What are the reasons behind a person wrongfully rejecting the Trinity? (Trinity Christians Only)

[Horation]

Exactly. Jesus said, 'that they may be one as we are one'. I don't know any Christian who argues that all Christians are a single being or that there is a single being that consists of all Christians. His prayer is that Christians would be one as He and the Father are one. I don't think Jesus thought that all Christians would morph into a single being. He's praying for unity. So, if He didn't intend for all Christians to be one single being then He's not saying that He and the Father are one single being, thus He's not saying there is a being called God that consist of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Exactly. Jesus said, 'that they may be one as we are one'. I don't know any Christian who argues that all Christians are a single being or that there is a single being that consists of all Christians. His prayer is that Christians would be one as He and the Father are one. I don't think Jesus thought that all Christians would morph into a single being. He's praying for unity. So, if He didn't intend for all Christians to be one single being then He's not saying that He and the Father are one single being, thus He's not saying there is a being called God that consist of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It's crystal clear, yet people simply ignore it in favor of some 5th century doctrine that 5th century church leaders told them they have to believe to be saved. They break down the comparison that Jesus made. They say Christians are one in unity, but God is one in number. That's not what Jesus said. He wanted both groups to be one in the same manner. I just don't see how people ignore this.

People come with an entrenched position and make the scriptures fit that position. It is not so hard to do. A variety of religions will quote the bible when it suits them to promote their views. Any Scripture that contradicts their views must be turned around to mean something other than it plainly states. For the scholarly, that is not hard to do

 

[Clare73]

The Trinity is not really that complicated to understand. Imagine a person who can phase or walk through walls. Now, imagine if they can phase their body in being in partial connection with the wall. They would be one with the wall. Now imagine the three persons of the Trinity as being in phase with one another and connected to each other beyond the limits of time and space. These three persons are connected as one divine being or God. Granted, God does not have to phase to be connected, it is just a natural part of His being or existence. He is one God or divine being and yet He exists also as three distinct persons. Anyone who is somewhat creative or imaginative can figure it out (or they need to have a revelation of such from God to be able to understand it).

Anyways, I mention this example for illustrative purposes only.
It is a crude example to illustrate how God is triune.
Please do not take my example with wooden literalism.
I merely trying to help you to understand the concept of the Trinity.

That's a good job. . .but doesn't account for procession.

What do you think of this?
As my thought (decision, will), speech (Word) and action (power) all proceed from within me regarding a matter, so in the Trinity those three are persons: the Father willing and originating salvation, the Word accomplishing salvation, and the Holy Spirit applying the benefits of salvation.

 

[Clare73]

Someone hand Clare a mirror.

Non-responsive to posts #208 and #246.

 

[Clare73]

So, there is one God plus three agents who are acting in the name of that one God and they too are God.

1+1+1+1=4

Non-responsive to posts #208 and #246.

 

[Strong in Him]

I, also, heard this illustration from a lot of preachers. I didn't mean to criticize it or criticize you. I would seriously like to know whether we should take the simplistic approach of Modalism when describing the Trinity to unbelievers.

No that's fine; I didn't take it as criticism.

I'm not sure that I can answer that because, in spite of all that I've said in this thread, I don't think I'd describe the Trinity to unbelievers.
I think first of all they need to believe, and have faith in God. The Trinity is hard enough to explain/understand/preach on when you're coming from a place of faith and believe that God IS, and is all powerful etc. If people don't have that as a starting point, it's going to be even harder to understand.

It would possibly be a bit like trying to explain the rules of cricket to me. I'm sure there is a very good reason for having two batsmen on the field at once, but as I'm not at all interested, I'm afraid that I'm always going to dismiss it as "that's silly; waste of time." (My reference point being that when I played cricket as a child with my brothers, we only had one batsman at a time - possibly because there were only 3 of us.)
I think that you'd have to firstly get me interested in cricket and then I would ask questions because I really wanted to know and understand.

 

[Albion]

It makes for only one God, one being, of whom they are three divine personal agents acting
in the name of God because they are God. . .fits NT terminology.

The use of the word divine doesn't convey any of that, however, because people who are willing to consider Jesus to have been special but not God, often want to describe him as sent from God but not God himself, in other words, an agent of God.

Saying "Three divine agents" would most often be interpreted by the newcomer to Christianity the way they'd react if you'd said the "Three Amigos" or "Three Musketeers" instead.

 

[Clare73]

That’s what we call the filioque and it is rejected by all the Eastern churches (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East, indeed even the majority of Eastern Catholics reject it and the Roman Catholic Church concedes that due to semantic characteristics of the Greek language compared to Latin, the filioque would be an error if it were present on the creed translated into Greek).

What about, in addition to John 15:26, where the Holy Spirit proceeds from (goes out from within--ek-poreuetai) the Father,
there is also Revelation 22:1 where the river of the water of life; i.e., the Holy Spirit (v.17), proceeds from (goes out from within--ek-poreuomai) the throne of God and of the Lamb, symbolic (prophetic) statement of the procession of the Holy Spirt from within the Father and the Son?

The reason why the filioque ticked off the Orthodox is quite legitimate: it has an unintentional but real depersonalizing effect on the Holy Spirit.

How is that when the NT presents the Holy Spirit as "he" (person), and as speaking, deciding, forbidding, testifiying, counseling, teaching, guiding, convicting, comforting, enabling, leading, interceding, searching into secrets, showing the future, appointing and sending out missionaries and generating Christ's body and soul (Matthew 1:18)?
I'm thinking "depersonalization" is not the result of "filioque," but rather of poor catechizing.

We need to stress when catechizing Christians how God the Holy Spirit is His own distinct person in the Trinity, the Lord and Giver of Life, who spoke by the prophets, who caused the Virgin Mary to conceive our Christ without losing her virginity, and who our Christ sent back into the world to be our Paraclete indwelling tne faithful. He is not an it.

I think that is all pretty clearly stated and demonstrated in the NT, don't you?
I see the problem as one of catechizing rather than a problem with the revelation and doctrine itself.

That said, most people who support the filioque agree with filioque opponents on the above.

Indeed, many pious Christians, because our Lord sent the Spirit into the World, and both the filioque and the absence of the filioque are permitted by the CF.com Statement of Faith.

So I am inclined to tolerate both positions while slightly favoring not having it, because it was not in the creed adopted at Constantinople but was added later in Toledo. I am a huge fan of Mozarabic spirituality however and I understand why it was added in Toledo.

 

[Clare73]

The use of the word divine doesn't convey any of that,

Grammatically, it conveys exactly that.

Divine = deity = God.

however, because people who are willing to consider Jesus to have been special but not God, often want to describe him as sent from God but not God himself, in other words, an agent of God.

Saying "Three divine agents" would most often be interpreted by the newcomer to Christianity the way they'd react if you'd said the "Three Amigos" or "Three Musketeers" instead.

And?

The solution to inability to understand is not to dumb it down to misconceived notions, but to educate to the nomenclature and truth of the matter.

 

[Albion]

Grammatically, it conveys exactly that.

Divine = deity = God.
And?

It means related to God. That's the first definition.

The synonym for a god would be deity.

The solution to inability to understand is not to dumb it down to misconceived notions, but to educate to the nomenclature and truth of the matter.

No one has suggested dumbing down anything.

 

[Clare73]

It means related to God. That's the first definition.

The synonym for a god would be deity.

What is "divine" that is not deity, but only related to it?

No one has suggested dumbing down anything.

I see foregoing "divine agents" because to some it is equivalent to "The Three Muskateers," etc. as dumbing down correct nomenclature.

 

[Butch5]

@Horation I couldn't agree more. It's just sad. So many say they seek the truth and then try to disprove the Scriptures

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Take a look at John Wesley, or his source material, the early church fathers and the Orthodox Christians. A genuine Wesleyan Methodism would do what you want, and so will Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy.

One of these days I might read John Wesley. But I tend to agree more with this author who was a fan of Wesley.

faith by works

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That's a good job. . .but doesn't account for procession.

What do you think of this?
As my thought (decision, will), speech (Word) and action (power) all proceed from within me regarding a matter, so in the Trinity those three are persons: the Father willing and originating salvation, the Word accomplishing salvation, and the Holy Spirit applying the benefits of salvation.

Jesus says:
“Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.” (John 14:11).

While Jesus can come forth from the Father, He is still one with Him.

Jesus says:
“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John 3:13).

Jesus is the Son of Man in Heaven as he said this to Nicodemus. How so? Because Jesus said He is in the Father as the Father is in Him.

Colossians 2:9 says: “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

The Trinity or Godhead dwelled fully in the man people have known historically as Christ Jesus. Yes, I know. Some erroneously take godhead as meaning divinity in general, but I see that as a corruption by Modern Transitions.

 

[Horation]

One of these days I might read John Wesley. But I tend to agree more with this author who was a fan of Wesley.

faith by works

@Horation I couldn't agree more. It's just sad. So many say they seek the truth and then try to disprove the Scriptures

Have you ever heard the expression
Some believe in a trinity of Father, Son and the bible?
In John 17.21-23 it all concerns the Holy Spirit. Jesus prayed to the Father that JUST AS Father and Son are in each may believers be in them. Believers can only be in Father and Son through the Holy Spirit, therefore that is how Father and Son are in each other.
Jesus prayed believers would be one AS Father and Son are one. Believers can only be as One through the Spirit, therefore that is how Father and Son are one
I asked someone once why Jesus could perform the miracles he did whilst on earth. They replied. Because he was God. The correct answer is because the Holy Spirit was on Him in bodily form, and that is why Christ spoke the words of God on this earth
The one who God has sent speaks the words of God for God gives the Spirit without limit John3.34
It's tragic when the Holy Spirit is sidelined, for he is the key
I wonder now any, as they seek to learn co pletely rely on the Spirit to lead them 8nto truth

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

That's a good job. . .but doesn't account for procession.

What do you think of this?
As my thought (decision, will), speech (Word) and action (power) all proceed from within me regarding a matter, so in the Trinity those three are persons: the Father willing and originating salvation, the Word accomplishing salvation, and the Holy Spirit applying the benefits of salvation.

Yes they have different roles or functions within the Godhead.

 

[Clare73]

Jesus says:
“Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.” (John 14:11).

While Jesus can come forth from the Father, He is still one with Him.

Jesus says:
“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John 3:13).

Jesus is the Son of Man in Heaven as he said this to Nicodemus. How so? Because Jesus said He is in the Father as the Father is in Him.

Colossians 2:9 says: “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
The Trinity or Godhead dwelled fully in the man people have known historically as Christ Jesus. Yes, I know. Some erroneously take godhead as meaning divinity in general, but I see that as a corruption by Modern Transitions.

And as the Godhead dwelled fully in the Holy Spirit, him proceeding from both the Father and the Son.

 

[The Liturgist]

If God is eternal then there is no origin within the Godhead just different roles each Person has within that relationship. Sending in my estimation has nothing to do with origin. Origin speaks of something that came into existence and personally do not like the term applied to God. God has always existed as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

hope this helps !!!

God is indeed unoriginate, and has indeed always existed as Father, Son and Holy Ghost, so your intuition is pointing you in the right direction.

In the Nicene Creed we confess that Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before all ages, and this is what makes the Father the Father. The Spirit likewise proceeds eternally from the Father. This makes Him the unoriginate source of the Godhead. However, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son and Word of God, is not a creature, the Holy Spirit is not a creature, and there was never a time when they did not exist. All three persons are co-eternal.

Indeed, since John 1 says that through Jesus Christ all things were made, and time is a thing, we assert that God did create time, which makes sense since we know the Universe to be spacetime, and God created the Universe ex nihlo, otherwise, there would be uncreated things in the Universe.

 

[Butch5]

God is indeed unoriginate, and has indeed always existed as Father, Son and Holy Ghost, so your intuition is pointing you in the right direction.

In the Nicene Creed we confess that Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before all ages, and this is what makes the Father the Father. The Spirit likewise proceeds eternally from the Father. This makes Him the unoriginate source of the Godhead. However, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son and Word of God, is not a creature, the Holy Spirit is not a creature, and there was never a time when they did not exist. All three persons are co-eternal.

Indeed, since John 1 says that through Jesus Christ all things were made, and time is a thing, we assert that God did create time, which makes sense since we know the Universe to be spacetime, and God created the Universe ex nihlo, otherwise, there would be uncreated things in the Universe.

If there are three eternal persons, how was the Son begotten?

And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. (Col. 1:15 NAS)

 

[Clare73]

If there are three eternal persons, how was the Son begotten?

And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. (Col. 1:15 NAS)

The human person of the Son was begotten.

Firstborn = primary one (Psalms 89:27), because he created all creatures; had certain rights in relation to all creation--priority, preeminence and sovereignty (Colossians 1:16-18).

 

[Butch5]

The human person of the Son was begotten.

Look at the passage. It says first born of all creation. That means before creation.