Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[Wgw]

It is my contention, after participating in several debates in this forum, that the rejection of the Trinity in general, and the divinity of Jesus Christ in particular, is not only contrary to the tradition of my specific Church, but is more generally incompatible with the canonical New Testament. I have yet to see a coherent argument against Nicene theology and Christology, put forward, that ultimately does not require either the rejection or deprecation of sections of the New Testament such as John 1:1-14, Matthew 28:19, and other verses.

Several arguments have been put forward which seem to rely primarily on prioritizing the Old Testament over the new, or which rely to varying degrees on Talmudic or Karaite philosophy. I find these arguments particularly uninteresting in that they seem to involve the tacit denial of the Christian faith as the genuine fulfillment of OT prophecy.

Lastly, various arguments were made which implied the Trinity was an evil conspiracy of the dreaded Emperor Constantine, and the Roman Catholic Church; I found these particularly disagreeable given the fact that the Arian controversy was primarily settled in the eastern churches which wound up under Eastern and Oriental Orthodox jurisdiction, and given the Roman persecution of Nicene Christians that lasted from Constantius, into the reign of St. Theodosius. So it would be interesting to see if anyone can argue a Unitarian or other non-Trinitarian position without rejecting part or all of the NT, subordinating the NT to the OT, or falling back on the tired anti-Catholic canard.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I have come to think of the knowledge of the trinity as a privilege that the Bible, especially the OT, does not explicitly state, but embeds for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

It therefore should not be a point of contention, but rather, an insight given by God to those who seek Him in all His forms.

~s

 

[Wgw]

I have come to think of the knowledge of the trinity as a privilege that the Bible, especially the OT, does not explicitly state, but embeds for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

It therefore should not be a point of contention, but rather, an insight given by God to those who seek Him in all His forms.

~s

I agree, alhough unfortunately it has repeatedly been made a bone of contention by various people over the years; Arius, Macedonius, and Soccinius, to name a few.

 

[Imagican]

The simple fact that even among those professing to believe in 'trinity', there are about as many descriptions as there are adherents plainly illustrates that there are MANY DIFFERENT interpretations of scripture and understanding.

This makes it pretty clear that if anything, 'trinity' is but a 'guess' in an attempt to further explain a basic mystery that already exists. But in the terms of MEN rather than God.

You insist that John 1 is offered LITERALLY. Yet we KNOW that a major portion of the Bible is NOT written from a LITERAL perspective. Issues dealing with 'spirit' are almost impossible to be offered in a LITERAL sense.

It is just as easy to interpret John's words as offering that the LITERAL WORD of God is nothing other than HIS WORD. Not Jesus or anything other than HIS WORD. You know, like when YOU speak, it is YOUR word.

There is NO DOUBT, Jesus states it in fact, that Jesus was/IS the representative of God's Word. He says that the things He said were GIVEN Him by His Father: GOD.

Look. The entire issue of 'trinity' came about through men being confused about the very essence of Christ. YOU would have us believe that by simply making a decision, men were ABLE to determine the issue and then make it LAW.

But the truth is, the Bible itself instructs us NOT to fool with Godhead in such a manner. That it cannot be fashioned into a 'graven image'. It is not a 'physical thing' that can be completely understood or defined by MEN and THEIR design.

Yet that is EXACTLY how 'trinity' came into being. Men, intent upon being WISE enough to answer questions with their OWN understanding.

But basically ALL 'trinity' DID was turn God's Son into GOD Himself. Yet the Son stated more than once that the Father, who we KNOW is God, is greater than the Son. So how does one come to accept that one GREATER than another is EQUAL? It simply doesn't make any sense and is actually CONTRARY to the NT scriptures. Not to mention that the OT reveals God as SINGULAR and UNCOMPOUNDED. Not OTHER Gods beside Himself.

So it's not the 'non trinitarians' that have a problem with scripture. NO where is scripture is 'trinity' even MENTIONED. And one is forced to stretch, twist and manipulate ANY scripture to INDICATE that it refers to 'trinity'. For the ENTIRE concept from name to description was CREATED by MEN, not God, or his messengers including His OWN SON. Not a single apostle EVER mentioned 'trinity' or even suggested the IDEA. If you disagree, then please, by all means, SHOW us where they made mention of 'trinity' or even alluded to it.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

The Father and Son, according to Christ Himself, are NOT equal. The Father is GREATER than the Son.

ALL indications are that the Father CREATED the Son. If so, that means that the Son is NOT eternal from the past. He had a BEGINNING. God does not.

The biggest problem being a misunderstanding of what 'in the beginning' REALLY means. It does not mean from ETERNITY. It simply means that in the beginning of 'creation' as it pertains to US: MANKIND.

So Christ being in existence since 'in the beginning' has NO bearing on His being created or NOT created. For 'in the beginning' does NOT refer to the BEGINNING of God. God has NO beginning.

And there are things that the Father KNOWS that the Son DOES NOT.

All these things utterly refute any possibility of 'trinity' AS IT IS DEFINED, being correct. I have offered a NUMBER of issues that refute 'trinity'. If only ONE is correct, that's STILL enough to utterly destroy the notion of 'trinity' as it is DEFINED by MEN.

Jesus was/is NOT 'all knowing'. He STATES that this is NOT SO. The Bible basically STATES that He was 'created' by God. So he can't be CO eternal. And the FACT that Jesus STATES that the Father is GREATER than the Son, that the Son was SENT by the Father plainly illustrates WHO is GREATER. And there is NO equality if ONE is GREATER.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[BelieveTheWord]

The two premises leading to the doctrine of the trinity are that there is only one God in existence, and that Yeshua clearly differentiated Himself from His Father. So the intent of the trinity doctrine is to resolve the paradox. The second premise is undeniably true. However the first premise is Biblically false. Yeshua quoted Psalm 82 that "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said, you are gods?' If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken), do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?'

There are many Gods in the Bible. It is polytheistic. The difference between Biblical polytheism and worldy polytheism is that there is a hierarchy that is enforced. Jude 1:6 This why Yahweh calls Himself "El Elyon", or God Most High. It's like the president of a country calling himself the most high president. It doesn't make sense to say that unless there is more than one president. Also consider the first commandment: "You shall have no other gods before me." The literal translation of "before me" is "in My face." He doesn't say He is the only God, just that no other God should be put on His level. I believe that Paul is right when he says Yeshua is first-born of all creation. Yeshua is Elohim come down, Emmanu-El. But He is not His own Father. He is not El Elyon.

Nothing in Scripture says non-trinitariamism is wrong.

 

[1213]

...So it would be interesting to see if anyone can argue a Unitarian or other non-Trinitarian position without rejecting part or all of the NT, subordinating the NT to the OT, or falling back on the tired anti-Catholic canard.

Good thing is that Bible doesn’t have word trinity, so I can pass it easily and rely purely on the Bible words.

And according to the Bible (also NT), it is clear who Jesus is and who the only true God is.

God is Love and Spirit:
He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8
We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

And Jesus is the temple of God:
Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works. ...
John 14:10-14
For in him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily,
Colossians 2:9
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews therefore said, "Forty-six years was this temple in building, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he spoke of the temple of his body.
John 2:19-21

It is really simple, if person wants to remain in words of Bible Jesus.

 

[Wgw]

@Imagican , I hope to reply to your posts later today.

First, however, I have to deal with this predictable argument from reverse ontology:

Good thing is that Bible doesn’t have word trinity, so I can pass it easily and rely purely on the Bible words.

And according to the Bible (also NT), it is clear who Jesus is and who the only true God is.

God is Love and Spirit:
He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8
We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

And Jesus is the temple of God:
Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works. ...
John 14:10-14
For in him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily,
Colossians 2:9
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews therefore said, "Forty-six years was this temple in building, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he spoke of the temple of his body.
John 2:19-21

It is really simple, if person wants to remain in words of Bible Jesus.

The fact that the word Trinity is not in the Bible does not suggest that the theological concept referred to by the word "Trinity" is un-Biblical or erroneous.

Now, what you are doing is simply ignoring John 1:1-14, "I and the Father are one," the Doubting Thomas incident, and other scriptural texts which prove the existence of our Lord, which @DerAlter enumetated in another thread, as opposed to offering a compelling alternative explanation.

 

[Wgw]

The two premises leading to the doctrine of the trinity are that there is only one God in existence, and that Yeshua clearly differentiated Himself from His Father. So the intent of the trinity doctrine is to resolve the paradox. The second premise is undeniably true. However the first premise is Biblically false. Yeshua quoted Psalm 82 that "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said, you are gods?' If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken), do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?'

There are many Gods in the Bible. It is polytheistic. The difference between Biblical polytheism and worldy polytheism is that there is a hierarchy that is enforced. Jude 1:6 This why Yahweh calls Himself "El Elyon", or God Most High. It's like the president of a country calling himself the most high president. It doesn't make sense to say that unless there is more than one president. Also consider the first commandment: "You shall have no other gods before me." The literal translation of "before me" is "in My face." He doesn't say He is the only God, just that no other God should be put on His level. I believe that Paul is right when he says Yeshua is first-born of all creation. Yeshua is Elohim come down, Emmanu-El. But He is not His own Father. He is not El Elyon.

Nothing in Scripture says non-trinitariamism is wrong.

I have to confess that in posting this thread, I did not expect to be challenged by a polytheist. That was altogether unexpected, although not uninteresting.

There are two points though that have to be made: polytheism is expressly refuted by the Shema, "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One," by Genesis 1:1, and John 1:1.

Secondly, and of equal importance, Psalm 82 refers to salvation through Theosis or deification, which does not make us deities per se, in the sense of being members of the Holy Trinity united in essence or hypostasis with the divine energies, but rather reflects cooperation and participation in the uncreated energies of God (as per St. Athanasius, and the essence/energies distinction of St. Gregory Palamas).

 

[Butch5]

It is my contention, after participating in several debates in this forum, that the rejection of the Trinity in general, and the divinity of Jesus Christ in particular, is not only contrary to the tradition of my specific Church, but is more generally incompatible with the canonical New Testament. I have yet to see a coherent argument against Nicene theology and Christology, put forward, that ultimately does not require either the rejection ormdeprecation of sections of the Nee Testament such as John 1:1-14, Matthew 28:19, and other verses.

Several arguments have been put forward which seem to rely primarily on prioritizing the Old Testament over the new, or which rely to varying degrees on Talmudic or Karaite philosophy. I find these arguments particularly uninteresting in that they seem to involve the tacit denial of the Christian faith as the genuine fulfillment of OT prophecy.

Lastly, various arguments were made which implied the Trinity was an evil conspiracy of the dreaded Emperor Constantine, and the Roman Catholic Church; I found these particularly disagreeable given the fact that the Arian controversy was primarily settled in the eastern churches which wound up under Eastern and Oriental Orthodox jurisdiction, and given the Roman persecution of Nicene Christians that lasted from Constantius, into the reign of St. Theodosius. So it would be interesting to see if anyone can argue a Unitarian or other non-Trinitarian position without rejecting part or all of the NT, subordinating the NT to the OT, or falling back on the tired anti-Catholic canard.

Can you give you definition of the Trinity?

 

[Wgw]

Can you give you definition of the Trinity?

Essentially, the beliefs outlined in the Nicene Creed accessible in the christianforums.com statement of faith.

 

[Butch5]

Essentially, the beliefs outlined in the Nicene Creed accessible in the christianforums.com statement of faith.

OK, but the Nicene Creed doesn't use the word Trinity.

 

[Wgw]

OK, but the Nicene Creed doesn't use the word Trinity.

Indeed, but that doesn't matter. I am not arguing about the word "Trinity" but rather the doctrine to which it refers.

 

[Butch5]

Indeed, but that doesn't matter. I am not arguing about the word "Trinity" but rather the doctrine to which it refers.

OK. I asked because many define the Trinity as espoused in the Anthanasian Creed. I have argued the Trinity doctrine on this forum with those who claimed to be Nicene Trinitarians who in fact weren't, but rather were Anthanasian Trinitarians.

 

[Wgw]

OK. I asked because many define the Trinity as espoused in the Anthanasian Creed. I have argued the Trinity doctrine on this forum with those who claimed to be Nicene Trinitarians who in fact weren't, but rather were Anthanasian Trinitarians.

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

 

[BelieveTheWord]

I have to confess that in posting this thread, I did not expect to be challenged by a polytheist. That was altogether unexpected, although not uninteresting.

There are two points though that have to be made: polytheism is expressly refuted by the Shema, "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One," by Genesis 1:1, and John 1:1.

Secondly, and of equal importance, Psalm 82 refers to salvation through Theosis or deification, which does not make us deities per se, in the sense of being members of the Holy Trinity united in essence or hypostasis with the divine energies, but rather reflects cooperation and participation in the uncreated energies of God (as per St. Athanasius, and the essence/energies distinction of St. Gregory Palamas).

The Shema, rightly read, is "Hear oh Israel Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one." Yahweh, the God of Israel is one being, which expressly refute the trinity doctrine. There is no implication that there is only one being who is Elohim/God. Hebrew translators also interchange "angels" with "Elohim" such as Psalms 8:5. Yahweh made Moses Elohim in Exodus 7:1.

Genesis 1:1 in no way implies singularity, and in fact trinitarians like to consider it plural. Even if it refers only to Yahweh, it doesn't mean He didn't create Elohim/Gods. According to Scripture He certainly did.

John 1:1 says that "The Word" was with God/Theos/Elohim and was God/Theos/Elohim. One could rightly consider the verse to say the word was with Moses and the word was Moses. I don't believe that of course, but it shows that you can't simply assume that Elohim/Theos/God always refers to Yahweh. Obviously it does not. It also refers to those " to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken)"

Psalm 82 refers to salvation?!?!?!
5They don't know, neither do they understand. They walk back and forth in darkness. All the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6I said, "You are gods, all of you are sons of the Most High.
7Nevertheless you shall die like men, and fall like one of the rulers."

You Eastern Orthodox can keep that "salvation" for yourselves.

 

[cgaviria]

The Father and Son, according to Christ Himself, are NOT equal. The Father is GREATER than the Son.

ALL indications are that the Father CREATED the Son. If so, that means that the Son is NOT eternal from the past. He had a BEGINNING. God does not.

The biggest problem being a misunderstanding of what 'in the beginning' REALLY means. It does not mean from ETERNITY. It simply means that in the beginning of 'creation' as it pertains to US: MANKIND.

So Christ being in existence since 'in the beginning' has NO bearing on His being created or NOT created. For 'in the beginning' does NOT refer to the BEGINNING of God. God has NO beginning.

And there are things that the Father KNOWS that the Son DOES NOT.

All these things utterly refute any possibility of 'trinity' AS IT IS DEFINED, being correct. I have offered a NUMBER of issues that refute 'trinity'. If only ONE is correct, that's STILL enough to utterly destroy the notion of 'trinity' as it is DEFINED by MEN.

Jesus was/is NOT 'all knowing'. He STATES that this is NOT SO. The Bible basically STATES that He was 'created' by God. So he can't be CO eternal. And the FACT that Jesus STATES that the Father is GREATER than the Son, that the Son was SENT by the Father plainly illustrates WHO is GREATER. And there is NO equality if ONE is GREATER.

Blessings,

MEC

Excellent response. Read something I posted earlier related to this that you might find very interesting http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ly-the-father-has-no-beginning-moved.7919007/

 

[cgaviria]

The two premises leading to the doctrine of the trinity are that there is only one God in existence, and that Yeshua clearly differentiated Himself from His Father. So the intent of the trinity doctrine is to resolve the paradox. The second premise is undeniably true. However the first premise is Biblically false. Yeshua quoted Psalm 82 that "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said, you are gods?' If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken), do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God?'

There are many Gods in the Bible. It is polytheistic. The difference between Biblical polytheism and worldy polytheism is that there is a hierarchy that is enforced. Jude 1:6 This why Yahweh calls Himself "El Elyon", or God Most High. It's like the president of a country calling himself the most high president. It doesn't make sense to say that unless there is more than one president. Also consider the first commandment: "You shall have no other gods before me." The literal translation of "before me" is "in My face." He doesn't say He is the only God, just that no other God should be put on His level. I believe that Paul is right when he says Yeshua is first-born of all creation. Yeshua is Elohim come down, Emmanu-El. But He is not His own Father. He is not El Elyon.

Nothing in Scripture says non-trinitariamism is wrong.

I agree. Like I told another person on this thread, read something I posted concerning this, I would like your feedback, http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ly-the-father-has-no-beginning-moved.7919007/

 

[Imagican]

@Imagican , I hope to reply to your posts later today.

First, however, I have to deal with this predictable argument from reverse ontology:



The fact that the word Trinity is not in the Bible does not suggest that the theological concept referred to by the word "Trinity" is un-Biblical or erroneous.

Now, what you are doing is simply ignoring John 1:1-14, "I and the Father are one," the Doubting Thomas incident, and other scriptural texts which prove the existence of our Lord, which @DerAlter enumetated in another thread, as opposed to offering a compelling alternative explanation.

I don't feel that I have ignored anything. I have simply placed it in CONTEXT.

Christ tells us that we TOO are able to be ONE with both He and His Father. Does that mean when we become ONE, we TOO will be GOD?

Concerning Thomas. Isn't it apparent that if Thomas doubted the identity of Christ, he was doubting Him who sent Christ: GOD?

So when Thomas uses BOTH their titles, in essence, he is apologizing to BOTH: God AND His Son. He is NOT calling Jesus God.

See how discernment and proper context make all the difference in the world when it comes to understanding?

It is ONLY through you preconceived NOTION of Christ BEING God that you see the words of Thomas as confusing. They are perfectly clear to me.

Just like the use of 'I am' by Christ. This is in NO means revealing He is God by using the term. Even the translators of the Bible recognized THIS truth. For if they had thought for a SECOND that He was trying to reveal Himself as GOD, they would certainly have capitalized the 'a' in AM. They didn't.

Look. It's perfectly CLEAR that one could find ALL KINDS of confusing doctrine if they read through the Bible and pick and choose a line here and a line there. That is NOT how we are instructed to find the TRUTH in God's Word. We are to compare each scripture to all others to come to proper understanding.

I could sit here all day and quote scripture that plainly refute any possibility of 'trinity'. But in truth, all it should take is ONE LINE that is contrary to 'trinity' as it is defined to show those that are willing to HEAR that it is a 'purely man made concept' that does not EXIST in the Bible.

But I can see how if one is TAUGHT 'trinity' and then taken to specific LINES of the Bible that it would SEEM to exist. And then add to that, in order to FIT IN one MUST confess that they believe in 'trinity', it would be fairly easy to 'buy in'.

Christ came to reveal His Father: God, to US. It is impossible for me to believe that if 'trinity' were as important as the 'churches' insist, Christ would have OPENLY revealed it to the apostles, if not ALL of His disciples. He didn't. Didn't even mention the word. Nor did His apostles. If it were THAT important, surely He wouldn't have left it up to MEN to GUESS?????

Arius and many others before and since clearly recognized that the Son is NOT equal to the Father. And the simple use of the word SON is indicative of one CREATED or a TIME BEFORE. In order to BECOME a son one MUST BECOME a son. That means that there was a time BEFORE they BECAME.

Add to this concept all that we are offered in the Bible STATING that He was 'created', it is pretty easy to see why so many were willing to DIE rather than DENY what was completely transparent to THEM.

Firstborn of EVERY creature. The beginning of the creation of God. And how many times does the Bible use the word MADE as in: God MADE Christ................?

It is irrelevant to me that men, seventeen hundred years ago, decided that what they were offered in the Bible, (scripture), wasn't enough. We see men that feel the same way today. Choosing to make up their OWN doctrine and dogma concerning what they WANT to believe.

I KNOW this: God has revealed Himself to ME and instead of revealing 'trinity', has led me to understanding that it does not exist in truth. That it is a purely man made concept designed by those that wanted to WORSHIP The Son as the FATHER.

So it is not about me HATING Catholics or looking for a reason to be different or anything else. It is about what has been revealed to ME. And I'm sure that you would agree: If what I'm saying is true, I am more obliged to follow what is revealed than what men would try and teach me. And I can assure you, I have prayed upon this issue for more hours than I can remember. NOT a conspiracy theorist just LOOKING for a reason for suspicion.

I mentioned in the discussion on 'tongues': Why would God allow me to feel uncomfortable around those speaking in gibberish and calling it tongues if they were indeed inspired by God or the Holy Spirit? I can't imagine. If they were HOLY tongues, heck, why am I not speaking them myself? But surely if they were REAL and HOLY God wouldn't allow them to offend me?????

And it is little different with 'trinity'. Why would God, not only NOT reveal it to me, but lead me to study that purely proves that it does not exist? Why?

If you follow my posts, you'll see that I'm about as practical as possible. Not looking for monsters or practicing fairy tales. Just about as practical as a man can be when it comes to understanding.

And here is the biggest difference between you and I and what we believe.

At one point in my life, I was forced to choose between the Bible and MEN. Using what I had learned in my life and using the words of the Bible itself, it was APPARENT that men CANNOT be trusted. But it is perfectly clear, that if God WANTED TO, He could indeed preserve His WRITTEN Word. He could also reveal His truth to men as well. But HOW could I be assured that I could FIND such a man? The odds are that I may have to listen to a MILLION before FINDING that ONE man.

So I prayed and I read and I prayed and I read and it didn't take THAT long before "I BELIEVE" that God directly revealed to me that I could find MUCH MORE truth in His Word than through the words of MEN. And HE convinced me to accept the Bible as THE TRUTH. Not ALL of the TRUTH that exists concerning Him, but ENOUGH to help me BE who God wants me to be in UNDERSTANDING. And if I had ten lifetimes, I don't believe I could understand EVERYTHING that is offered in the Bible. For every time I read it, I come away with MORE than before. Even things that I KNOW, become merely stepping stones to DEEPER understanding.

And one thing is perfectly clear in scripture: God revealed Himself to His CHOSEN people as SINGULAR, UNCOMPOUNDED. No OTHER gods beside Him. And the REASON for this revelation was so they could distinguish HIM from ALL other GODS.

So if what I have offered here is TRUTH, then if He is "TRIUNE" in nature, He LIED to His Chosen people. And I, for one, do not believe it possible for God to LIE.

And if God is the SAME today as yesterday and tomorrow, I am FORCED to believe that NOTHING has changed. He is the SAME God that revealed Himself to HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE. And WHO He revealed Himself to BE is the same today as it was then.

In the beginning God said, "Let there be Light". That was three days before the sun and moon were created. So obviously this is in reference to a DIFFERENT FORM of 'LIGHT'.

It is my FIRM belief that these words: GOD'S WORD, revealed the CREATION of the Son. For that is what Christ is referred to OVER and OVER again: the LIGHT of this WORLD. But we KNOW that is NOT in reference to PHYSICAL light. Just as that Light God created IN THE BEGINNING was not PHYSICAL light.

While the churches certainly don't teach this, (can't and still adhere to a belief in 'trinity'), I believe that it's PERFECTLY clear. That the Bible plainly reveals the 'creation' of Christ and WHEN He was created.

While you believe that He was NOT 'created' but ETERNALLY GENERATED, (another term that does not exist in the Bible. Nor does the CONCEPT even exist within the pages of the Bible), I believe that the Bible makes it perfectly clear in a MULTITUDE of revelation and actual STATEMENTS that the Son came FROM the Father. And if so, that means that there was certainly a TIME before the Son.

And that doesn't get in my way of worshiping Christ. I simply do NOT worship Him as GOD, but the Son of God. And that is ENOUGH for me. I know what has been revealed and don't believe ANY truth would have been revealed if I were worshiping a DIFFERENT god.

For you can rest assured that I have KNOWN Satan. For many years of my life HE was the god that I followed. And I know HOW to defeat him. While I can't claim to be 'sin free', I am certainly capable of RECOGNIZING it.

As a matter of FACT, if you follow my posts, you will find that I have allowed practically NO influence of men outside of the Bible. My view of demons and Satan, Love, Salvation, grace, sin, and every other concept that I hold as doctrine are STRAIGHT out of the BIBLE. Not TRADITIONS of men or heresay or rumors or fairy tales.

For at one point in my walk I came to the understanding that the Bible IS the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. And He inspired it so that I CAN KNOW if a man is speaking of GOD'S truth or his own. It is the MEANS, (other than the Holy Spirit), by which God has given us the ability to KNOW His truth and have it VERIFIED through the Holy Spirit.

And let me offer this, my friend: in the ENTIRE history of the relationship of God with MEN, NEVER, not ONCE do we have an example of a VAST group of TRUE believers. Even among His own chosen people, there were only a HANDFUL at any one time. Sometimes ONLY ONE. Think about that. Not trying to lead you, just offer a seed of thought. Think about that. Has He really CHANGED? Were the examples of no intent? And in the End, all indications are that it is WHEN there are only a FEW or even ONE that will determine when He is going to 'cut the days short'. For the sake of HIS VERY ELECT. That word can be either plural, OR SINGULAR.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

And let me offer this so there is NO confusion: I believe in ONLY ONE 'true' God. I believe in nor place my faith in NO OTHER. And that God is THE Father of Jesus Christ, His Son.

I cannot deny the deity that exists in the Son. He is certainly worthy of my worship or adoration. I simply do not worship the Son as the Father: God.

And I have never received any revelation otherwise. I have received no conviction otherwise. I rely upon the Bible and the Spirit to guide my understanding and place my faith no where else. For I sincerely believe that God, through the Holy Spirit reveals truth to those that sincerely seek it. But whatever 'truth' we BELIEVE we've been given, MUST conform to God's Word as revealed in the scriptures. The scriptures are HOW we KNOW that the 'spirit' revealing truth IS the TRUTH. For there are many many many different spirits in this world.

So in essence, it is my firm belief that we were given the 'inspire word of God' as a GUIDE to help us discern the difference between His truth and the truth of this world.

I do NOT trust the words of men. ANY men. Especially if their words are contrary to what we have been given through the INSPIRED WORD: The Bible.

I only KNOW what I KNOW. And I can offer nothing other. But that I DO KNOW certain things is without compromise in my heart and in my mind. That makes it pretty impossible to place my faith in the words of men when they contradict what I KNOW.

While I certainly don't know everything. As a matter of FACT, I'm SURE that I KNOW little in comparison to what can be known. But I am confident that I 'know enough'. Enough to be able to discern basic 'truths' concerning God and His will. Basic truths concerning His Son. I don't NEED to create my OWN understanding to answer those questions that have YET to be revealed.

But I also KNOW THIS:

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.

And all one need do is google in the word 'trinity' and then click 'images' to plainly SEE all the different GRAVEN IMAGES of ART used to define 'trinity'. And then a cursory study of the concept plainly illustrates that it was created by the device of MEN. For it does NOT exist in God's Inspired Word: The Bible.

So, do I place my faith in the creations of MEN? Or do I place my faith in God? To me this isn't even a question that needs answering.

Blessings,

MEC