that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;
God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds;
and Man of the substance of his Mother, born in the world;
Perfect God and perfect Man,
of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the
Father, as touching his manhood; Who, although he be God and Man,
yet he is not two, but one Christ;
One, not by conversion of the Godhead
into flesh but by taking of the Manhood into God;
One altogether; not by confusion of Substance,
but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul
and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell,
rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of the Father,
God Almighty, from whence he will come
to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies
and shall give account for their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life
everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully,
he cannot be saved.

FFC · Post by **FFC** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:17 pm

Yay, Judah! It can't get any clearer than that!

Yo, Don, what Judah said.

Byblos · Post by **Byblos** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:35 pm

FFC wrote:Yay, Judah! It can't get any clearer than that!

Yo, Don, what Judah said.

Ditto.

Don,

If I wasn't familiar with the thread from the beginning and just read your last post I would've thought you were arguing for the trinity.

Anyway, going back to something you said earlier:

DonCameron wrote:John,

You asked...

Why do you think God would create an ordinary being (albeit free of original sin) and give him redemptive power over all of humanity?

First of all I don't think of Jesus as ever having been "an ordinary being."

Well, ordinary in the sense that he wasn't God (but you knew that, right?

). Compared to Christ, even Adam would be considered ordinary, would you not agree?

DonCameron wrote:As to why I think God would provide a perfect, sinless human with redemptive power over all humanity, it is because I feel that a perfect human is all that is necessary to redeem all humanity. Since one man (Adam, who was created sinless), is responsible for the sin that has been passed on to all humanity, then one sinless man can redeem all humanity.

This is what it sounds to me like Paul explained to the Corinthians...

Since death is through a man, resurrection of the dead is also through a man. For just as in Adam (a man) all are dying, so also in the Christ (a man) all will be made alive. 1 Cor. 15:21,22

I recall reading where some have reasoned that if Jesus was just a man that his death would not have been sufficient to redeem all mankind. They say that Jesus would have to have been God in order for his death to accomplish this.

Naturally, I don't see it that way.

Ok, let's explore that a little further. What do you see the difference is between Adam and Jesus then? As I understood what you believe, they were both created (not eternal), and they were both created sinless. Despite that, one sinned and not the other. Why? Did either of their free will have anything to do with their decisions?

DonCameron · Post by **DonCameron** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 8:24 pm

Hi Judah,

I read the very detailed, rather involved explanation of the Athanasian Creed and what it says is necessary to believe about God and Jesus Christ in order to be saved. But I could not help but notice that almost 99% of what it says is not stated in the Bible.

I also noticed that there were no Scriptures offered to support anything stated in this Creed. I could not help but wonder if the reason why there aren't any Scriptures offered is because there aren't any to offer.

And yet the non-Bible authors of this Creed insist that in order to be saved we must believe everything that has been said. ("This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

I also cannot help notice that what the Bible says that is necessary in order to be saved is a lot less involved. For example, John simply said that we will be saved if we "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." - John 20:30,31

What do you feel I'm missing here?

Don

DonCameron · Post by **DonCameron** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:11 pm

Hi John,

You asked...

What do you see the difference is between Adam and Jesus then? As I understood what you believe, they were both created (not eternal), and they were both created sinless. Despite that, one sinned and not the other. Why? Did either of their free will have anything to do with their decisions?

I understand they were both created perfect and both had free will. The difference between them is that Adam used his free will to disobey God. Jesus used his to be obedient even to his death (thank goodness).

As to why Adam disobeyed God and Jesus didn't, I assume that it was for the same kind of reasons why we choose to be obedient or not. Among other things, there seems to have been a definite lack of love and appreciation for what God had done for Adam. Jesus didn't have that lack.

Don

Judah · Post by **Judah** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:19 pm

DonCameron wrote:Hi Judah,

I read the very detailed, rather involved explanation of the Athanasian Creed and what it says is necessary to believe about God and Jesus Christ in order to be saved. But I could not help but notice that almost 99% of what it says is not stated in the Bible.

I also noticed that there were no Scriptures offered to support anything stated in this Creed. I could not help but wonder if the reason why there aren't any Scriptures offered is because there aren't any to offer.

And yet the non-Bible authors of this Creed insist that in order to be saved we must believe everything that has been said. ("This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

I also cannot help notice that what the Bible says that is necessary in order to be saved is a lot less involved. For example, John simply said that we will be saved if we "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." - John 20:30,31

What do you feel I'm missing here?

Don

Some general information pertaining to the Athanasian Creed for those interested...

Also know as the "Quicumque vult", it is one of the four authoritative Creeds of the Roman Catholic Church but the Anglican Church and some Protestant Churches (such as Lutherans) also hold it to be authoritative.
It is considered a good orthodox summation of the doctrine of the Trinity and has been widely used in worship, especially in the west.
While the Creed has always been attributed to St. Athanasius (d 373 AD) who was famous for defending Christian orthodoxy against the heresy of Arianism, it was unknown in the Eastern Churches until the 12th century and thus it is unlikely he is the author.
St. Ambrose is one suggested author, but many authors have been proposed with no conclusive agreements reached.
Current theory suggests it was composed in southern France in the 5th century. In 1940, the lost 'Excerpta' of St. Vincent of Lerins (flourished in 440: "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est") was discovered, and this work contains much of the language of the Creed. Thus, either St. Vincent, or an admirer have been suggested as the author.
The earliest known copy of the creed was included in a prefix to a collection of homilies by Caesarius of Arles (died 542).

Don, referring to Scripture, can you point out to me which aspect of that creed is not orthodox Christian belief?

You quote John 20:30,31 to show what is required for salvation.
Yet James 2:18-20 tells us that "Even the demons believe that—and shudder". Am I to understand that demons are saved?
Isn't there some simplification going on here in your quotation of that one verse? Is "to believe" just an intellectual assent, or is it much much more?

I am not "feeling" that you are missing something. I am thinking how easy it is to deny the full meaning of something by taking a single verse and not considering it in relation to the whole of the gospel.
The same goes for trying to dissect God rather than seeing how all the attributes of God are common to each Person in the triune Godhead, and how all of Scripture comes together to support the Trinity even when the word "trinity" does not get a mention.
Likewise, the Athanasian Creed is a summation of what constitutes the substance of God even without single verses applied to each line.