Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[cgaviria]

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.

You do realize you're quoting the same scriptures over and over again. "I AM" does not imply never began. It implies life in himself. That goes in accordance with,

For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. (John 5:26)

It is clear that INSPITE of clear and full scriptures I have presented you with, you still refuse to believe. Its pretty pointless at this point to continue going on further, you simply will not bend to scripture.

 

[Butch5]

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.

I think it all depends on how one defines the term. That is why I asked for a definition. The typical understanding, that there is one being called God, who consists of three persons, is nonsensical and illogical. However, that is not the original understanding of the Trinity, but rather is the a product of the Athanasian creed. The original understanding does make sense and is logical. The problem is that most of modern Christianity holds to a more Augustinian view of the Trinity as espoused in the Anthanasian creed. I agree with you 100% that that view is a Catholic doctrine.

 

[cgaviria]

I think it all depends on how one defines the term. That is why I asked for a definition. The typical understanding, that there is one being called God, who consists of three persons, is nonsensical and illogical. However, that is not the original understanding of the Trinity, but rather is the a product of the Athanasian creed. The original understanding does make sense and is logical. The problem is that most of modern Christianity holds to a more Augustinian view of the Trinity as espoused in the Anthanasian creed. I agree with you 100% that that view is a Catholic doctrine.

I am aware of what both creeds state, but after much study I've chosen to UPHOLD NOTHING that exists outside of scripture. If I believe in a doctrine, its because there is a precise scripture to back it. The whole premise of the trinity doctrine, whether understood one way or the other, resides over the notion that Jesus never began. This is a false notion. I have a whole thread dedicated to explaining why this is a false teaching, http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ly-the-father-has-no-beginning-moved.7919007/

 

[Butch5]

I am aware of what both creeds state, but after much study I've chosen to UPHOLD NOTHING that exists outside of scripture. If I believe in a doctrine, its because there is a precise scripture to back it. The whole premise of the trinity doctrine, whether understood one way or the other, resides over the notion that Jesus never began. This is a false notion. I have a whole thread dedicated to explaining why this is a false teaching, http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ly-the-father-has-no-beginning-moved.7919007/

One thing we have to remember is that we bring presuppositions to the text, whether Biblical or extra Biblical. Just as you see Catholic in the creed and I see catholic in the creed. The same holds true of the Scriptures. There is only Scripture to back up what we claim if we properly understand the Scriptures. I would have to disagree with this statement,

"The whole premise of the trinity doctrine, whether understood one way or the other, resides over the notion that Jesus never began."

I understand the Trinity doctrine as espoused by the early Christians and I agree there is a time when Jesus began to exist as a separate being from the Father. The Early Christians said that He was, 'begotten before all ages.' To be gotten is to be born or to come into existence. However, we have to remember that the Father is eternal. Therefore He has existed for eternity. The Son came out of the Father, therefore whatever the Son is He is of the same substance or essence as the Father and that substance has existed for eternity. Thus the Son began to Exist as a separate being yet is eternal in substance.

 

[Wgw]

You do realize you're quoting the same scriptures over and over again. "I AM" does not imply never began. It implies life in himself. That goes in accordance with,

For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. (John 5:26)

It is clear that INSPITE of clear and full scriptures I have presented you with, you still refuse to believe. Its pretty pointless at this point to continue going on further, you simply will not bend to scripture.

I will not bend to what Scripture does not say.

John 5:26 is a confession of the divine essence which unites the three persons of the most Holy and Life Giving Trinity.

I AM on the other hand is an eternal statement, and an alusion to Exodus 3:14-3:15; our Lord both self identifies as God incarnate, and expresses His own eternality.

Now, in the subject of not "bending to Scripture," let us return to John 1:1. This verse does not say "The Word became God," or "God created the Word," or "The Word began to be God," nor still less did it say, as the J/Ws vainly boast "The Word was like God."
Rather, it says "The Word was God."

Ergo, because God cannot be a creature, the Word is God.

What is more, it says "In the beginning was the Word," and not "The Word began in the beginning."

"and the Word was with God," indicates that in the beginning, as in "I and the father are one" and oher verses, the Word was with the Father and indeed the Spirit in one essence, a union of perfect love whoch is the proper understanding of "God is love" and the template for humans to reconcile the,selves with each other and with God in Theosis.

Lest anyone should say, "Aha! Because the Word was with God, the Word cannot be God," St. John immediately goes onto say "and the Word was God."

We can therefore read John 1:1 truthfully as saying "In the beginning, the Word was God." The Word was also extant and with God of course.

John 1:1 has the effect of definitively refuting the idea that our Lord is a creature. You simply cannot make such a case without rejecting or modifying John 1:1. The Arians tried, failed, and resorted to political intrigue. The Unitarians tried, failed, and resorted to transcendentalism. The J/Ws tried, failed, and resorted to rewriting this verse. Still others have tried, failed, and rejected a literal interpretation, or sought to reject the Gospel of John from the scriptural canon (see the polemical "This Tragic Gospel" for an example of how liberal modernist non-Trinitarians seek to go about this).

 

[Wgw]

One thing we have to remember is that we bring presuppositions to the text, whether Biblical or extra Biblical. Just as you see Catholic in the creed and I see catholic in the creed. The same holds true of the Scriptures. There is only Scripture to back up what we claim if we properly understand the Scriptures. I would have to disagree with this statement,

"The whole premise of the trinity doctrine, whether understood one way or the other, resides over the notion that Jesus never began."

I understand the Trinity doctrine as espoused by the early Christians and I agree there is a time when Jesus began to exist as a separate being from the Father. The Early Christians said that He was, 'begotten before all ages.' To be gotten is to be born or to come into existence. However, we have to remember that the Father is eternal. Therefore He has existed for eternity. The Son came out of the Father, therefore whatever the Son is He is of the same substance or essence as the Father and that substance has existed for eternity. Thus the Son began to Exist as a separate being yet is eternal in substance.

This position is also untenable due to John 1:1; one must understand the act of generation as itself eternal or extra-temporal, which is what is meant by "before all Ages."

You cannot say that the Son had a beginning per se, in that John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word," and not "The beginning of the Word." This is not quibbling, but vital. The distinction of the prosopa of the Trinity must be understood as occurring outside of time as we understand it; the nature of the procession or generation of the Spirit and the Son is a great mystery locked away in the entirely incomprehensible dazzling darkness of the divine nature; attempting to contemplate it can lead to madness according to St. Gregory the Theologian.

 

[Wgw]

I am aware of what both creeds state, but after much study I've chosen to UPHOLD NOTHING that exists outside of scripture. If I believe in a doctrine, its because there is a precise scripture to back it.

There are "precise scriptures" to back each clause of the Nicene Creed, and they are contained in the Statement of Faith of this website.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You were brought forth INTO EXISTENCE by your father and mother. Call it as anyone may, "begotten", or "created", the same thing is being conveyed in you coming FORTH from your parents.

I've already clarified what the word "begotten" means in the original Greek word, "monogenēs", means ONLY CHILD, not BEGOTTEN, or "conceived" as you are alluding to just now. Neither does it convey his incarnation as human, for there have been others that have been called sons of God and are human. The verse you are alluding to is,

For thus God loved the world, so that [*4*son *2*his *3*only born *1*he gave], that every one trusting in him, should not perish, but should have [*2*life *1*eternal]. (John 3:16 [ABP])

This is where the word "begotten" is used in different translations. The evidence of this are in other usages of the same Greek word,

And as he approached to the gate of the city, that behold, [*2*was conveyed *1*one having died], a son, an only child of his mother, and she was a widow; and a multitude of the city, a fit amount was with her. (Luke 7:12 [ABP])

for his daughter was an only child to him, about [*2*years old *1*twelve], and she was dying. And in his going, the multitudes thronged him. (Luke 8:42 [ABP])

What "only child" conveys is that Jesus Christ was in fact the only being that has ever been directly create%d by the Father. All other living beings were brought forth into existence by the Son who spoke them into existence.

Re-read post 82&83, you are using the wrong definition.

 

[Butch5]

Reply

This position is also untenable due to John 1:1; one must understand the act of generation as itself eternal or extra-temporal, which is what is meant by "before all Ages."

You cannot say that the Son had a beginning per se, in that John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word," and not "The beginning of the Word." This is not quibbling, but vital. The distinction of the prosopa of the Trinity must be understood as occurring outside of time as we understand it; the nature of the procession or generation of the Spirit and the Son is a great mystery locked away in the entirely incomprehensible dazzling darkness of the divine nature; attempting to contemplate it can lead to madness according to St. Gregory the Theologian.

It's not untenable, it's Nicene theology and what the Scriptures teach. John said, "in the beginning". What is, "in the beginning"?

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gen. 1:1-2 KJV)

It is the beginning of creation. Nicene theology holds that the Son was begotten before all ages. That means He was begotten before "in the beginning". You've quoted John 1 quite a bit. However, remember that the Greek word "theos" means deity.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with Deity and the Word was Deity. This accords exactly with what I said. The Father is eternal and begot a Son. Since the Father is eternal whatever comes out of Him is eternal and of the same substance, thus the Word, the Son, is eternal and is Deity.

 

[Imagican]

Doveaman,

Yet in all you offered, you seemed to have failed to have taken into consideration that the words of Christ Himself plainly stated that the Father is GREATER than the Son. They are NOT equal so it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to be EQUAL parts of the SAME God.

The Bible offers NONE of what YOU offer. You are merely repeating the same things I've heard over and over and over: what you have been TAUGHT by MEN.

There is NOTHING in the Bible that speaks of three persons equaling ONE God. Nor is there anything in the Bible that speaks of divinity that you attempt to offer as definition.

But what we DO KNOW, is that God revealed Himself to His chosen people as SINGULAR, as ONE and ONLY. Uncompounded.

Yet we also KNOW that there have been MANY 'religions' that possessed 'multi part gods'. You know, numerous entities making up ONE Holy entity.

So, which does 'trinity' favor? The SINGULAR and uncompounded God of the Hebrews/Jews? Or 'other religions' containing multi part gods?

Now, all that which you offered concerning office and essence, SHOW us these words or instruction or description IN THE BIBLE.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

Reply


It's not untenable, it's Nicene theology and what the Scriptures teach. John said, "in the beginning". What is, "in the beginning"?

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gen. 1:1-2 KJV)

It is the beginning of creation. Nicene theology holds that the Son was begotten before all ages. That means He was begotten before "in the beginning". You've quote John 1 quite a bit. However, remember that the Greek word "theos" means deity.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with Deity and the Word was Deity. This accords exactly with what I said. The Father is eternal and begot a Son. Since the Father is eternal whatever comes out of Him is eternal and of the same substance, thus the Word, the Son, is Deity.

I very nearly agree with this. You come within roughly a micron of the Orthodox position. Where misalignment exists is on the implications of "beginning."

Time itself is a creature, a creation. Science tells us that it began with the Big Bang. If you disagree, if you say time is uncreated, you run into a theological problem in which you have to embrace dualism; Time itself becomes a meta-God or higher order God in which our God operates as a demiurge.

Thus, both according to theological reason and scientific understanding, we can say that time is created and originate, that there was a "Tau Zero," a first instant.

Ergo, our Lord could not have been begotten "before the beginning of creation," in that time must be regarded as a creature, originating with the "heavens and Earth."

From this, we can interpret the Nicene Creed in saying "Begotten before all ages" as implying that the mysterious and impenetrable mystery of the generation of our Lord occurred before time, that is to say, outside of it, rather than as a temporal event comprehensible by the human mind according to the limits of causality.

Which in turn takes us to Arius. The central argument of Arianism is that "there was a time when the Son was not," whereas the central argument of Nicea and Constantinople was "there was never a time when the Son was not." We must reject any attempt to posit a temporal beginning to our Lord as a violation of the Nicene Creed, in that such a position directly contradicts "begotten of the Father before all ages," or more specifically John 1:1.

 

[Imagican]

I don't side with Mormons, I side with scripture. And yes God did have more sons, hence,

And it came to pass this day, and behold, [*4*came *1*the *2*sons *3*of God] to stand before the LORD, and the devil came in the midst of them. (Job 1:6 [ABP])

This verse speaks of angels, who are ALSO considered sons of God. Therefore, it comes to question, how is Jesus Christ an ONLY SON OF GOD THEN? It is because ONLY HE was created DIRECTLY BY THE FATHER, and then when JESUS BEGAN UTTERING THE WORLD INTO EXISTENCE, DID ALL LIFE COME THROUGH HIM. This is why he is ALSO FIRSTBORN OF CREATION. BECAUSE HE WAS CREATED FIRST, THEN ALL LIFE WAS CREATED AFTER THROUGH HIM. Its pretty clear if you just unlearn everything you've been taught growing up, and just let the scripture speak to you.

And don't forget, we are instructed that WE TOO can be 'sons of God'.

And then lets add this:

Revelation 3:

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God

I am confused as to how ANYONE can find these words confusing. Here is Christ Himself calling Himself "the beginning of the creation of God".

And if one simply accepts these words as offered, they PLAINLY destroy any semblance of 'trinity' being TRUTH. For if Christ IS the beginning of the 'creation' of God, then He is NOT without a beginning so He is NOT 'Co eternal'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[cgaviria]

Reply


It's not untenable, it's Nicene theology and what the Scriptures teach. John said, "in the beginning". What is, "in the beginning"?

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gen. 1:1-2 KJV)

It is the beginning of creation. Nicene theology holds that the Son was begotten before all ages. That means He was begotten before "in the beginning". You've quoted John 1 quite a bit. However, remember that the Greek word "theos" means deity.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with Deity and the Word was Deity. This accords exactly with what I said. The Father is eternal and begot a Son. Since the Father is eternal whatever comes out of Him is eternal and of the same substance, thus the Word, the Son, is eternal and is Deity.

What you said makes no sense. How can something that has no beginning BRING FORTH something that has no beginning. They very BRINGING FORTH implies that it BEGAN. So if Jesus COMES OUT OF HIM, it by mere virtue IMPLIES THAT HE BEGAN. Like I've said in previous posts, if both the Father and Jesus existed always, the Father would've called Jesus his brother, NOT HIS SON. A SON does not precede NOR does it COME at the same time as a father. A Father comes FIRST, and then a SON. And since the Father has no beginning, then we know that the Son must've PROCEEDED FORTH FROM THE FATHER AND BEGUN, because both a Father and Son DO NOT come at the SAME TIME. What you're saying is a paradox. It's like saying if two parallel lines will intersect. By the very definition of parallel does it imply intersection never occurs.

 

[Wgw]

Like clockwork, Imagican arrives to enliven my morning. I mean this seriously, I very much enjoy debating these questions with Imagican; if a forum existed that just consisted of myself and @Imagican , I would be a member.

Yet in all you offered, you seemed to have failed to have taken into consideration that the words of Christ Himself plainly stated that the Father is GREATER than the Son. They are NOT equal so it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to be EQUAL parts of the SAME God.

On this point, you once again mistakely suppose that Trinitarians believe in a precise equality betwixt the prosopa of the most Holy Trinity. Yet this is plainly not the case, for it is evident that the Father is greater than the Son by virtue of His paternity, but this does not preclude the Father and Son together with the Spirit sharing in the same divine essence, honour, glory and worship, according to the radiant splendour of the uncreated, unoriginate and incomprehensible divine nature.

But what we DO KNOW, is that God revealed Himself to His chosen people as SINGULAR, as ONE and ONLY. Uncompounded.

You might well have a point, as I have said before, if we were tritheists. But we are not.

 

[Wgw]

And don't forget, we are instructed that WE TOO can be 'sons of God'.

This takes us into the realm of Theosis. We can be sons of God through adoption, according to energy, but not according to essence, because of our created nature.

 

[Butch5]

I very nearly agree with this. You come within roughly a micron of the Orthodox position. Where misalignment exists is on the implications of "beginning."

Time itself is a creature, a creation. Science tells us that it began with the Big Bang. If you disagree, if you say time is uncreated, you run into a theological problem in which you have to embrace dualism; Time itself becomes a meta-God or higher order God in which our God operates as a demiurge.

Thus, both according to theological reason and scientific understanding, we can say that time is created and originate, that there was a "Tau Zero," a first instant.

Ergo, our Lord could not have been begotten "before the beginning of creation," in that time must be regarded as a creature, originating with the "heavens and Earth."

From this, we can interpret the Nicene Creed in saying "Begotten before all ages" as implying that the mysterious and impenetrable mystery of the generation of our Lord occurred before time, that is to say, outside of it, rather than as a temporal event comprehensible by the human mind according to the limits of causality.

Which in turn takes us to Arius. The central argument of Arianism is that "there was a time when the Son was not," whereas the central argument of Nicea and Constantinople was "there was never a time when the Son was not." We must reject any attempt to posit a temporal beginning to our Lord as a violation of the Nicene Creed, in that such a position directly contradicts "begotten of the Father before all ages," or more specifically John 1:1.

I doubt that John had a 21st century scientific understanding of time. It seems pretty obvious that his words "in the beginning" are a reference to Gen 1. If time began at "the beginning" then before all ages would be before time began. Ignatius, who was Johns's disciple states that Christ was begotten before all ages.


These things [I address to you], my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

 

[Wgw]

I doubt that John had a 21st century scientific understanding of time. It seems pretty obvious that his words "in the beginning" are a reference to Gen 1. If time began at "the beginning" then before all ages would be before time began. Ignatius, who was Johns's disciple states that Christ was begotten before all ages.


These things [I address to you], my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

"Begotten before all ages" neccessarily means "begotten before time." Both according to semantics, and according to theology: if time pre-existed God, then God would not be the First Cause or unoriginate and we would find ourselves embracing dualism.

 

[Butch5]

And don't forget, we are instructed that WE TOO can be 'sons of God'.

And then lets add this:

Revelation 3:

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God

I am confused as to how ANYONE can find these words confusing. Here is Christ Himself calling Himself "the beginning of the creation of God".

And if one simply accepts these words as offered, they PLAINLY destroy any semblance of 'trinity' being TRUTH. For if Christ IS the beginning of the 'creation' of God, then He is NOT without a beginning so He is NOT 'Co eternal'.

Blessings,

MEC

It's not quite that simple. The Greek word Arche means origin. Christ is the origin of the creation of God. Scripture says all things were created by Him

 

[Wgw]

Revelation 3:

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God

I am confused as to how ANYONE can find these words confusing. Here is Christ Himself calling Himself "the beginning of the creation of God".

If we read Revelations 3:14 in harmony with John 1:1-1:3, we see that St. John refers to our Lord having created all things. It cannot be read in a way that contradicts John 1:1 or other equivalent statements, as that would be eisegesis by your own standards.

And if one simply accepts these words as offered, they PLAINLY destroy any semblance of 'trinity' being TRUTH. For if Christ IS the beginning of the 'creation' of God, then He is NOT without a beginning so He is NOT 'Co eternal'.

Only if you read it quite literally backwards.

Parents are the beginning of their children. An painter is the beginning of his painting. A builder, the beginning of a house. An egg, the beginning of a chicken. And so on.

What the sentence does not say, but which you imply it to say, erroneously, is that our Lord "began [with or before] the rest of creation."

 

[Imagican]

A quote from Wgw:

From this, we can interpret the Nicene Creed in saying "Begotten before all ages" as implying that the mysterious and impenetrable mystery of the generation of our Lord occurred before time, that is to say, outside of it, rather than as a temporal event comprehensible by the human mind according to the limits of causality.

Now, please explain to us WHY there MUST be such a MYSTERY that you suppose or QUOTE? "mysterious and impenetrable mystery of the GENERATION of our Lord".

Where do you find THAT in the Bible? Why not simply accept what the Bible OFFERS? Instead of trying to create some MYSTERY that cannot be understood, instead of making up NEW definitions to try and make the words FIT your 'mystery', why not just accept what we've been offered?

If you accept the words: "Firstborn of every creature", the "beginning of the creation of God". Simply accept them in the SIMPLICITY in which they have been offered rather than try and make up some NEW 'mystery'.

Just think, if those that profess 'trinity' would just ACCEPT the fact that Jesus was CREATED, BEGOTTEN, MADE by God, they wouldn't have to place their faith BLINDLY in a MYSTERY that cannot be comprehended ANY LONGER. They could KNOW instead of GUESS.

Blessings,

MEC