Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

Wgw · Nov 25, 2015

Imagican said:
The Catholic Church has imposed it's definition that I do not believe is correct. They have offered that deity is reserved for God ALONE. I don't accept this definition.

Once again, you attack the Roman Catholics without cause, given that the Orthodox soteriology of theosis, or deification, is also strictly speaking per Thomas Aquinas, and indeed by virtue of the RCs and Orthodox sharing key Theosis-declaring saints, like St. Athanasius, a Roman Catholic doctrine. So in fact the Catholics do not "offer" what you claim; rather, what they do offer, along with Orthodox, Protestant and Assyrian Christians, is a rejection of polytheism in favour of the correct, Biblical doctrine of monotheism.

Imagican said:
Since I firmly believe that God 'created' His Son, I would offer that one of the names you ask for but are obviously NOT going to accept, is: Jesus Christ. His Son. Instead of whatever is a part of God MUST be God, how about God creating a lesser God by creating His Son.

To insist that God "created" his son is to reject the true Sonship of our Lord, since it is the nature of a Son to be begotten (or adopted, which is what we can hope for through theosis). The Orthodox position, the Nicene Creed, correctly says that our Lord was "begotten, not made." However, he is not a separate deity by virtue of being coessential with the Father.

Now, on your next point, the idea that God could "create" a "lesser God" is polytheistic unless you clarify that this lesser divinity is not God according to essence or ontology, but rather, according to energy. Why? Because, as you like to write in capital letters, "God CAN NOT CHANGE!"

Whereas there is no external constraint preventing God from creating a subordinate deity that is ontologically God, this would introduce change into immutable the divine nature. One could make a case a philosophical case that in subdividing the divine essence, God would cease to be God, something which you have emphatically (and indeed correctly) stressed is impossible.

So what you are proposing is directly contradictory to the very theological principles you have frequently screamed at us, in all capital letters, in an effort to score points against the Holy Trinity, the Roman Catholic Church, or other issues you find contentious.

Imagican said:
Since everyone that professes to believe in 'trinity' insists that God consists of three persons, that His Son, being LIKE Him, MUST be a one third PART of God, let us consider this:

A King is SINGULAR. But when he has a son that son become heir to his kingdom. But so long as the father remains KING, the son can ONLY be PRINCE.

If a duck can only produce ducks. So many insist that God's son can only be GOD. I offer a different perspective in that, if we can create such isms and insist that they MUST be TRUE, my idea of a King and his son being PRINCE is just as logical and FITS the Bible more precisely than the idea of 'three persons equaling ONE God'.

This is an amusing argument but one which rather fails to be convincing, in part because the King/Prince dichotomy is arbitrary, and one could point to regimes where sovereignity is shared, for example, the Byzantine Empire that you enjoyed criticizing so much was actually a tetrarchy under St. Constantine, who used the tetrarchical system introduced by Diocletian to subdivide the Empire among his sons, and to phase them into power in an orderly way.

One could also point to examples of a reigning King abdicating in favour of their son, while remaining nominally a King; this is not unknown.

However, the main problem with your argument is at once again, you fail to properly consider the nature of the divine essence, or indeed the meaning of the word "prosopon."

Imagican said:
But let's insert the word 'god' in place of prince. For Christ openly stated that the Father is GREATER than the Son.

The Father is greater than the Son by virtue of generation; the Father begets the Son.

Imagican said:
Therefore, if there is ANY practicality in labeling the Son 'God', wouldn't it of a necessity make the Son 'god' instead of "God"? Basically a 'lesser god' than His Father?

Only if we ignore John 1:1 and several other sacred verses.

Imagican said:
Take all that we are offered into consideration: SENT by God, CREATED by God, all that He possesses was GIVEN Him by God. The Father is greater than the Son. Things that ONLY the Father knows. Heck, the word SON itself. Isn't it OBVIOUS that Christ is NOT 'equal' to His Father? And don't we ALL KNOW that the Father IS GOD?

That the prosopa of the Trinity are not equal does not preculde them from being of one essense and being one God.

Now, do we really all know the Father is God? Earlier you rejected Roman Catholic monotheism and insisted that God could create other subordinate gods, and that Jesus Christ was a "lesser God." You have failed to clarify this in accordance with the Shema or the First and Second Commandments; you have argued with us vehemently when we have insisted a creature, by your own standards, cannot be God according to ontology or essence.

I am not accusing you of intentionally subscribing to polytheism, but your statements on the one hand have the effect or implication of a polytheistic theological scheme, and are in effect refuted by your own arguments elsewhere in defense of monotheism. Which is why I urge you to think this through; if you wish to reject the Trinity, that is your right, but I belive you should at least try to make the case using a more consistent argument.

Imagican said:
No man has EVER SEEN God at ANY TIME. Not my words. Yet we KNOW that there were THOUSANDS that SAW Christ. God CANNOT die. But Christ did. And remained DEAD for THREE DAYS. So if Christ were TRULY 'fully man/fully God, in order to BE 'fully God', that would mean that GOD died. God CAN'T DIE.

Once again, you do something which you have done in several other threads, which is exceedingly tiresome, and that is, you falsely accuse us of the Christological error of Monophysitism; not the subtle Miaphysite Christology of the Oriental Orthodox, but an actual Theopaschite Eutychian Christological error of the sort that all mainstream Christian churches consider to be heresy, based on either the Council of Chalcedon, or in the case of the Assyrian and Oriental Orthodox churches, equivalent anathemas directed against Eutyches.

Now, if we actually believed as did Eutyches that the humanity of our Lord had dissolved into his Divinity, or if we went beyond Eutyches and insisted in a manner like the Docetae that our Lord was entirely Divine and not Human, your argument against Theopaschitism would be entirely correct and accurate.

However, as has been stressed repeatedly, this is not our belief; we believe that the humanity and divnity of our Lord are joined in a hypostatic union, and it was the human nature which was mutable and which died, thus protecting divine impassability.

Imagican said:
But back to the question. I do not know how many 'gods' may be in existence. I know that I worship ONE God. But as far as most have insisted: GOD CAN DO ANYTHING. Certainly if this has a SEMBLANCE of truth to it, He could certainly create a 'being' or 'entity' and place upon it the title of 'god'.

I have hears some say: God can DO ANYTHING. Including lying and dying, He simply chooses NOT to do these things. So if this is true, certainly those same people wouldn't DENY that if God desired, He could create 'other gods'?

So, do you or do you not worship Jesus Christ? If you do, how do you reconcile this with your statement that there is only one God, and with the Second Commandment?

Also, are you now arguing that God in fact is omnipotent? Or are you simply trying to attack Trinitarians by using our belief in an omnipotent, single God to basically make an allegation about our belief systems which is in fact contrary to our belief? One might fear that you are simply now attempting to claim divine omnipotence, cynically and while continuing to deny it, as a rationale for attempting to refute the Trinity from another angle, a different angle from that you yourself subscribe to, while ignoring the fact that we believe God to be immutable, and that we believe lying for example is incompatible woth the divine nature. I hope this is not the case, but when you make a statement like the above it is very difficult to accept it at face value.

Imagican · Nov 25, 2015

civilwarbuff said:
Other than conjecture, your scriptural support is.....?

Joh 14:7 If you have known me, you will also know my Father. From now on you know him and have seen him."
Joh 14:8 Philip told him, "Lord, show us the Father, and that will satisfy us."
Joh 14:9 "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me?" Jesus asked him. "The person who has seen me has seen the Father. So how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
Joh 14:10 You believe, don't you, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own. It is the Father who dwells in me and who carries out his work.
You need to brush up on your scripture.

Oh, So now YOUR ''form'' of 'trinitarianism' is a belief that Jesus is the FATHER??????? Oh my.

So OBVIOUSLY, since Christ ISN'T the Father, the scriptures you quoted mean 'something ELSE'. Unless, or course, you are going to contend that YOUR belief is that Christ IS the Father.

So first you attempt to refute MY offering by indicating that people HAVE seen God because they have seen Christ.

Then you post a scripture stating that it is GOD WITHIN Christ that is witnessed.

I offer that it is GOD within ANYONE that fulfills His WILL. For certainly you DO believe that the Kingdom of God is AT HAND? And since we ARE the temple, obviously God CAN dwell WITHIN us. But it's not the actual entity, but through the Holy Spirit.

But you don't believe that if God dwells within us that WE are GOD?

Blessings,

MEC

Still waiting for the name of the lesser god....

cgaviria · Nov 25, 2015

Wgw said:
To insist that God "created" his son is to reject the true Sonship of our Lord, since it is the nature of a Son to be begotten (or adopted, which is what we can hope for through theosis). The Orthodox position, the Nicene Creed, correctly says that our Lord was "begotten, not made." However, he is not a separate deity by virtue of being coessential with the Father.

Your logic is so illogical that its not even funny.

To BE BEGOTTEN is TO BE CREATED. If Jesus had existed always, then what need would he have to BEEN BEGOTTEN? He is BEGOTTEN BY GOD because he was DIRECTLY CREATED BY THE FATHER. HE WAS BEGOTTEN, OR RATHER, CREATED, IN THE BEGINNING. And through Jesus he created the WORLD UPON THE EARTH. How do you not understand this? I feel like someone needs to come hit you in the head 7 times and perhaps it will click? You have SO MUCH philosophical theology ingrained in your head that you fail to realize that they very scriptures you are quoting prove Jesus was created! lol.

And NOT ONLY THAT, TO BE A SON BY VERY VIRTUE IMPLIES THAT HE WAS CREATED. Does A SON EXIST BEFORE HIS FATHER? NO. A FATHER EXISTS FIRST, THEN COMES A SON. IF Jesus and the Father had existed always, the Father would have called Jesus his BROTHER, not his SON.

Again, trinity is so ingrained in you that you fail to realize that the very words you are quoting from scripture indicate the precedence of the Father over the Son. The Father has always existed, the Son came into existence in the beginning. Thats how it is.

Wgw · Nov 25, 2015

cgaviria said:
Trinitarianism is an exhausting topic to discuss with certain people because the people that believe in it have had this topic so drilled in their heads that they are blinded to understand anything else.

Or alternately, we studied the Patristic texts and were persuaded by the Nicene view. That is what haooened in my case; although I was raised Methodist, the doctrine of the trinity was never really properly explained to me, so I was forced to study it on my own; I came to agree with it for reasons both rational and noetic, that is to say, spiritual.

Some Trinitarians, particularly converts to mainstream Christianity from other religions, might find your claim that they accept the Trinity owing to it being "drilled in their heads," (whcih implies coercive indoctrination), rather offensive, and degrading of their conversion experience.

cgaviria said:
But beside that, the scripture does not conspicuously say, "God is a trinity".

Another quibble about the word, a reverse argument from ontology which presupposes that we cannot use a non-Biblical word to describe a doctrine that is inherently Biblical. This argument fails both because that which is described by the Trinity can be shown to be Biblical, on the basis of John 1:1-14 and several other lections, and at the same time, words which can be applied to non-Trinitarians like "Unitarian" are not Biblical. Interestingly the phrase "Bible-believing" is not to be found in th Bible. So this argument simply fails, because we can show extra-Biblical terms that make sense being used to describe inherently Biblical doctrines.

cgaviria said:
I believe the trinity to be false, because if the three things were truly equal, then wouldn't it also be true that the Son could tell the Father what to do since they are literally equal as the trinity teaches? No, so mere logic states that the equality is NOT LITERAL. The father and son are equal in that the Son is a REFLECTION of the Father. He is THE VERY IMAGE of the Father. He is LESSER than the Father. He DOES everything the FATHER WANTS. He is ONE with the Father. By mere virtue of this logic it breaks the notion of the trinity.

Only if one has no idea what Trinitarians actually believe. The beliefs you state above about the relationship between Father and Son are in fact what Trinitarians believe; in claiming that we do not believe them and then attacking us on this basis, you deploy a classic example of a strawman argument.

Which furthers my point that Trinitarians are not Trinitarian as the result of blind indoctrination, but rather sober conviction. I belive passionately in the Holy Trinity, and my beliefs are nothing like the sort of crypto-Sabellianism you imply.

cgaviria said:
The trinity is a label and doctrine that is pushed as something outside of scripture, its merely just a doctrine of man. Anytime I have ever had this discussion with anyone believing in the trinity, NONE have ever been able to provide me with actual scriptures to prove it, just "babbles" and quotations and references to old catholic influenced church documents saying that it is true.

You have been provided with a amole range of scrptural references, such as John 1:1-14, John 14:7, and numerous other texts which you are voluntarily choosing not to engage with. Instead, you accuse us of "babbl[ing]", of being the victims of blind if not coericive indoctrination, who intentionally hold to an unscriptural doctrine, which was ultimately the product of "old catholic influenced documents." Without prociding any evidence in support of these accusations, I might add.

cgaviria · Nov 25, 2015

Can I get an amen someone??????????????? :amen:

Wgw · Nov 25, 2015

cgaviria said:
Your logic is so illogical that its not even funny.

To BE BEGOTTEN is TO BE CREATED.

So fathers now create their children rather than begetting them? Really, this is not a persuasive or logical argument, since it contains a semantic error, so I am simply going to reject it on that basis and proceed to your next point.

cgaviria said:
I feel like someone needs to come hit you in the head 7 times and perhaps it will click? You have SO MUCH philosophical theology ingrained in your head that you fail to realize that they very scriptures you are quoting prove Jesus was created! lol.

Well, alas, I fear seven whacks on the old noggin are unlikely to dissuade this old Trinitarian chap. They might well induce a ringing headache, and you might well hear a click from my skull fracturing, although at least I suppose the time soent in life support might well release me from the apparently considerable mental burden of carrying around so much "philosophica theology." :liturgy:

Seriously though, it is not as though I am the only fellow making this point. There are a great many men of much more learning and erudition than I, and of vastly more personal piety and holiness, who have made this same argument.

cgaviria said:
And NOT ONLY THAT, TO BE A SON BY VERY VIRTUE IMPLIES THAT HE WAS CREATED. Does A SON EXIST BEFORE HIS FATHER? NO. A FATHER EXISTS FIRST, THEN COMES A SON. IF Jesus and the Father had existed always, the Father would have called Jesus his BROTHER, not his SON.

This intemperately worded argument suggests a certai excess of anthropomorphology. It is directly refuted, furthermore, by John 1:1, which unambiguously declares that Jesus Christ was with God and was God in the beginning.

cgaviria said:
Again, trinity is so ingrained in you that you fail to realize that the very words you are quoting from scripture indicate the precedence of the Father over the Son. The Father has always existed, the Son came into existence in the beginning. Thats how it is.

The problem here is that the idea that Jesus Christ "came into existence in the beginning" contradicts John 1:1, and several other texts, for example, "I and my father are one." It is not scripturally supported. Given the amount of coverage that the Incarntion of the Word receives from Ss. Matthew, Luke and John, surely his creation, his coming into being, would receive even more attention. Unless of course it is, as Scripture plainly says, the case that he is God.

Imagican · Nov 25, 2015

WgW,

I appreciate the fact that you have studied your faith. But do you know what? When I read your posts, almost ALL I see is you quoting what OTHERS have offered.

Now, let me ask you THIS: what can you offer from your OWN experience in your relationship with God?

And I meant what I said. Impressive. Your knowledge of your 'church' and the history of the OPINIONS of those you refer to as "Saints" and 'church fathers'.

I remember back in college studying economics. What the books offered and the REAL world couldn't have been further apart. Kind of like trying to teach someone to be a 'boxer' with a BOOK.

Every statement that I make you refer to what OTHER PEOPLE have stated. I can't help but wonder WHY you have come to place your faith in what other MEN have stated, yet refute everything that I offer in FAVOR of 'other men'.

Can you HONESTLY say that you KNOW they are right and I'm wrong? Or is your belief that I'm WRONG strictly and WHOLLY based on your faith in OTHER MEN'S words?

EVERYTHING that I've offered has MORE Biblical backing than than what you quote other men as having stated.

If you want to discuss philosophy or mythology or what 'wise men' of this world believe, I don't really have much to offer. Never really spent the time to learn. For I really don't place my faith in the imaginings of men. And fortunately for me and every one else, the 'church' doesn't have the POWER to FORCE it's beliefs upon us any longer.

Not really big on 'looking for Bigfoot' or 'aliens'. But there are many that are out there right now LOOKING. And will swear up and down that they exists. With NO actual evidence to back up their beliefs, they will blindly follow whatever catches their fancy.

I've already offered: "I can't help but KNOW what I KNOW. And when someone attempts to tell me that it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to KNOW what I KNOW, the only reasonable answer is they are RIGHT and I'm WRONG or they are trying to convince me that what I KNOW isn't the TRUTH for some hidden agenda or REASON that they are NOT revealing.

When you try and TELL ME that one plus one plus one equals ONE, I KNOW you are WRONG. I have absolutely NO DOUBTS whatsoever that this is an IMPOSSIBILITY. You can 'talk around' the issue and try and make it SOUND like it's possible, but you can't PROVE to me your right, but I can PROVE to you that you are WRONG.

I am anything BUT a polytheist and your attempt to label me as such is purely slander. I have openly stated that there is ONLY ONE True God over and over. But that word can mean whatever the person using it interprets it to mean. I am not confined to the definitions YOU insist are the ONLY definitions. I am NOT bound to the limits that you have 'bought into'. I have NOT pledged MY faith to a 'church' designed my MEN. Nor do I accept THEIR attempt to alter the definitions of words to suit their FAITH.

You and I had a discussion in which you insisted that God can do ANYTHING. Now you attempt to indicate that it would be impossible for God to create LESSER gods. Can you really 'have it both ways'? Insisting that NOTHING is impossible for God except those things that YOUR 'church' has taught you are impossible. You know, like creating a Son that is NOT a 'third person making up ONE God'.

And it's amusing to go to the Catholic Encyclopedia and read their defense of 'trinity'. One of their defenses IS that: since the Bible doesn't actually DENY 'trinity', there is no reason from a Biblical perspective NOT to believe it.

Yet I have offered scripture that PLAINLY refutes 'trinity'. And have YET to hear ANYONE try and answer it in a manner that FITS the truth.

Since I have often heard explanations of 'trinity' directly refer to it being a BETTER understanding of 'Godhead', let me offer it again:

Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Can you comprehend these words? OUGHT NOT to even THINK Godhead is like unto GRAVEN ART or MAN'S device. And that is EXACTLY what 'trinity' IS. It IS an attempt by men to define something that they weren't satisfied with. Or worse. It may well have been a group of men who DIDN'T understand the TRUTH and their attempt to destroy opposition by those that DID. But regardless of the REASON that 'trinity' came into existence, the words offered in the scripture above PLAINLY instruct us that we are not to even THINK about defining Godhead by our OWN design.

Wonder WHY these specific words were placed in the Bible? Do you suppose that God, KNOWING the direction men would take, put those words there for those capable of understanding to CLEARLY see the TRUTH? Maybe they were put there for our EDIFICATION? I don't see them as RANDOM. But SPECIFIC. And considering that the word Godhead is used ONLY a few times in the ENTIRE Bible, Isn't it obvious it wasn't MEANT to be of the EXTREME FOCUS as 'trinity' created? For SURELY you couldn't POSSIBLY believe that there is ANY ONE LINE of the Bible that is more important that concepts that are revealed OVER and OVER and OVER again? in other words, the things that are MOST important are the one's that the Bible offers the MOST about. It would be utter foolishness to believe that the things that we are offered the LEAST instruction concerning would the MOST important.

And using this simple concept, how IMPORTANT would 'trinity' BE even if it were the TRUTH. Since it's NOT even MENTIONED, I would say it would be like when Paul offers the order of 'gifts of the spirit'. He mentions interpretation of TONGUES as LEAST important. Then instructs the Corinthians to seek after the BEST gifts, not the LEAST important.

Blessings,

MEC

cgaviria · Nov 25, 2015

Imagican said:
WgW,

I appreciate the fact that you have studied your faith. But do you know what? When I read your posts, almost ALL I see is you quoting what OTHERS have offered.

Now, let me ask you THIS: what can you offer from your OWN experience in your relationship with God?

And I meant what I said. Impressive. Your knowledge of your 'church' and the history of the OPINIONS of those you refer to as "Saints" and 'church fathers'.

I remember back in college studying economics. What the books offered and the REAL world couldn't have been further apart. Kind of like trying to teach someone to be a 'boxer' with a BOOK.

Every statement that I make you refer to what OTHER PEOPLE have stated. I can't help but wonder WHY you have come to place your faith in what other MEN have stated, yet refute everything that I offer in FAVOR of 'other men'.

Can you HONESTLY say that you KNOW they are right and I'm wrong? Or is your belief that I'm WRONG strictly and WHOLLY based on your faith in OTHER MEN'S words?

EVERYTHING that I've offered has MORE Biblical backing than than what you quote other men as having stated.

If you want to discuss philosophy or mythology or what 'wise men' of this world believe, I don't really have much to offer. Never really spent the time to learn. For I really don't place my faith in the imaginings of men. And fortunately for me and every one else, the 'church' doesn't have the POWER to FORCE it's beliefs upon us any longer.

Not really big on 'looking for Bigfoot' or 'aliens'. But there are many that are out there right now LOOKING. And will swear up and down that they exists. With NO actual evidence to back up their beliefs, they will blindly follow whatever catches their fancy.

I've already offered: "I can't help but KNOW what I KNOW. And when someone attempts to tell me that it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to KNOW what I KNOW, the only reasonable answer is they are RIGHT and I'm WRONG or they are trying to convince me that what I KNOW isn't the TRUTH for some hidden agenda or REASON that they are NOT revealing.

When you try and TELL ME that one plus one plus one equals ONE, I KNOW you are WRONG. I have absolutely NO DOUBTS whatsoever that this is an IMPOSSIBILITY. You can 'talk around' the issue and try and make it SOUND like it's possible, but you can't PROVE to me your right, but I can PROVE to you that you are WRONG.

I am anything BUT a polytheist and your attempt to label me as such is purely slander. I have openly stated that there is ONLY ONE True God over and over. But that word can mean whatever the person using it interprets it to mean. I am not confined to the definitions YOU insist are the ONLY definitions. I am NOT bound to the limits that you have 'bought into'. I have NOT pledged MY faith to a 'church' designed my MEN. Nor do I accept THEIR attempt to alter the definitions of words to suit their FAITH.

You and I had a discussion in which you insisted that God can do ANYTHING. Now you attempt to indicate that it would be impossible for God to create LESSER gods. Can you really 'have it both ways'? Insisting that NOTHING is impossible for God except those things that YOUR 'church' has taught you are impossible. You know, like creating a Son that is NOT a 'third person making up ONE God'.

And it's amusing to go to the Catholic Encyclopedia and read their defense of 'trinity'. One of their defenses IS that: since the Bible doesn't actually DENY 'trinity', there is no reason from a Biblical perspective NOT to believe it.

Yet I have offered scripture that PLAINLY refutes 'trinity'. And have YET to hear ANYONE try and answer it in a manner that FITS the truth.

Since I have often heard explanations of 'trinity' directly refer to it being a BETTER understanding of 'Godhead', let me offer it again:

Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Can you comprehend these words? OUGHT NOT to even THINK Godhead is like unto GRAVEN ART or MAN'S device. And that is EXACTLY what 'trinity' IS. It IS an attempt by men to define something that they weren't satisfied with. Or worse. It may well have been a group of men who DIDN'T understand the TRUTH and their attempt to destroy opposition by those that DID. But regardless of the REASON that 'trinity' came into existence, the words offered in the scripture above PLAINLY instruct us that we are not to even THINK about defining Godhead by our OWN design.

Wonder WHY these specific words were placed in the Bible? Do you suppose that God, KNOWING the direction men would take, put those words there for those capable of understanding to CLEARLY see the TRUTH? Maybe they were put there for our EDIFICATION? I don't see them as RANDOM. But SPECIFIC. And considering that the word Godhead is used ONLY a few times in the ENTIRE Bible, Isn't it obvious it wasn't MEANT to be of the EXTREME FOCUS as 'trinity' created? For SURELY you couldn't POSSIBLY believe that there is ANY ONE LINE of the Bible that is more important that concepts that are revealed OVER and OVER and OVER again? in other words, the things that are MOST important are the one's that the Bible offers the MOST about. It would be utter foolishness to believe that the things that we are offered the LEAST instruction concerning would the MOST important.

And using this simple concept, how IMPORTANT would 'trinity' BE even if it were the TRUTH. Since it's NOT even MENTIONED, I would say it would be like when Paul offers the order of 'gifts of the spirit'. He mentions interpretation of TONGUES as LEAST important. Then instructs the Corinthians to seek after the BEST gifts, not the LEAST important.

Blessings,

MEC

MEC, just some words to the wise. Just give up. Hes not gonna change his view even if an angel appeared to him and told him otherwise. He's blinded from the truth and all he has is just his philosophical rants. The very scriptures he's quoted prove non-trinity theology and he still fails to see it.

cgaviria · Nov 25, 2015

Wgw said:
So fathers now create their children rather than begetting them? Really, this is not a persuasive or logical argument, since it contains a semantic error, so I am simply going to reject it on that basis and proceed to your next point.

Well, alas, I fear seven whacks on the old noggin are unlikely to dissuade this old Trinitarian chap. They might well induce a ringing headache, and you might well hear a click from my skull fracturing, although at least I suppose the time soent in life support might well release me from the apparently considerable mental burden of carrying around so much "philosophica theology."

Seriously though, it is not as though I am the only fellow making this point. There are a great many men of much more learning and erudition than I, and of vastly more personal piety and holiness, who have made this same argument.

This intemperately worded argument suggests a certai excess of anthropomorphology. It is directly refuted, furthermore, by John 1:1, which unambiguously declares that Jesus Christ was with God and was God in the beginning.

The problem here is that the idea that Jesus Christ "came into existence in the beginning" contradicts John 1:1, and several other texts, for example, "I and my father are one." It is not scripturally supported. Given the amount of coverage that the Incarntion of the Word receives from Ss. Matthew, Luke and John, surely his creation, his coming into being, would receive even more attention. Unless of course it is, as Scripture plainly says, the case that he is God.

Bringing Jesus Christ into existence in the beginning IN NO WAY contradicts John 1:1. He was brought FORTH INTO existence IN THE BEGINNING, THEREFORE HE WAS IN THE BEGINNING. IN THE BEGINNING OF WHAT? IN THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD THAT JESUS CHRIST SPOKE INTO EXISTENCE.

Wgw · Nov 25, 2015

Imagican said:
WgW,

I appreciate the fact that you have studied your faith. But do you know what? When I read your posts, almost ALL I see is you quoting what OTHERS have offered.

Now, let me ask you THIS: what can you offer from your OWN experience in your relationship with God?

I do not comment on private spiritual experiences; I can truthfully claim to have had them, but since you cannot verify that ay more than I can verify your own experiences, much less the nature or cause of these experiences, it is pointless to even go down this whole subjective avenue.

And I meant what I said. Impressive. Your knowledge of your 'church' and the history of the OPINIONS of those you refer to as "Saints" and 'church fathers'.

I remember back in college studying economics. What the books offered and the REAL world couldn't have been further apart. Kind of like trying to teach someone to be a 'boxer' with a BOOK.

What economics provides is a rough but useful theory; my own economics professor had a keen understanding of these issues and was a superb mentor to me. In any case, economics is not Christianity; we actually have an authoritative book in the form of the Bible, which outlines the basic tenets of our God-given faith, which one could argue constitutes a verbal icon of our Lord.

Every statement that I make you refer to what OTHER PEOPLE have stated. I can't help but wonder WHY you have come to place your faith in what other MEN have stated, yet refute everything that I offer in FAVOR of 'other men'.

Because, with all due respect, you aren't St. John the Apostle, old chap.

Can you HONESTLY say that you KNOW they are right and I'm wrong?

In some cases, yes, where your opinions contain verifiable factual or logical error, which has been the case on several occasions. On several occasions you have made assertions, claimed them as a "matter of FACT," and then I have proceededto refute these assertions in an inependently verifieable manner.

Or is your belief that I'm WRONG strictly and WHOLLY based on your faith in OTHER MEN'S words?

If by "MEN" we include the inpired words of the Holy Apostles, then yes.

EVERYTHING that I've offered has MORE Biblical backing than than what you quote other men as having stated.

You have on several occasions refused to provide scriptural proof for various positions you have adopted, whereas in other threads before this you claimed that certain ecclesiastical traditions were unbiblical when in fact they can be shown to be Biblical. What is more, already in the course of this thread you have been forced to deprecate John 1:1-14 to the status of "not literally true."

If you want to discuss philosophy or mythology or what 'wise men' of this world believe, I don't really have much to offer. Never really spent the time to learn.

Which is just as well given that this site has an interesting Philosophy forum, wherein I can indulge any yearnings I might have for a philosophical discussion. Mythology is another matter; I suppose I would have to see out another site if Inwished to discuss for example, the abduction of Ganymede or the death of Hycacinth.

For I really don't place my faith in the imaginings of men. And fortunately for me and every one else, the 'church' doesn't have the POWER to FORCE it's beliefs upon us any longer.

Indeed, the Syriac Orthodox also do not place our faith in human imagination; we also appreciate religious freedom our history of being persecuted by the Byzantines, the Persians, the Crusader States, and the British East India Company, and various Islamist movements.

Not really big on 'looking for Bigfoot' or 'aliens'.

Good.

But there are many that are out there right now LOOKING. And will swear up and down that they exists. With NO actual evidence to back up their beliefs, they will blindly follow whatever catches their fancy.

Which is why I insist on solid evidence wherever possible when it comes to theological matters; when such evidence is impossible due to obscurity or epistemological limiations, I insist on soid logic and coherent argumentation that reflects Biblica doctrine.

This by the wa is why I do not comment on persona revelation, and why I reject it as evidence in these discussion: because logically, I cannot prove it, amd argments based purely on it are not verifiable.

I've already offered: "I can't help but KNOW what I KNOW. And when someone attempts to tell me that it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to KNOW what I KNOW, the only reasonable answer is they are RIGHT and I'm WRONG or they are trying to convince me that what I KNOW isn't the TRUTH for some hidden agenda or REASON that they are NOT revealing.

I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am trying to understand your position, to verify it logically and factually where possble, and to the extent possble, accurately describe the Orthodox position where it differs from your own.

When you try and TELL ME that one plus one plus one equals ONE, I KNOW you are WRONG. I have absolutely NO DOUBTS whatsoever that this is an IMPOSSIBILITY. You can 'talk around' the issue and try and make it SOUND like it's possible, but you can't PROVE to me your right, but I can PROVE to you that you are WRONG.

Indeed, and I should well deserve ridicule were I to attempt such an act of intellectual leger d'main.

I am anything BUT a polytheist and your attempt to label me as such is purely slander.

I have not accused you of polytheism. Rather, I am arguing that your apparent insistence, if this is in effect your belief, that God could create a subordinate God who wuld also be God according to ontology and essence, has the effect of contradicting your own argument that God is immutable. Were it not fo your insistence that God is immutable, this would imply polytheism, by virtue of accidental effect rather than intended belief. Just as your argument that God does not lie by virtue of some form of ontological external constraint inadvertantly implies dualism.

I have openly stated that there is ONLY ONE True God over and over. But that word can mean whatever the person using it interprets it to mean. I am not confined to the definitions YOU insist are the ONLY definitions. I am NOT bound to the limits that you have 'bought into'. I have NOT pledged MY faith to a 'church' designed my MEN. Nor do I accept THEIR attempt to alter the definitions of words to suit their FAITH.

I could well object to your description of my church as being "designed by MEN" in the same manner that you object to my discussion of the implications of your arguments. So I propose that we avoid going down that road.

You and I had a discussion in which you insisted that God can do ANYTHING. Now you attempt to indicate that it would be impossible for God to create LESSER gods. Can you really 'have it both ways'? Insisting that NOTHING is impossible for God except those things that YOUR 'church' has taught you are impossible. You know, like creating a Son that is NOT a 'third person making up ONE God'.

You are the one trying to have it both ways, in that you argue that God cannot change, while arguing that God creates other gods who are also God according to more than simply their energies, which is adirect challenge to the principle of divine immutability.

What is more, you mischaracterize our position. @DrBubbaLove and myself argued in defense of omnipotence, in order to avoid dualism, while taking care to insist that God remained immutable and incapable of lying according to His nature, as opposed to his being bound by a nebulous external constraint that would require an unsupportable dualist cosmology.

And it's amusing to go to the Catholic Encyclopedia and read their defense of 'trinity'. One of their defenses IS that: since the Bible doesn't actually DENY 'trinity', there is no reason from a Biblical perspective NOT to believe it.

This is a red herring, given that I am neither the Catholic Encyclopedia nor indeed a Roman Catholic.

Yet I have offered scripture that PLAINLY refutes 'trinity'. And have YET to hear ANYONE try and answer it in a manner that FITS the truth.

If you had offered such scripture, honesty would compel us to accept it. On the other hand, when we have offered scripture in defense of our position, only infrequently have you addressed it; in one instance, John 1:1-14, you simply insisted it was not to be taken literally, before later suggesting without any reference to the rest of the Gospel that contained it, that it might refer to Moses.

Since I have often heard explanations of 'trinity' directly refer to it being a BETTER understanding of 'Godhead', let me offer it again:

Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Can you comprehend these words? OUGHT NOT to even THINK Godhead is like unto GRAVEN ART or MAN'S device. And that is EXACTLY what 'trinity' IS. It IS an attempt by men to define something that they weren't satisfied with. Or worse. It may well have been a group of men who DIDN'T understand the TRUTH and their attempt to destroy opposition by those that DID. But regardless of the REASON that 'trinity' came into existence, the words offered in the scripture above PLAINLY instruct us that we are not to even THINK about defining Godhead by our OWN design.

Wonder WHY these specific words were placed in the Bible? Do you suppose that God, KNOWING the direction men would take, put those words there for those capable of understanding to CLEARLY see the TRUTH? Maybe they were put there for our EDIFICATION? I don't see them as RANDOM. But SPECIFIC. And considering that the word Godhead is used ONLY a few times in the ENTIRE Bible, Isn't it obvious it wasn't MEANT to be of the EXTREME FOCUS as 'trinity' created? For SURELY you couldn't POSSIBLY believe that there is ANY ONE LINE of the Bible that is more important that concepts that are revealed OVER and OVER and OVER again? in other words, the things that are MOST important are the one's that the Bible offers the MOST about. It would be utter foolishness to believe that the things that we are offered the LEAST instruction concerning would the MOST important.

Let's turn the tables a bit. Given your refusal to attempt to argue your position in light of John 1:1-14 and various other verses, without, for example, deprecating John 1:1-14 or suggesting theynrefer to Moes or indeed contradicting yourself and refuting your own argument, one could well argue that this important verse from acts refers to non-Trinitarianism. However, I myself am inclined to apply it most specificaly to the Gnostic cosmologies especially that of Valentinus, with its multiple emanations of tetrads and ogdoads of subordinate deities.

And using this simple concept, how IMPORTANT would 'trinity' BE even if it were the TRUTH. Since it's NOT even MENTIONED, I would say it would be like when Paul offers the order of 'gifts of the spirit'. He mentions interpretation of TONGUES as LEAST important. Then instructs the Corinthians to seek after the BEST gifts, not the LEAST important.

Once again, the discredited inverse ontology argument rears its head. I will simply refer you to my previous posts; I have already pointed out why this argument that you and other members make is fallacious, and no one has provided any attemot at a rebuttal of my position. If you will not answer a point as to why a argumnt is logically flawed, then please do not continue to make it.

Imagican · Nov 25, 2015

I AGREE. Every USE of the term 'begotten' in the ENTIRE Bible is in reference to a "CHILD" being conceived or born. Only in reference to The Son of God did the 'church' make up a NEW definition for the word.

Why is that? Why would the word mean something DIFFERENT when used in reference to the Son of God? Now isn't THAT confusing?

To accept what the 'churches' teach often requires one to throw all rationality out the window and simply follow with BLIND faith. You know, "it's that way because we SAY it's that way and it doesn't matter what YOU think, only what WE teach".

Yet in order for all to have the opportunity to be 'saved', (for Christ to die for the sins of ALL men), it would seem that ALL men would need to be able to UNDERSTAND God's Word. Which is pretty much contrary to what the 'churches' teach.

I would add that the principles offered in the Bible, the TERMS used, would have been offered in such simplicity that even a CHILD could understand them.

I'm sure that there are many that would refute this idea, but then, it would be imperative according to what their 'churches' have TAUGHT them to believe.

Add to this that without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the likelihood of 'proper understanding' maybe ZERO, the words themselves are secondary to revelation. Which means that even someone with an IQ of sixty, COULD conceivably be INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit to understand things 'of the Spirit' by merely being given revelation through the Holy Spirit. So how SMART or INTELLIGENT a person is may have absolutely NO bearing on their understanding of SPIRITUAL 'truth'.

Begotten means begotten or the word wouldn't even BE in the Bible. We are offered NO instruction that it means anything different when used in reference to Christ. That entire IDEA is a man made concept.

And 'eternal generation'?????? I have YET to hear ANYONE offer any satisfactory explanation of THAT ONE.

Blessings,

MEC

Wgw · Nov 25, 2015

cgaviria said:
MEC, just some words to the wise. Just give up. Hes not gonna change his view even if an angel appeared to him and told him otherwise.

There is an extremely valid scriptural reason why I would never "change my view" based on the appearance of an angel, and one can discover it by reading Galatians 1:8

Wgw · Nov 25, 2015

cgaviria said:
Bringing Jesus Christ into existence in the beginning IN NO WAY contradicts John 1:1. He was brought FORTH INTO existence IN THE BEGINNING, THEREFORE HE WAS IN THE BEGINNING. IN THE BEGINNING OF WHAT? IN THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD THAT JESUS CHRIST SPOKE INTO EXISTENCE.

I might be inclined to address this point if you were able to express it without use of ALL CAPITALS and to explain how it differs from the Christian Forums Statement of Faith.

cgaviria · Nov 25, 2015

Wgw said:
There is an extremely valid scriptural reason why I would never "change my view" based on the appearance of an angel, and one can discover it by reading Galatians 1:8

Nope, I was thinking more Luke 16:31 (ESV)

He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

cgaviria · Nov 25, 2015

Wgw said:
I might be inclined to address this point if you were able to express it without use of ALL CAPITALS and to explain how it differs from the Christian Forums Statement of Faith.

Capital letters are the only way I can express the anguish I feel in your blatant blindness to simple biblical scriptures. Its like you refuse to believe the sky is blue.

Wgw · Nov 25, 2015

Imagican said:
I AGREE. Every USE of the term 'begotten' in the ENTIRE Bible is in reference to a "CHILD" being conceived or born. Only in reference to The Son of God did the 'church' make up a NEW definition for the word.

However, conception requires a female. Our Lord was conceived, in respect to His incarnation, but not in respect to His origination.
So there is no novel definition being bandied about, far less can it be shown that the Church invented a new word.

Why is that? Why would the word mean something DIFFERENT when used in reference to the Son of God? Now isn't THAT confusing?

To accept what the 'churches' teach often requires one to throw all rationality out the window and simply follow with BLIND faith. You know, "it's that way because we SAY it's that way and it doesn't matter what YOU think, only what WE teach".

What throws rationality out the window is to say that our Lord was both begotten and created. It requires us to regard children as the creation of their parents, as opposed to the generated offspring of their parents, created in and with creation by God. We can separate generation from creation; we cannot conflate the two.

Yet in order for all to have the opportunity to be 'saved', (for Christ to die for the sins of ALL men), it would seem that ALL men would need to be able to UNDERSTAND God's Word. Which is pretty much contrary to what the 'churches' teach.

Unless we understand the Word of God in light of John 1:1-14, we descend here into Gnosticism, by making salvation dependent on knowledge. Also, your argument against the "churches" runs contrary to Matthew 16:18.

t
I would add that the principles offered in the Bible, the TERMS used, would have been offered in such simplicity that even a CHILD could understand them.

I'm sure that there are many that would refute this idea, but then, it would be imperative according to what their 'churches' have TAUGHT them to believe.

Add to this that without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the likelihood of 'proper understanding' maybe ZERO, the words themselves are secondary to revelation. Which means that even someone with an IQ of sixty, COULD conceivably be INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit to understand things 'of the Spirit' by merely being given revelation through the Holy Spirit. So how SMART or INTELLIGENT a person is may have absolutely NO bearing on their understanding of SPIRITUAL 'truth'.

I agrre, because I reject Gnosticism, and attribute salvation to faith in Christ, to membership in the Body of Christ, as opposed to salvific knowledge accessible to only a privileged few.

Begotten means begotten or the word wouldn't even BE in the Bible. We are offered NO instruction that it means anything different when used in reference to Christ. That entire IDEA is a man made concept.

And 'eternal generation'?????? I have YET to hear ANYONE offer any satisfactory explanation of THAT ONE.

Eternal generation is simply how one must logically reconcile our Lord's own words in which he refers to the Father with "Before Abraham was, I AM."

Wgw · Nov 25, 2015

cgaviria said:
Nope, I was thinking more Luke 16:31 (ESV)

He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

Fortunately enough we accept Moses and the Prophets.

However, St. Paul warns us not to accept the words of anyone teaching "another Gospel," even if it is "an angel from Heaven."

After all, the devil could claim to be an "angel from Heaven," omittng that he was fallen and banished from heaven.

So we do not take the word of angels where it cintradicts the Gospel we have received, in accordance with the instructions St. Paul gave to the Galatians.

The Syriac Orthodox sing Galatians 1:8 as a hymn before the reading of the epistles in our liturgy.

Berean777 · Nov 25, 2015

Imagican said:
Hoghead,

Very nice post and welcome to this discussion.

I as well see the Godhead as a unit or fraternity of sorts. But the very use of the word God FIRST seems to place the emphasis on 'The Father', who we KNOW is God Himself. And it is MY firm belief that this was established by the premier entity: God.

Which plainly illustrates that HE is the 'head'.

Couple this with the words of Christ Himself and we see that WE TOO can be ONE with both Christ and His Father, (and I assume this includes the 'Spirit' of God as well. I don't really see 'the Spirit' as a SEPARATE 'person' as 'trinity' insists).

So all the attempts to use "ONE" to indicate 'same' has NO bearing on 'entity' as 'trinity' offers. If WE can be one with Christ and His Father, then obviously this doesn't mean we TOO can become God Himself.

Then consider the 'evolution of trinity' and one is forced to wonder: did God REALLY reveal Himself in times past? Or did He do it in stages?

I think that there were those of ancient times that KNEW God better than ANYONE today. Time has a way of 'getting in the way'. And we have the example that in a relatively short space of time from 'in the beginning', the entire population descended from Adam became almost COMPLETELY separated from God. Only ONE man appears to have KNOWN Him at this point in history.

This leads to the 'time' that has transpired since. I would say that there are SO MANY MORE 'things' in the way NOW. That Satan has HAD HIS WAY among men to the point that it's all but impossible to KNOW God as He has been known at times closer to the 'beginning'.

So what is the INDICATION we can conclude about what those that KNEW God understood about His nature as compared to 'trinity'? I would say we could come to a more REALISTIC understanding by studying what THEY knew than what men thousands of years later and a ton of different religions and mythologies and philosophies would imagine.

And that is HOW I see 'trinity'. Men familiar with many DIFFERENT ideas became increasingly insistent upon defining something that was already sufficiently defined. Due to all the different manner of understanding, instead of defining something already defined, they ended up RE defining it in their OWN terms. Ultimately creating something NEW instead of that which had already always existed.

Blessings,

MEC

I find it rather ironical that you have used 1 Corinthians 14:33 as part of your profile message and unwittingly reject it by this very post.

What does 1 Corinthians 14:33 say?

for God is not [a God] of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,

Please consider what you stated below

So what is the INDICATION we can conclude about what those that KNEW God understood about His nature as compared to 'trinity'? I would say we could come to a more REALISTIC understanding by studying what THEY knew than what men thousands of years later and a ton of different religions and mythologies and philosophies would imagine.

This statement of yours is completely opposite to God's perspective and under scrutiny it falls apart at the seem.

Consider this...........

Jeremiah 31-34
31“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 32It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

Also consider the fulfilment of that prophesy in Hebrews 8:8-12

Why do you say that the ancients knew more than those faithful post Pentecost. After all God promised to reveal all post Pentecost faithful, when he sent the Spirit of truth to reside in men's hearts. So why do you say, "I would say we could come to a more REALISTIC understanding by studying what THEY (ancients) knew, than what men post Pentecost thousands of years later".

After I have shown to you your errors, will you endeavour to take on board what God had promised only to those men after Pentecost and reject the idea that somehow the ancients knew mystic secrets that was lost over time, as you have claimed?

You have used 1 Corinthians 14:33 as your profile message and therefore could I ask you to at least entertain the declaration made, that is........

for God is not [a God] of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,

What your saying is that the apostolic church of the saints that came post Pentecost knew a lot less than those ancients who delved into mysticism. Your whole argument falls apart here. The only thing that remains is whether you will except exhortation and to no longer peruse your errors.

Wgw · Nov 25, 2015

cgaviria said:
Capital letters are the only way I can express the anguish I feel in your blatant blindness to simple biblical scriptures. Its like you refuse to believe the sky is blue.

Strictly speaing then you should be expressing this anguish at most members of the forum; my position is the same as theirs, and that is that in John 1:1-14 the divnity of our Lord is revealed, and these and other verses inform our understanding of the Holy Trinity as explaind by the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is the statement of faith for this website.

cgaviria · Nov 25, 2015

Wgw said:
However, conception requires a female. Our Lord was conceived, in respect to His incarnation, but not in respect to His origination.
So there is no novel definition being bandied about, far less can it be shown that the Church invented a new word.

Strong point here I'll admit, but it is still erred. Begotten does not indicate conception. Look at the usage in other passages using the very same "monogenēs" 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])

And behold, a man from the multitude yelled out, saying, Teacher, I beseech you to look upon my son! for he is an only child to me. (Luke 9:38 [ABP])

So the translation should actually read, ONLY CHILD, by the mere usage of it in other passages. Why is he an ONLY CHILD? Because again, as I said before, he was CREATED DIRECTLY by the FATHER, and THROUGH HIM, HE CREATED EVERYTHING ELSE. THAT IS WHY HE IS DECLARED AS THE ONLY SON.

Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

Pray For Brussels!

old dude

Well-Known Member

Pray For Brussels!

Well-Known Member

Pray For Brussels!

old dude

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Pray For Brussels!

old dude

Pray For Brussels!

Pray For Brussels!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Pray For Brussels!

Pray For Brussels!

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.

Pray For Brussels!

Well-Known Member

Similar threads