I guess in such an arena it is difficult once a number of pages have been posted to keep up with what others offer except to 'keep up', (read them ALL).
Well, to a certain extent some posts can be skipped over. I customarily do not read all posts in a thread, although I do seek to read all posts in threads I open. This one I briefly unwatched following a capitulation from a non-Trin member, but then you managed to make it interesting again.
I have NEVER ONCE denied the deity of Christ. I have simply stated that I believe the understanding of His deity to be different than what is offered in 'trinity'.
So you said before, but you have also insisted a literal reading of John 1:1 is wrong, insisted that Jesus Christ cannot be regarded as God according to essence and ontology, et cetera.
While any prayers one would choose to include me in would certainly be appreciated, I can assure you that I need no one's sympathy.
Well I for one am certainly praying for you and am willing to continue to pray for you.
So how does one suppose that they can convince me that a concept that has NEVER been offered in scripture is mandatory or even of any import, considering what I KNOW has been present in my life?
I do not presume to be able to convince you to change your views; I can hope that if you take a look at the Orthodox Church, its history, and the extremely beneificent saints that have graced it over the years, for example, St. Basil the Great, who invented the hospital, you might see that Trinitarianism cannot be regarded as a Roman Catholic "creation" but instead has been a genuine belief, consistent with the apostolicc faith, by very pious, intelligent, virtuous and charitable people who have been consistently persecuted for their beliefs by Arians, Muslims, Western Christians and others.
I KNOW no 'trinity'. I do NOT worship Christ as God. I follow the formula that Christ Himself teaches us: I pray TO the Father THROUGH Christ. And the Father that I pray to is GOD.
I hesitate to say it, for in such discussions it's like it always ends up being, "SEE, Christ is God". But there is obvious inference that Christ may well be 'a God'. But each and every time I start thinking like this, I go back to scripture and it plainly states that there is ONLY ONE TRUE God. No other gods beside me.
The problem with this remark is that it is inconsistent. You say you do not deny the deity of Christ, then you suggest he may be "a god" which contradicts monotheism, and then you go on to invoke the first commandment.
But the idea that there are THREE persons in ONE God, from everything I've read and prayed about, is utterly ludicrous.
On the contrary, it is the only way to reconcile the deity of our Lord described in John 1:1 with the monotheism commanded in the Decalogue, the Shema and elsewhere.
Now let me ask this guys: "Why would God HIDE this from ME?" What would be His purpose, from my perspective, to lead me AWAY from 'trinity' instead of revealing it?
I have not found the doctrine of the Trinity to be hidden but rather obvious. If we understand God to be love, God to be immutable and God to be eternal, the idea of God as a coessential coeternal union of perfect love between three prosopa makes more sense than any other theology I have seen, particularly in light of Scripture.
I listen to what the majority of posters here on the forums add and in most instances it would appear to me that the majority have little if any TRUE understanding of MOST of the Bible. Yet so much of it has been revealed to ME it makes absolutely NO SENSE that God would deny me His identity if it were 'trinity'.
I can't comment on personal revelation. I will say that, speaking strictly in the abstract, personal revelation must meet various discernment for criteria set out in Galatians 1:8 and elsewhere in the NT; it is clealry conveyed, and has indeed been the experience of rhe church, that some personal religous experiences can be deceptive in nature and of demonic origin. I offer this purely in the abstract; this is one of several reasons why I do not discuss, comment on or make decisions on the basis of personal religious experiences and private revelation.
Since I cannot presume to know the origin or authenticity of the religious experiences of other members, I am deeply uncomfortable even attempting to use them in the case of an argument. For if they were of non-divine origin, they are useless and potentially toxic, whereas if they are genuine and genuinely divine and I reject them as inauthentic or indeed demonic due to an error on my part, I am potentially guilty of blasphemy. So for this reason I simply choose not to discuss such experiences, categorically.
That leads us back to the question: Was Arius a faithful follower of Christ?
Objectively, based on all evidence we have regarding his life, conduct, morals, et cetera, assuming this evidence is correct, regrettably, no. He can only be regarded as a scheming, manipulative, politically adroit heresiarch whose actions resulted in a needless schism and the deaths of many people.
Of the various people regarded as heresiarchs by the early church, Arius is in fact one of the least likable. It is very difficult to dislike Origen Adimantus. It is very difficult to find fault with Theodore of Mopsuestia. It is very easy to regard Eusebius of Caesarea as being simply a misguided latitudinarian. Whereas it is very difficult to find much in Arius that can be regarded with any esteem.
Are the JWs faithful followers of Christ?
They are not Christian according to the Statement of Faith of this website; they can be regarded as faithful followers of a greatly distorted gospel who desire or intend to follow Christ, but who in fact do not follow him due to having been greatly misled. I am inclined to feel great pity for them and indeed to pray for them. They have been manipulated into participating into a dreadful cult that viciously exploits its members.
Of the fifty largest religions in the US, according to one study I reviewed, they came in last in standards of living and so on. There is every indication that as an organization, Jehovah's Witnesses intentionally exploits vulnerable people and may well have resulted in cases of desperate poverty. As an organization, they practice shunning in a manner as aggressive and harmful as Scientology.
I think as Christians we should actively seek to put pressure on the Jehovah's Witnesses to abandon shunning and certain forms of proselytization, and to increase their expenditure on charitable works. We should also be prepared to defend the true Gospel of the Lord in the face of polemical criticism from them.
While I DO NOT profess to be a 'faithful follower', or better yet, a SUCCESSFUL follower, I certainly feel that I have come to UNDERSTAND quite a bit of what is offered in the Bible and I KNOW that I receive conviction from the Holy Spirit. But while NOT considering myself to be a faithful follower, does this EXCLUDE a 'faithful follower' from UNDERSTANDING the TRUTH? I don't think so.
David was a man after God's own heart. But I can relate to HIM more than most here on the forums for when we read about his BEHAVIOR, he would often appear anything BUT a 'faithful follower'. Adultery, murder, he seemed to be guilty of about every major sin a person could perform. But in most instances, that didn't stop him from KNOWING the TRUTH.
Peter DENIED Christ openly THREE TIMES. But he KNEW the truth. Job, given direct instruction from God, turned and went the 'other way'.
So any attempts to indicate one must 'be a Saint' to have 'any clue' would be to contradict the entire body of scripture.
However, we do not suggest that one must be a glorified Saint known to the church to have "any clue". For if we were to do so, we would exclude the majority of our own faithful clerics, past and present.
You suggest that to have "a clue," one mist be a faithful follower of Christ. I agree. We know of certain historic persons, like St. Athanasius, St. Basil, and St, Gregory the Theologian, who were undeniably faithful followers of Christ, and we know of others, like Paul of Samosata, Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and others who did engage in deceit, manipulation, treachery, and other great sins in order to promote their own theological opinions and personal importance.
But the one I can relate to more than any other in the Bible is Paul. A man who's job was PERSECUTING Christians. Believed what he was doing was 'righteous', only to find that he couldn't have been MORE wrong when the TRUTH was revealed to him.
"Trinity" has NEVER been revealed to me. Quite the opposite in fact.
When I read the words of Paul speaking of 'growing up' in Christ, you know, putting away 'childish things', it always brings much of what 'churches' teach to mind. Practicing rituals and focusing on the most BASIC of truths. Like 'children'. Refusing to even contemplate 'growing up' Spiritually, they seem content to only be INTRODUCED and seem to seek being RE introduced over and over again each week.
It is deeply offensive to see you describe belief in the Trinity, or the worship services of Trinitarian churches, or the personal devotional life, praxis and piety of Trinitarian Christians as "childish." Deeply offensive. I have not described even the Jehovah's Witnesses as "childish."
Lest you should argue that you are somehow merely expressing the views of St. Paul, one only has to point to the various verses of the Pauline epistles offered in support of the Trinitarian position, and then to Galatians 1:8.
I'm no saint guys. Just a man, born in the flesh and reborn in Spirit. Don't have a degree in theology. Don't believe I need one to find what I'm looking for. But I DO believe in the Bible being the inspired Word of God. And so far, I have been led AWAY from 'trinity' and MOST of the 'doctrines of men' that I have been able to recognize.
What you are doing is seeking to promote a viewpoint that has been shown in this thread to be contrary to scripture. You are relying on a famous rhetorical device of classical antiquity employed commonly by various philosophers and indeed by St. Irenaeus of Lyons (which can be summarized as "I am not an expert, I am not a hero, I am just a common man") to establish rapport not with us, I propose, but with various non-participants who should read this thread; essentially, playing to the gallery. Having established this image as a man of the people, so to speak, you then ask us to accept your view, which has been shown in this thread to be contrary to Scripture, on the basis of personal revelation.
You seek to gloss over furthermore the lack of scriptural proof for your position. You still have not told us how we should read John 1:1-14, only that we should not read it literally. So if we are not to read it literally, one would not unreasonably expect an alternative explanation to be provided, yet none has been forthcoming. Even if an alternate explanation were to be found, we could decisively reject it on the basis of "by their fruits ye shall know them," Galatians 1:8 and the numerous contradictions such a view would introduce between that verse and the rest of Scripture.
I find it difficult to believe that any TRUE follower of God through His Son would have difficulty recognizing the truth when offered.
So we are now presumably to infer from this, by way of a not entirely subtle implication, that Trinitarian Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant laity, and trinitarian Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox saints, religious leaders and clerics are not true followers, but merely "childish," whereas Jehovah's Witnesses, Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and others, are?
When I say I hear 'words of men' being repeated, I'm not joking,
that is often what I HEAR most. And I place no faith in the words of men. Especially concerning DOCTRINE.
Given your aversion to relying on words of men, it is a curious thing you ask us to accept your personal religious experiences, while rejecting those that many of us have had, and while promoting aggressively and in a manner that is arguably polemical, your own doctrinal perspectives.
Question: Do you believe that the religious order of the day during the time of Christ RECOGNIZED their 'short comings'? Do you think that they BELIEVED in what they were 'teaching'? Of course they did. But Christ openly revealed that they were WRONG. Regardless of their FAITH, they were placing their faith in the WRONG things. But they BELIEVED in what they were doing to the point that they would sentence people to DEATH according to their BELIEFS. Offered influence that resulted in the DEATH of Christ Himself.
So now Trinitarians are being likened to the Sanhedrin?
If there were ANY 'one thing' I could offer ANYONE it would be this: Put your faith in God through Christ. Stop following 'doctrines of men' and instead seek the simple truths of God through His Son.
For example, one should stop following the doctrines of Arius, and instead follow those revealed in John 1:1-14.
Focus on developing a REAL relationship with God and by all means, READ READ READ: The BIBLE.
I concur. I consider that you yourself might "READ READ READ" John 1:1-14.
And do your BEST to heed conviction of the Holy Spirit when it is offered. But by ALL means, don't let MEN be the source of your confusion or demise. Put your trust in GOD through His Son instead of 'churches'. For it is pretty clear that if there is any REAL confusion on this planet, it is found AMONG the 'churches'.
Apparently a perusal of Matthew 16:18, 1 Cornithians 10:17, and various other NT verses that variously describe salvation on ecclesiological terms, and the Church as "the Bride of Christ," and the "Body of Christ" would also be unwarranted. We could I suppose do an entire thread about the entirely unscriptural anti-ecclesiology you just espoused.
I've done what I'm able on this thread. Pointed out many things that are inconsistent with 'trinity' so far as the Bible is concerned.
On the contrary, you failed the main test Imset out in the OP: you did not provide a scriptural argument in favour of non-Trinitarianism that took a literal interpretation of John 1:1-14 into account, without resorting to historically inaccurate attacks on Trinitarianism relating to Roman Catholics.
I can convince NO ONE that doesn't WANT to understand of ANYTHING. I've often tried to point out the TRUTH to those that insist upon speaking gibberish and calling it 'tongues' that such behavior is utterly contrary to what we are offered in the Bible.
We aren't discussing speaking in tongues, which is as you presumably know rather a controversial topic among Trinitarians. It is difficult to regard this red herring as anything other than an attempt at divide et impera.
Those that INSIST upon such 'self edification' aren't going to listen to ME
Why should anyone listen to you? As you have repeatedly stressed, we should not listen to the voices of men.
or what the Bible offers in contradiction.
Which is to say, nil.
They are going to FIND justification and manipulate scripture to MATCH their beliefs regardless. It's not UP TO ME to change them. But I can certainly plant seeds. What they TRULY believe is between them and God or them and THEMSELVES.
By your own argument, applied consistently, the seeds you plant should go unwatered, and if they sprout, be uprooted. For you promote your teachings over the personal religious experiences of other members and ignore various scriptural verses you find inconvenient, like John 1:1-14.
So I'm basically through with this one. In closing, I disagree with the idea that 'NON trinitarianism' can be PROVEN to be false through scripture.
You are welcome to disagree, but you have refused to meet the criteria set out in the OP, which was to provide a justification for this belief without ignoring John 1:1-14 or resorting to fallacious criticisms of Roman Catholicism.
I don't even believe that the Catholic Church would agree to that one.
I think we ought to let the Catholic Church speak for itself on this point, old chap. You have quoted an unofficial theologocal treatise that is dated, as opposed to any specific statement the Roman Catholic Church refards doctrinally binding or a part of Holy Tradition. There are many such statements which provide scriptural proof for the Trinitarian doctrine, although I am not an RC, so if a Roman Catholic member wishes to prove this point, I shall leave it up to them.
@DrBubbaLove might be interested.
For they state that it's ONLY possible to KNOW of 'trinity' through Divine Revelation. That does NOT exist in scripture but through the Holy Spirit. No such revelation has been offered to me and it would appear to MOST that profess to believe in and follow it. For all I hear are those that seem content to REPEAT what they have HEARD from 'other MEN'. Men who may well have BELIEVED in what they were saying or teaching.
As I have pointed out, if you truly believed we should rely on private revelation, you would not be aggressively promoting this doctrine. Your entire argument here can be inverted and shown to be self refuting. For you are asking people to reject the doctrine of Trinity and believe in your private revelation, which we hear from you (you are an 'other MAN'); a second hand account which by your own standards we should reject.
But heck, Hitler obviously BELIEVED in what he was doing. That didn't make it RIGHT or RIGHTEOUS nor slow him down in any manner.
In the course of this thread, not only have you refused to provide an alternative exegesis of John 1:1-14, but by indicating this is your closing argument, have signalled a refusal to do so. Additionally, on a more unpleasant note, you have abused the writings of St. Paul by characterizing the religious convictions of Trinitarians as "childish," denied that we are "true followers of God," and variously likened us to the Sanhedrin and Adolf Hitler. I propose that this is not a persuasive argument for rejecting a belief in the Trinity.
