Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[BelieveTheWord]

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/

I read the first page. I also own the Apostolic Polyglot, it is great for study. I largely agree with you. However Yeshua never used "I am" as a title or name. He used it the same way anyone else would. Also the supposed claim of using "I am" as His title was in reference to existing before Abraham. If He were trying to somehow implying He was Yahweh in that way, He would have least referenced Moses.

 

[BelieveTheWord]

WGW, given the claim you make in the title, where is your scriptural basis that I must believe the trinity doctrine? What, according to scripture is the consequence of not believing it?

I get you feel the Bible provides enough evidence to support the tradition of the trinity, but can you show a Biblical passage that says non-trinitarinism is wrong?

 

[Wgw]

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.

You are harbouring two rather opposing and cintradictory viewpoints. On the one hand, you attempt to use the Shema to attack Trinitarianism, which might work of we were actually Tritheists; as it stands such an assesment is a complete mischaracterization of the Trinitarian position, which confesses one God in three Prosopa.

You then proceed to defend what amounts to polytheism, with God transformed into a Zeus-like (or rather Tangaru'a) like figure who has created various subordinate deities.

It might well have been interesting to argue that last point with you, but your invocation of the Shema against Trinitarianism suggests a lack of coherence in your theological system. As a rule, I do not discuss novel cosmologies with people who cannot present a harmonious theological model, but instead resort to special pleading, as it tends to be a bit pointless and uninteresting in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Wgw]

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.

There are precisely two definitions of the Trinity accepted by mainstream Christian denominations, one with the filioque and one without.

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.

I must thank you, old chap, for taking the time to prove my point for me. I did not expect that non-Trinitarians would so readily concede their position is incompatible with a literal reading of John 1:1-14.

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.

Unless one reads John 1:14, in which case such an exegesis of John 1:1-13 makes no sense.

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.

And here comes the tired cliche of the evil Emperor Palpatine, err, Constantine, deciding to impose his will upon the hapless, saintless, benighted Christians of the fourth century unilaterally. We have been over this in every thread, and this falls well within the category of an "anti-Catholic smear," what is more, it is also factually incorrect on the basis of all surviving historical accounts from the fourth century.

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.

Here again you resort to repetition with the discredited strawman that Trinitarianism is tritheistic, which simply ignores the beginning of the Nicene Creed.

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.

Once again, we have this inverse argument from ontology fallacy, that posits that because a term used to describe something Biblical is not itself used in the Bible, that which the term refers must not exist.

One might well observe however that the Nicene Creed, which is the Statement of Faith for these forums, also does not contain the word "Trinity," and yet, it perfectly characterizes the Trinitarian position.

 

[cgaviria]

I read the first page. I also own the Apostolic Polyglot, it is great for study. I largely agree with you. However Yeshua never used "I am" as a title or name. He used it the same way anyone else would. Also the supposed claim of using "I am" as His title was in reference to existing before Abraham. If He were trying to somehow implying He was Yahweh in that way, He would have least referenced Moses.

He only said it once that was recorded, the divine name that is, and every other time he referenced Him it was using the word Father. Although I don't have a theology set on pronunciation of the name or if even we should use it as Christians, I prefer to not name it anyways because of the known fear the Jews had utter it and also because we are instructed in the commandments to not use that name in vain. I'm not even sure we entirely know what the correct pronunciation is based on some initial research i've done. I found many different variations. I'd rather just stick to "the Father". In the epistles of the apostles, the divine name is never mentioned, but rather, just other titles for him, and that is what I would rather stick to as well rather than losely use the divine name in casual conversation.

 

[Wgw]

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?

According to St. Athanasius, who defined the list of scriptures that I assume you regard as canonical, in contrast to certain other members, God became man so that we might become god, not ontologically, but rather, "become through grace what He is by nature," something St. Gregory Palamas refers to as a "participation" in the "uncreated energies of God," a view echoed by RC theologian Thomas Aquinas who described the result of theosis as a "true beatification."

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?

I do indeed appreciate that, which is why I nite that early Christians took that verse as an example of referring to the divinity of the Lord.

Now, you allege that Trinitarians somehow twist and warp sacred scripture to make our case, however, I see it as impossible for you to have any credibility in making such an accusation when you yourself simply ignore wholesale the obvious meaning of a text, including in the original Greek, as understood by virtually all Christians since the fourth century.

You reject the literal meaning, for example, of John 1:1-14, and then attempt to claim that St. Thomas the Apostle actually meant, "My Lord, and also, entirely separately, also my God," which is a bit of a weak argument in that even if it were valid, which it is not, it would not thwart the doctrine if the Trinity, in so far as one could resort to the Nestorian position of Mar Barbai or Theodore of Mopsuestia. At that, if memory serves, St. Epiphanius of Salamis thoroughly refuted such an argument in his Panarion.

 

[Wgw]

I read the first page. I also own the Apostolic Polyglot, it is great for study. I largely agree with you. However Yeshua never used "I am" as a title or name. He used it the same way anyone else would. Also the supposed claim of using "I am" as His title was in reference to existing before Abraham. If He were trying to somehow implying He was Yahweh in that way, He would have least referenced Moses.

Apparently you haven't read Exodus 3:14-15.

WGW, given the claim you make in the title, where is your scriptural basis that I must believe the trinity doctrine? What, according to scripture is the consequence of not believing it?

I get you feel the Bible provides enough evidence to support the tradition of the trinity, but can you show a Biblical passage that says non-trinitarinism is wrong?

I would refer you to the ChristianForums.com Statement of Faith. Rejecting the plain sense of that much scripture, along with other verses which have themselves been discussed in this thread, and others that doubtless will be, causes one to run afoul of Galatians 1:8.

 

[Wgw]

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.

I do not find the words of St. Thomas the Apostle confusing in any sense. He clearly affirms both that Jesus Christ rose in the flesh and that Jesus Christ is God.

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.

I myself firmly believe that coherent exegesis is required, and my objection to your argument is that you are simply not doing it. By your own standards, I can say that "ONE LINE" is sufficient to reject non-Trinitariansm, and on that basis, we come to John 1:1, which you reject as "not literal." Which then takes us to Matthew 28:19, to John 1:2-14, to the Dounting Thomas incident, to "I and my Father are one," and so forth.

The problem here is that your two paragraphs contradict each other; you say that all scripture should be read in the context of all other scripture, a perspective with which I agree, and then go on to say that "ONE LINE" is enough to disprove Trinitarianism, which is a ringing, if not to say, tinnitus-inducing, endorsement on your part of the very cherry picking you attempted to disavow in the previous paragraph. In my experience, self-contradiction is the mark of faulty logic, and clearly identifies ill-formed belief systems.

The theme of self-contradiction will recur when we compare these two statements of yours:

Arius and many others before and since clearly recognized that the Son is NOT equal to the Father.

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.

It would seem, based on this contradiction, that we each hold to a rather different defintion of what constitutes a "matter of FACT." I suppose I should also respectfully beg to differ on the proper definition of the words "follow," "posts," "allowed," "practically," and "men;" I am inclined also to dispute the correct meaning of the phrase "I have," but fear that so doing might have a disastrous affect upon the conceptual integrity of English grammar.

 

[Wgw]

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.

[...]

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.

I do not as a rule comment on personal religious experiences of members of this forum; I cannot accept them as offering useful information in a discussion; I am not a clergyman and cannot interpret their meaning or authenticity. So I am not going to comment on that, and I would prefer it if you did not again bring it up.

I do feel obliged, however, to question this closig statement:

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.

Are you implying that you might uniquely, of those presently alive, constitute the "singular" member of the "very elect"?

I think most members of this forum, even Adventists and Landmarkists who are inclined to regard mainstream Christianity as essentially apostate, would find such a view troubling. Not because we fear being excluded from salvation under such a scheme, but rather, because of the implications of a Christian cutting themselves off from the Body of Christ, rejecting the Eucharistic communion of 1 Corinthians 10:17, and in effect likening themselves to the patriarchs Noah or Abraham.

 

[Wgw]

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.

Here you claim to worship Christ, as posessing "deity," but not as God. We will return to this.

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.

Except Arius, apparently.

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.

Now, this argument runs into problems for a number of reasons. If one Googles "God" one will see graven images purporting to depict Him in His divine nature. Shall we therefore reject the existence of God on account of the existence of idolatry?

You also unwittingly contradict yourself, in that the Second Commandment is universally understood to forbid the worship of created things. It is therefore entirely inappropriate to worship Jesus Christ if Jesus Christ is not God, but rather a created being posessing some degree of deity; a lesser divinity cannot be worshipped under the Second Commandment. Only if Jesus Christ is, as the Nicene creed says, "Very God of very God," is it proper to worship Him.

 

[1213]

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.

Because Bible has not that word, I don’t see it necessary to use that word, especially because it misleads form Biblical teaching.

Now, what you are doing is simply ignoring John 1:1-14,

I don’t ignore that. It doesn’t’ speak about trinity.

"I and the Father are one,"

Also disciples of Jesus are one with God.

I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are.
John 17:11

that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.
John 17:21

I think I am one with God, when I love like Him, and speak His words and agree with Him.

the Doubting Thomas incident,

Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"
John 20:28

As said earlier, God lives in Jesus. There were both, God and Jesus, God in Jesus.

I think you are ignoring these:

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

You heard how I told you, 'I go away, and I come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I said 'I am going to my Father;' for the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

Jesus therefore answered them, "Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise.
John 5:19

in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins; who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him were all things created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him.
Colossians 1:14-16

 

[Wgw]

Because Bible has not that word, I don’t see it necessary to use that word, especially because it misleads form Biblical teaching.



I don’t ignore that. It doesn’t’ speak about trinity.



Also disciples of Jesus are one with God.

I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are.
John 17:11

that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.
John 17:21

I think I am one with God, when I love like Him, and speak His words and agree with Him.



Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"
John 20:28

As said earlier, God lives in Jesus. There were both, God and Jesus, God in Jesus.

I think you are ignoring these:

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

You heard how I told you, 'I go away, and I come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I said 'I am going to my Father;' for the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

Jesus therefore answered them, "Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise.
John 5:19

in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins; who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him were all things created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him.
Colossians 1:14-16

The Trinitarian doctrine of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan fathers is clearly scriptural.mTo further show this, consider the annotations of the CF Statement of Faith:

The Nicene Creed(with scriptural references)

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)v
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13)

 

[Hoghead1]

It is generally agreed upon in scholarly circles that the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. This noes not mean it stands in tension with the Bible, just that it is not clearly stated and given any real detail. I don't know if you are ware of this or no, but there are any number of doctrines of the Trinity: the social theory, the economic theory, the psychological theory, etc. If you over these, you will easily see they contain much material way beyond the content of Scripture. For example the social theory: It claims that there are in fact three distinct personalities involved; that of the Father, that of the Son, that of the Holy Spirit. How is this not tritheism? All three of these personalities work together in complete harmony. Is this biblical? Many would say the social theory is nothing but polytheism. See what I mean? Nicea is, of course, vitally important here. Interestingly enough, this history leading u to this council shows both sides citing Scripture. The Arians argued Christ was not God, because he suffered, had to eat, etc. The supporters, of course, made a solid biblical case for their position. It goes to prove Scripture is somewhat ambiguous on these matters. Important as sit is, the Creed leaves loads of loose ends. What does it mean to say that Christ is one essence with the Father? That they are the same person? That the Father suffers? What about the Spirit? In the original Creed and later in its revision, there is no clear statement that the Holy Spirit, though divine, is also God. In fact, for centuries, the Holy Spirit remained a vague, ill-defined entity, maybe God, maybe not. Early Christians, for example, gave the Spirit such a minor role, that they were often accused of being ditheists rather than tritheists. In short, the Trinity has always been a difficult and controversial doctrine that has required extra-biblical concepts in order to function.

 

[Wgw]

It is generally agreed upon in scholarly circles that the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine.

I suppose that depends on how one defines "scholarly" and "circles." I know of no Orthodox or mainstream Protestant or Catholic scholars who believe that the Trinity is not Biblical. Even the mainline Protestant churches, ravaged by the forces of pietism, latitudinarianism, and modernist/post modernist theology do not agree on a denominational level that the Trinity is unbiblical, although some members of them do individually hild to this view.

This noes not mean it stands in tension with the Bible, just that it is not clearly stated and given any real detail.

Matthew 28:19, John 1:1-14 et cetera express it clearly, as do those verses cited by the official statementof faith of this website in its defense.

I don't know if you are ware of this or no, but there are any number of doctrines of the Trinity: the social theory, the economic theory, the psychological theory, etc. If you over these, you will easily see they contain much material way beyond the content of Scripture. For example the social theory: It claims that there are in fact three distinct personalities involved; that of the Father, that of the Son, that of the Holy Spirit. How is this not tritheism? All three of these personalities work together in complete harmony. Is this biblical? Many would say the social theory is nothing but polytheism. See what I mean? Nicea is, of course, vitally important here.

The social theory is certainly not tritheistic if understood in accordance with the Nicene Creed. If we understand that the prosopa of the Trinity are coessential, we arrive at the only possible way to reconcile the Biblical worship of our Lord with the Shema of Deuteronomy; Jesus Christ cannot bea created being and be properly the subject of latria.

There are in fact only two doctrines that are broadly accepted with regards to the Trinity: the Eastern single-procession model, and the Western double-procession, filioque model. The theories you mention either fall in the realm of permissable theological opinion or else are anti-Nicene, depending on the specific arguments invoked. I can cite the social theory as a valid explanation of the Nicene theology in that Metropolitan Kallistos Ware has expressed such a view in his book "The Orthodox Way."

Interestingly enough, this history leading u to this council shows both sides citing Scripture. The Arians argued Christ was not God, because he suffered, had to eat, etc. The supporters, of course, made a solid biblical case for their position.

Arius was probably the most sophisticated opponent of the doctrine of the Trinity, but his arguments still failed to be broadly convincing, which is why Emperor Constantius had to use force to impose them. As far as the reasons you give are concerned, there was more to it than that; your concerns are interestingly more specifically associated with the Antiochene school of theology, later at Nisibis, but are properly addressed in the miaphysite, Chalcedonian and semi-Nestorian christological mdoels of the mainline churches (I regard Nestorianism as heresy, but that is a complex matter for another thread).

Important as sit is, the Creed leaves loads of loose ends. What does it mean to say that Christ is one essence with the Father? That they are the same person? That the Father suffers? What about the Spirit?

In fact, if we bother to read the Nicene fathers and indeed the works of earlier Patristic voices such as St. Irenaeus, we see that in adopting homoousios they did not intend to adopt, nor did they adopt, the heresy of Sabellius, which was if memory serves thoroughly discredited and anathematized well before Nicea. You should as a matter of some urgency undertake to read On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius, which is readily available online.

What about the Spirit? In the original Creed and later in its revision, there is no clear statement that the Holy Spirit, though divine, is also God.

In point of fact, the clauses in the revised creed adopted by the Council of Constantinople in 381, that refer to the Holy Spirit, were adopted specificaly to refute the heresy of Macedioniansm, also called Pneumatomachianism, which rejected the deity of the Spirit contrary to the intentions of the Nicene Fathers. See the works of the Cappadocian Fathers.

In short, the Trinity has always been a difficult and controversial doctrine that has required extra-biblical concepts in order to function.

This is simply untrue; the majoirty of Christians and indeed Christian scholars through the ages have found no Biblical quarrel with this doctrine or had difficulty understanding it. Non-Trinitarianism has always been an extreme minority position due to the inconsistencies it causes with both the Old and New Testaments, which is why the Unitarians in the US and UK eventually gave up attempting to defend it biblically, instead adopting a transcendentalist, pluralist perspective. The Unitarians were, around the year 1790, probably the most intellectually sophisticated group in recent memory committed to the repudiation of this doctrine.

 

[BelieveTheWord]

You are harboring two rather opposing and cintradictory viewpoints. On the one hand, you attempt to use the Shema to attack Trinitarianism, which might work of we were actually Tritheists; as it stands such an assesment is a complete mischaracterization of the Trinitarian position, which confesses one God in three Prosopa.

You then proceed to defend what amounts to polytheism, with God transformed into a Zeus-like (or rather Tangaru'a) like figure who has created various subordinate deities.

It might well have been interesting to argue that last point with you, but your invocation of the Shema against Trinitarianism suggests a lack of coherence in your theological system. As a rule, I do not discuss novel cosmologies with people who cannot present a harmonious theological model, but instead resort to special pleading, as it tends to be a bit pointless and uninteresting in the grand scheme of things.

The is flat out dishonest and disrespectful. It is helpful that you show yourself to have no intellectual responses.

 

[Wgw]

The is flat out dishonest and disrespectful. It is helpful that you show yourself to have no intellectual responses.

If you believe my position is erroneous, then provide an argument to reconcile the contradiction between your invocation of the Shema against Trinitarianism on the one hand, and your Polytheist argument on the other. You cannot have it both ways. If the Trinitarians are to be rebuked for violating the Shema on the charge of Tritheism, you cannot then without contradicting yourself in the most disconcerting way possibly claim that a polytheistic interpretation of scripture is somehow warranted and desirable.

If it was not your intent to convey this, then you rather need to clarify, since right now your argument is exceedingly incoherent from my perspective to the point of not being worth examining in greater detail.

 

[Doveaman]

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?

Sometimes all that's required is simple logic.

Jesus is divine because His Father is divine, just as we are human because our fathers were human.

Both the Father and the Son are divine, just as our fathers and us are human.

Only God is divine, just as only Man is human.

The Father and the Son share in God's divinity, just as our fathers and us share in Man's humanity.

Jesus also shared in Man's humanity through His human mother, which makes Him both God and Man.

 

[Wgw]

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.

Whereas I would not ordinarily be inclined to respond to this post in full due to the contradiction I mentioned previously, I do feel obliged to address certain points made herein.

Your interpretation of Genesis 1:1 cannot be accepted as it is quintessentially polytheistic. As I expressed earlier, it has the effect of making God the Father out to be akin to the Polynesian deity Tangaru'a, "The father of all gods and goddesses." It also directly contradicts your application of the Shema against the Trinity. The Shema cannot be held to refute the Trinity on the one hand, while we accede to polytheism on the other. And the worship of created deities would be prohibited, which rules out worship of Jesus Christ under this scheme. It is simply unacceptable.

In fact you manage to immediately refute your own position by denying the Judeo-Christian monotheistic understanding of Elohim, while insisting that the Tetragrammaton somehow specifically refutes the idea of a single triune God, which it does not according to Christianity as defined by this site's own Statement of Faith.

In John 1:1, you further impose a strain on your credulity by suggesting that John 1:1 could conceivably refer to Moses, something impossible in that Moses cannot be God, ontologically or according to nature; what is more, John 1:14 would make no sense given such an interpretation.

What is more, your argument that the Greek word Theos, translated into English as God, could conceivably refer to other gods besides God (YHWH) is entieely inconsistent with the Shema, and the first and second commandments, and all use of the word in the New Testament. Throughout the New Testament, monotheism is stressed by the Apostles, and your willingness to regard the word "God" as referring to someone else is simply inconsistent with the entire Bible.

 

[Wgw]

Sometimes all that's required is simple logic.

Jesus is divine because His Father is divine, just as we are human because our fathers were human.

Both the Father and the Son are divine, just as our fathers and us are human.

Only God is divine, just as only Man is human.

The Father and the Son share in God's divinity, just as our fathers and us share in Man's humanity.

Jesus also shared in Man's humanity through His human mother, which makes Him both God and Man.

This is entirely correct.

In Nicene Orthodox theological terms, the sharing of divinity between God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is a matter of coessentiality; God is of one essence, and the three prosopa of the Trinity are ontologically God.

The theandric union in the propopon of Jesus Christ on te other hand is a consubstantial union between the human and divine nature.

The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and also historically at least, Roman Catholic theologians like Thomas Aquinas, go on to say that salvation is essentially the result of a union of energies between human beings and God.

 

[Hoghead1]

Hello, WgW, Hoghead1 again. Thank you for your thoughtful and informed response. it raises my hopes about this site. I am new and disgruntled, as much I have received and read seems little better that inflammatory rhetoric from individuals who have no real knowledge of what they are talking about. Hence, seeing your level of scholarship raises my hopes about what I can look forward to. Now, I don't mean to pry, but I am really curious what your background is. I am going to guess at least a graduate degree in theology, possibly an M.Div. On my end, I have a doctorate in theology, plus solid history of academic publications, including my dissertation, plus loads of major paper presentations, and absolutely zero work in academia. I don't know if you have looked, but for years the job market in theology and related areas has been nil. All dressed up and no place to go, that's me. Although I do not have a full-time teaching position yet, I just going to jump in, grab a seat, and consider myself among the ranks of contemporary Protestant theologians and scholars. So, I came here to at least keep in shape. Now regarding my point abut the Bible and the Trinity, I did not say it was unbiblical, I said it is not clearly stated in Scripture, and my experience tells me that yes, many theologians would agree with me here. As I recall, the Johannie comma is only found in later Bibles, for example. Another example, is that Paul, in Rom.8, does snot, at least not to my satisfaction, make a clear distinction between the Second and Third persons. Gen. 1 maybe implies a Trinity, maybe. However, the "Let us," which implies one is talking to a group of fellows, appears basically tritheistic to me. Moving on, Your concept of the social theory of the Trinity interests me. I gather you feel it is comparable with monotheism. I am interested in hearing your case. To me, it is blatantly polytheistic, among other problems. In my field, process theology, Joseph A. Bracken has published a social theory of the Trinity. I don't mean to toot my horn, but in my dissertation on process pneumatology, revised and published as a book, through Susquehanna University Press, I criticized Bracken on the grounds this model is polytheistic, citing Lewis Ford as one authority to back me. But there is far more to it than that. Now, as I am sure you probably already know about process, I am not gong into a lot of details here. My biggest problem with Bracken or any other social theory of the Trinity, viewed from my process orientation, is that these seriously violate Whitehead's principle of relativity, of which God is supposed to be the finest example. Basically, this principle state, among other things, that the basic rhythm of reality is that the many always become one, and by one Whitehead means an actual entity. God, then, should be viewed as a true personality which is a synthesis of all other personalities. But Bracken, and I might also accuse of this, though I haven't seen your account yet, arbitrarily block this process from reaching completion, by stopping it with a divine manyness that somehow failed to become one. What I am saying is that I can accept God as a harmony or synthesis of the Three persons, indeed as a synthesis of all personalities, but then that makes God a meta-personality. Bracken fails to see this. Granted three divine persons, they and do fuse together into one personality, one overriding state of emoti0on and consciousness, which, I guess, can be best described as meta-God. I have also considered the radical possibility of eliminating the Trinity totally, from my process metaphysic, as this doctrine just creates too many bugaboos in the first place. I have never met a scholar yet said anything but that the Trinity is basically a paradox, and I don't like paradoxes. Moving on, official or no, I believe the Creed is inadequate, especially on the nature of the Spirit. The problem I have here is that most of the literature focuses on problems with the Second Person, gets so hung up there, that the Spirit ends of being the least-elaborated member of the Trinity. The problem I have with the Creed is that, revised or no, I never comes right out and clearly states, as it does with Christ, that the Spirit is God. And in much early writing, the Spirit, when introduced, is never said to Be God and given a minor role, unlike what one would expect from God. It's one thing to officially state a creed, it is wholly another whether others truly followed in its footsteps. After all, Arius came back into vogue when Constantine's son came into power. Indeed, Constantine had to force signatures. So, centrally not all of Christendom was or is happy with it. Take Augustine. He wrote a whole work on the Trinity, "De Trinitate." I am sure you know it. Note how many different models he sets up, the psychological model,etc. I certainly he wrote all this just to pass the time, well content with official pronouncements on the Trinity. He wrote all this because he realized, brother, are we ever in trouble here. Well, I could go on. Let me know if you are interested and I will go more into detail.