Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[Butch5]

St. Athanasius was one of the leaders at Nicea, that said, it is doubtful that he wrote the Athanasian Creed. That creed is not objectionable to the Orthodox except for the filioque, although I have read in the works of +Kallistos Ware some Greek Orthodox service books contain it, sans filioque.

I don't like the Anthanasian Creed as it goes father than what Scripture states. There are also part which I think are simply incorrect. I believe this, going beyond Scripture, has cause many to come to a faulty understanding of the Trinity doctrine.
I hold to the Nicene Creed

 

[cgaviria]

I don't like the Anthanasian Creed as it goes father than what Scripture states. There are also part which I think are simply incorrect. I believe this, going beyond Scripture, has cause many to come to a faulty understanding of the Trinity doctrine.
I hold to the Nicene Creed

Its funny that you would say, no I don't like the "Anthanasian Creed" because it goes outside of scripture, but then you say, I hold to the "Nicene Cree", which is a document outside of scripture. Look at what the Nicene Creed says,

"And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church".

Are you aware that this document pledges its allegiance to the catholic church? I know some people say that by catholic it is referring to the "universal" church of God, but if it were indeed referring to a "universal" church, then what need would it have to mention a second church? Its clearly WITHOUT A DOUBT pledging allegiance to THE CATHOLIC CHURCH and I do not trust the document. I will much rather trust SCRIPTURE ONLY.

 

[Wgw]

Its funny that you would say, no I don't like the "Anthanasian Creed" because it goes outside of scripture, but then you say, I hold to the "Nicene Cree", which is a document outside of scripture. Look at what the Nicene Creed says,

"And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church".

Are you aware that this document pledges its allegiance to the catholic church? I know some people say that by catholic it is referring to the "universal" church of God, but if it were indeed referring to a "universal" church, then what need would it have to mention a second church? Its clearly WITHOUT A DOUBT pledging allegiance to THE CATHOLIC CHURCH and I do not trust the document. I will much rather trust SCRIPTURE ONLY.

This is a non-issue for reasons we have been over before. The cf.com Statement of Faith explains it well:

"*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine."

 

[cgaviria]

This is a non-issue for reasons we have been over before. The cf.com Statement of Faith explains it well:

"*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine."

This is where it shows that although you are not catholic, you still believe things THAT ARE CATHOLIC. You haven't really departed fully from catholic teaching. You are upholding a document THAT IS OUTSIDE of scripture as TRUTH. You need to base your theology on SCRIPTURE ALONE. This is unfortunate, because look at the fair warning in Revelation concerning the catholic church,

And I heard another voice from out of the heaven, saying, Come forth from out of her, my people! that you should not partake together with her sins; and [*4*of *5*her calamities *1*that *2*you should not *3*receive]. (Revelation of John 18:4 [ABP])

 

[Butch5]

Its funny that you would say, no I don't like the "Anthanasian Creed" because it goes outside of scripture, but then you say, I hold to the "Nicene Cree", which is a document outside of scripture. Look at what the Nicene Creed says,

"And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church".

Are you aware that this document pledges its allegiance to the catholic church? I know some people say that by catholic it is referring to the "universal" church of God, but if it were indeed referring to a "universal" church, then what need would it have to mention a second church? Its clearly WITHOUT A DOUBT pledging allegiance to THE CATHOLIC CHURCH and I do not trust the document. I will much rather trust SCRIPTURE ONLY.

Yes, I am aware of that statement. However, that statement doesn't address Scripture. but rather a belief in one church. The creed was in response to Christians who were claiming that Christ was a created being thus the mention of a catholic church. I think it could be argued that at the time of the creed the "Roman Catholic Church" didn't yet exist. The Nicene Creed contains what Christians believed about Christ from the apostles to that time. That is why I accept it.

 

[cgaviria]

I'll have to disagree with you on 1 John 5:7. I don't find there to be sufficient evidence for this passage. It's only found in a few midieval manuscripts.

Mathew 28 doesn't mention the Trinity, it says, baptize them in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I don't see how that proves the Trinity.

Didn't it occur to anyone in this discussion that if there are evident forgies trying to push the "trinity" onto the bible, as is clear in this verse (1 John 5:7) and in Matthew that it is perhaps also a false teaching? If it were a clear teaching of scripture, not only would every manuscript that has been uncovered have the trinity reference, but every quote in reference to doing things "in the name of Jesus Christ" would also have them the trinity instead of just the name of Jesus Christ, since obviously the trinity is SUCHHHHHHHHHH an important thing..... (sarcasm). don't you think the original writers would've made it a point to ALWAYS make mention of the trinity as well since it is soooooooo important? The trinity teaching is nonsensical and is a doctrine of man, the catholic church. Whoever believes in the trinity is still allied with the catholic church.

 

[Wgw]

This is where it shows that although you are not catholic, you still believe things THAT ARE CATHOLIC. You haven't really departed fully from catholic teaching. You are upholding a document THAT IS OUTSIDE of scripture as TRUTH. You need to base your theology on SCRIPTURE ALONE. This is unfortunate, because look at the fair warning in Revelation concerning the catholic church,

And I heard another voice from out of the heaven, saying, Come forth from out of her, my people! that you should not partake together with her sins; and [*4*of *5*her calamities *1*that *2*you should not *3*receive]. (Revelation of John 18:4 [ABP])

This argument however is specifically off topic. The whole point of this thread was to see if nonTrinitarians could defend their position without resorting to criticizing the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am not a member. Thus far, the answer to that seems to apparently be "no," since neither you nor @Imagican have been able to avoid going down that road.

In fact, I would propose that the main thrust of the arguments presented seems to be "The Nicene Creed says Catholic, therefore it must mean the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore everything it says must be wrong." I myself am deeply suspicious of those who base their entire theological position around attacking another denomination.

At any rate, this is a non-issue, because you are simply misinterpreting the creed. One fact you ignore is that Nicea fell under the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople, which in the course of schisms separated from Rome and is Orthodox, and both Arius and his main prosecutors Ss. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius, were from the Chuch of Alexandria, which today exists in the form of separate Coptic and Greek Orthodox jurisdictons, having also never been a part of the Roman Catholic Church, and having not been in communion with Rome since 451 and 1054 respectively. The Roman Pope (who was not called "Pope" in those days) did not even personally attend Nicea due to the distance involved, but rather sent legates, and acceded to the council after the fact.

 

[cgaviria]

Yes, I am aware of that statement. However, that statement doesn't address Scripture. but rather a belief in one church. The creed was in response to Christians who were claiming that Christ was a created being thus the mention of a catholic church. I think it could be argued that at the time of the creed the "Roman Catholic Church" didn't yet exist. The Nicene Creed contains what Christians believed about Christ from the apostles to that time. That is why I accept it.

So what you're practically saying in accepting it is that you consider it scripture as well. I am telling you that this is not a good thing to do, because regardless of the speculative history of the document, it is better to base theology on SCRIPTURE ONLY. The words of God are infallible. Are you going to trust a document outside of it that may or may not be truth? If I tell you I believe in something, I back it with scripture, not with things like, oh this document says it true, therefore I believe it. SCRIPTURE ONLY BABY.

 

[Wgw]

Didn't it occur to anyone in this discussion that if there are evident forgies trying to push the "trinity" onto the bible, as is clear in this verse (1 John 5:7) and in Matthew that it is perhaps also a false teaching? If it were a clear teaching of scripture, not only would every manuscript that has been uncovered have the trinity reference, but every quote in reference to doing things "in the name of Jesus Christ" would also have them the trinity instead of just the name of Jesus Christ, since obviously the trinity is SUCHHHHHHHHHH an important thing..... (sarcasm). don't you think the original writers would've made it a point to ALWAYS make mention of the trinity as well since it is soooooooo important? The trinity teaching is nonsensical and is a doctrine of man, the catholic church. Whoever believes in the trinity is still allied with the catholic church.

The Comma Johanneum is not needed in order to defend the Nicene position.
However, non-Trinitarians have often felt the need to ignore, reject or modify portions of scripture. Consider if you will the Unitarian Universalist deprecation of a literal interpretation of all books, the Jefferson Bible, or indeed the notorious case of John 1:1 being intentionally mistranslated in the New World Bible.

By your logic, we should reject non-Trinitarianism just on that basis.

 

[cgaviria]

This argument however is specifically off topic. The whole point of this thread was to see if nonTrinitarians could defend their position without resorting to criticizing the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am not a member. Thus far, the answer to that seems to apparently be "no," since neither you nor @Imagican have been able to avoid going down that road.

In fact, I would propose that the main thrust of the arguments presented seems to be "The Nicene Creed says Catholic, therefore it must mean the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore everything it says must be wrong." I myself am deeply suspicious of those who base their entire theological position around attacking another denomination.

At any rate, this is a non-issue, because you are simply misinterpreting the creed. One fact you ignore is that Nicea fell under the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople, which in the course of schisms separated from Rome and is Orthodox, and both Arius and his main prosecutors Ss. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius, were from the Chuch of Alexandria, which today exists in the form of separate Coptic and Greek Orthodox jurisdictons, having also never been a part of the Roman Catholic Church, and having not been in communion with Rome since 451 and 1054 respectively. The Roman Pope (who was not called "Pope" in those days) did not even personally attend Nicea due to the distance involved, but rather sent legates, and acceded to the council after the fact.

I am not here to attack the catholic church, I am here to bring to light scripture concerning the "trinity", which involves the catholic church without a doubt. There are many other churches outside of the catholic church that have their own flavors of doctrines that are plain false, so the catholic church is not in itself my primary focus of attack, because it is not the only church with incorrect doctrine.

I am going to say it one more time. I base my theology on SCRIPTURE ALONE. If I believe something, I will quote the scripture as to why I believe it. I would never base my theology on a document that exists outside of scripture, regardless of how true you think it might be. If the document is so true, then quote a scripture proving that what it says is true.

 

[Wgw]

So what you're practically saying in accepting it is that you consider it scripture as well. I am telling you that this is not a good thing to do, because regardless of the speculative history of the document, it is better to base theology on SCRIPTURE ONLY. The words of God are infallible. Are you going to trust a document outside of it that may or may not be truth? If I tell you I believe in something, I back it with scripture, not with things like, oh this document says it true, therefore I believe it. SCRIPTURE ONLY BABY.

Except you have been unable to back your position in light of John 1:1-14. No non-Trinitarian in this thread has posted anything approaching a compelling argument on this point.

 

[Wgw]

I am not here to attack the catholic church,

Then stop attacking it. You were the one who brought up this point.

 

[cgaviria]

The Comma Johanneum is not needed in order to defend the Nicene position.
However, non-Trinitarians have often felt the need to ignore, reject or modify portions of scripture. Consider if you will the Unitarian Universalist deprecation of a literal interpretation of all books, the Jefferson Bible, or indeed the notorious case of John 1:1 being intentionally mistranslated in the New World Bible.

By your logic, we should reject non-Trinitarianism just on that basis.

There aren't two sides to the coin in this, as in Trinitarianism and non-Trinitarianism, it is merely just ONE doctrine pushed by men who also have OTHER doctrines. So if in fact there are men TRYING to push something ONTO the bible, whether Trinitarian OR non-trinitarian, I would question the thing they are pushing. Let scripture BE scripture.

 

[cgaviria]

Except you have been unable to back your position in light of John 1:1-14. No non-Trinitarian in this thread has posted anything approaching a compelling argument on this point.

I have in fact already given you the logic behind how the Word was in the beginning. He was in the beginning BECAUSE he was made in the beginning. Its like a builder coming to build a house on a plot of land. Was he there in the beginning to build the house? Yes. But did he always exist there in that plot of land before the house was built? No. The same with Jesus Christ. He is the GREAT BUILDER, that was PRESENT in the BEGINNING BEFORE HE BUILT, OR RATHER, SPOKE THE WORLD INTO EXISTENCE, But just because he was present IN THE BEGINNING, doesnt mean he has always existed. He was brought forth into existence FIRST in the beginning, and IN THE BEGINNING, did Jesus then BRING FORTH INTO EXISTENCE ALL OTHER THINGS ON THE EARTH.

This logic is clear and compelling in of itself, but you choose to reject it because you are blind to it.

 

[Wgw]

I have in fact already given you the logic behind how the Word was in the beginning. He was in the beginning BECAUSE he was made in the beginning. Its like a builder coming to build a house on a plot of land. Was he there in the beginning to build the house? Yes. But did he always exist there in that plot of land before the house was built? No. The same with Jesus Christ. He is the GREAT BUILDER, that was PRESENT in the BEGINNING BEFORE HE BUILT, OR RATHER, SPOKE THE WORLD INTO EXISTENCE, But just because he was present IN THE BEGINNING, doesnt mean he has always existed. He was brought forth into existence FIRST in the beginning, and IN THE BEGINNING, did Jesus then BRING FORTH INTO EXISTENCE ALL OTHER THINGS ON THE EARTH.

This logic is clear and compelling in of itself, but you choose to reject it because you are blind to it.

You have been unable to show any verses that state Jesus Christ was "created" in the beginning, and your argument, as has been pointed out repeatedly, directly contradicts John 1:3. So in this instance, you yourself rely on a tradition not based in scripture, while concurrently incorrectly accusing us of the same error.

 

[cgaviria]

Then stop attacking it. You were the one who brought up this point.

I'll say whatever I need to say to defend scripture. This happens to be a doctrine pushed by that institution so it will definitely be mentioned by me time and time again. But even so, the whole basis of my theology is not them, I've given you ample logical proofs about the false teaching of the trinity. Read my http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ly-the-father-has-no-beginning-moved.7919007/ again. Do you see catholic church in there? HALF of what I've said there is quoted scripture, and the other half is me explaining the scripture itself.

 

[cgaviria]

You have been unable to show any verses that state Jesus Christ was "created" in the beginning, and your argument, as has been pointed out repeatedly, directly contradicts John 1:3. So in this instance, you yourself rely on a tradition not based in scripture, while concurrently incorrectly accusing us of the same error.

But neither will you find any scripture that blatantly says Jesus Christ NEVER BEGAN, not even the John 1 scripture you keep alluding to. So therefore it takes further study and more scriptures to discern the truth of the matter. Again, I encourage you to reread my explanation http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ly-the-father-has-no-beginning-moved.7919007/ . I have added new things to it.

 

[Wgw]

There aren't two sides to the coin in this, as in Trinitarianism and non-Trinitarianism, it is merely just ONE doctrine pushed by men who also have OTHER doctrines. So if in fact there are men TRYING to push something ONTO the bible, whether Trinitarian OR non-trinitarian, I would question the thing they are pushing. Let scripture BE scripture.

Since thus far, no one has been able to reconcile their opposition to the Nicene Faith with the scriptures that support it, I consider that the reverse is the case.

I'll say whatever I need to say to defend scripture.

I haven't seen you offer much in defense of Matthew 16:18, 1 Corinthians 10:17, and so on.

Also neither you nor anyone else has offered any logical proofs againt the Trinity; had someone been able to do this, I would have stopped being a Triniarian years ago, however, not even the likes of Arius or Dr. William Ellery Channing have been able to accomplish this fear; the American Unitarians eventually gave up on this point and embraced transcendentalism.

But neither will you find any scripture that blatantly says Jesus Christ NEVER BEGAN, not even the John 1 scripture you keep alluding to.

I am pleased to see you admit there is no explict scripture in defense of your position that our Lord was created (which logically contradicts John 1:3). I on the other hand can cite John 1:3 as logically proving our Lord was not created; I can further cite "Before Abraham was, I AM."

Not, "I also was" or "I was alive" or another example of past tense, which is how one would expect such a statement to be made, but "I AM," in the present tense, which signifies that our Lord in his impassable, eternal divine nature is as much there as as He is with the very disciples he was addressing and is indeed with us now. God, being unchanging, is with us always in the present, and is not confined according to human perceptions of linear time.

Now reverting again to John 1:3, the point cannot be stressed sufficiently that our Lord can not have "created all things" if he himself was "created." One simply cannot reconcile the idea that our Lord is a creature with John 1:1-14.

 

[cgaviria]

Since thus far, no one has been able to reconcile their opposition to the Nicene Faith with the scriptures that support it, I consider that the reverse is the case.



I haven't seen you offer much in defense of Matthew 16:18, 1 Corinthians 10:17, and so on.

Also neither you nor anyone else has offered any logical proofs againt the Trinity; had someone been able to do this, I would have stopped being a Triniarian years ago, however, not even the likes of Arius or Dr. William Ellery Channing have been able to accomplish this fear; the American Unitarians eventually gave up on this point and embraced transcendentalism.



I am pleased to see you admit there is no explict scripture in defense of your position that our Lord was created (which logically contradicts John 1:3). I on the other hand can cite John 1:3 as logically proving our Lord was not created; I can further cite "Before Abraham was, I AM."

Not, "I also was" or "I was alive" or another example of past tense, which is how one would expect such a statement to be made, but "I AM," in the present tense, which signifies that our Lord in his impassable, eternal divine nature is as much there as as He is with the very disciples he was addressing and is indeed with us now. God, being unchanging, is with us always in the present, and is not confined according to human perceptions of linear time.

Now reverting again to John 1:3, the point cannot be stressed sufficiently that our Lord can not have "created all things" if he himself was "created." One simply cannot reconcile the idea that our Lord is a creature with John 1:1-14.

I havent mentioned those sciptures they are not related to the topic at hand. You say that John 1 indicates that he never began, but even you'll have to admit it DOESN'T BLATANTLY SAY THAT EITHER. It doesn't say, HE NEVER BEGAN. You are yourself implying that just because he was there in the beginning that he never began. Yet I am also implying other things from other scriptures, such as him being only son, that the mere usage of the word "SON" implies he came forth into existence and a SON does not PRECEDE his father. A Father comes first, then a SON. And the father never began, so therefore the SON BEGAN because that is would what naturally PROCEED from something that never began. So who is MORE LOGICAL in what they are saying?

 

[Wgw]

I havent mentioned those sciptures they are not related to the topic at hand. You say that John 1 indicates that he never began, but even you'll have to admit it DOESN'T BLATANTLY SAY THAT EITHER. It doesn't say, HE NEVER BEGAN. You are yourself implying that just because he was there in the beginning that he never began. Yet I am also implying other things from other scriptures, such as him being only son, that the mere usage of the word "SON" implies he came forth into existence and a SON does not PRECEDE his father. A Father comes first, then a SON. And the father never began, so therefore the SON BEGAN because that is would what naturally PROCEED from something that never began. So who is MORE LOGICAL in what they are saying?

John 1:3 says that our Lord created all things; therefore He is nkt a creature. John 1:1 says that He is God. He says "Before Abraham was, I AM."

So whereas the Bible does not expressly say that our Lord was created, it does expressly deny it in John 1:3 and elsewhere.