Is trinitarianism a minority view among common believers?

If we speak of God as a 'who' and not as a 'what' then we speak of the Father because it is from Him that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds. He is the source by which the others take their existence.

If there is one word which can describe God it is love, for God is love (1 John 4:8,16). But love cannot exist in a vacuum. For someone to love, there by necessity must be someone or something for them to love. Since God does not change and existed from before creation, for God to be love when there was only God, then God has to be more than one person and the scriptures have indeed revealed God to be three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

smashed4christ said:

Christ said deny me before men and I will deny you before my Father, because I am all in all the Father who came from behind the vail of eternity to be first seen by the Holy Angels then by man in the incarnation process.

You can say I have not denied you 1/3 because that is how much you have made Christ 1/3 of your focus amongst the trilateral persons who coexist simultaneously in the company called god.

When I worship Christ and proclaim his one name as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost I have testified of his name in full 3/3.

Click to expand...

Since God, is Three Persons am not sure who can be said to be denying what here.

To exist belongs to a thing, to coexist belongs to several things that can exist together. So we say a man exists, and so he does. But until we have a name, that is all we know. If we then say another man exists, then we know two men exists. So there are two "beings" which both exists as men.
Knowing nothing more, it would be abnormal to insist on saying those two men "coexist" because it suggests a relationship that may or may not be there (we don't know) and as far as we know is not necessary for their existence (they are not conjoined twins for example - who could be thought of as "coexisting".

Until we have at least one name, that is all we know about the two men and we can speak of two existing. As soon as we have a name Paul, we can also say now that Paul exists, but the label "Paul" is merely a way of distinguish one of the two men from the other. So now we have two men who exists, one we know as Paul and the other we have no name for. As soon as we have a second name, Mark, we can now say both Paul and Mark exist.
But what have we really said?

If someone says to someone else just that Paul and Mark exist, this 4th party then must either assume the otehr person is talking about two humans that exist, one named Paul the other Mark OR it is possible this other person has two dogs named Paul and Mark. The point is when we speak of WHO, and nothing else, it is not converying WHAT we are talking about.

A WHO "exists" only if the WHAT exists. In this sense that something we identify as "WHO" merely serves to distinguish one WHO from another WHO rather than actually being a distinction of "existence".

So long story short is not proper to think of the Trinity Doctrine as saying Three Persons coexist as "One God" as such a usage imples each Person has their own "existence" (so 3 gods) when clearly the orthodox view is there is only One Existence - God, Three Persons.

My Orthodox brother beat me to it and well said.

smashed4christ said:

It is sad to see that the strong delusion spoken of in scripture to believe the lie that the Christ is not the Father and is not the Holy Ghost has been fulfilled in our generation who are peddling the trinity doctrine.

Who do you worship as a TRINITARIAN?

1) deity one
2) deity two
3) deity three

If you are told to worship the Father in Spirit then what happens to the 2) and 3) if you make them as separate personal colleagues running a company name called god as coequal bosses.

This is nonsense friend you know not who you worship as Christ once said to the samaritan women.

I invite you friend to come and worship Christ as the Father and the Holy Ghost and pay no regard to the masses for their coalition will not stand in the day of great slaughter when the Christ comes out from his place and unleashes wows after wows upon those who have forsaken his covenant.

Click to expand...

Since the orthodox worship One God, Three Persons there is no way possible to see that view as worshipping one out of three diety at a time. Three diety would be 3 existence, IOW three gods.

Need to attribute such thoughts about the Trinity Doctrine to actuall UT Christians who do beleive in thoes 3 gods rather than carry on with the mistaken notion that one speaking of anything orthoox.

DrBubbaLove said:

My Orthodox brother beat me to it and well said.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you would have expressed it far more eloquently

If God generates the "FORM" of a man from dirt and does so to speak to us directly, is that FORM God? Or does it represent God?

Albion,
I agree. A belief in the Trinity Doctrine is common and not a minority view at all - that many could not properly present it I do not doubt, but as we already said being able to is not a pre-requisite for holding it to be true.

The Boxer said:

Jesus did not say "I as the Holy Ghost stand at the door and knock" He said, "I stand at the door and knock."

Click to expand...

Jn 14:16-25

Click to expand...

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Click to expand...

The context is the sending of the Holy Spirit to abide in the believer for ever.

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Click to expand...

Again context is the Holy Spirit indwelling where the believer becomes the temple of God.

18 I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you.

Click to expand...

Jesus is alluding here that he is the COMFORTER and he reveals that it is him who will come to dwell in the believer as the Holy Ghost.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

Click to expand...

Here Jesus is revealing to his disciples that in a little while when he ascends into Heaven the world at large will no longer see me.

However he says he will not leave his disciples comfortless because he will come to them on Pentecost to be seen by his disciples because he will live in them as the Holy Ghost.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Click to expand...

That day being Pentecost in context to the Holy Ghost being given to live in the believer, so in that respect the glorified Christ is one with the Father who is the Holy Ghost, full filling the you in me and I in you. This statement is in context to the believer SUPPING with the Lord's Holy Ghost.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Click to expand...

Here confirms the saying of the glorified Christ, that I stand at the door and knock and if anyone opens the door of their heart, I will reveal/manifest myself to him by SUPPING with him as the Holy Ghost. This is in context to the Holy Ghost indwelling of the believer.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

Click to expand...

Very good question?

How can you manifest yourself onto us and yet at the same time the world will never see you?

Christ manifests himself as the Holy Ghost who indwells the believer.

But let us listen to what Christ Jesus says.

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Click to expand...

I see thankyou Jesus, so you will come onto the believer and abode/dwell in your Holy Temple that the believer represents. So given the context of the sending of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, it is the glorified Christ who indwells us as the Father who is Holy Spirit (John 4:24).

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

So who are they that do not keep your saying Lord Christ Jesus.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
(KJV)

Click to expand...

Oh see so you are saying these things as the Word because you are present with the disciples before your ascension. So when you come in the Spirit as the COMFORTER you are the Holy Father who indwells us.

You are the one making fallacious arguments. I haven't heard such nonsense since, oh, at least a week ago.

LOL,
scripture, Mark 16:17 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues".
a NEW TONGUE IS SPOKEN, AND ONE YET CAN'T HEAR, NOR UNDERSTAND. Isaiah 42:18 "Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see.19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD'S servant?. 20 Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not".

the Holy Spirit is the Lord Jesus Christ, and now Glorified, with all power, as the NEW MAN, the first from the DEAD. 2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new". a NEW MAN with a NEW TONGUE

smashed4christ, stay strong. and keep the faith.

And the belief in the Trinity Doctrine is still NOT the minority view among common believers.

And that is true whether those common believers can correctly represent their belief or not.

DrBubbaLove said:

And the belief in the Trinity Doctrine is still NOT the minority view among common believers.

And that is true whether those common believers can correctly represent their belief or not.

Click to expand...

It IS Unorthodox thought. Actually, scriptures can point in favor either way. As I have said,

1. It's perception of the mind
2. It's something that's probably beyond our true understanding
3. It probably doesn't (really) matter, if one believes and has faith

Phantasman said:

It IS Unorthodox thought.

Click to expand...

Orthodox or Unorthodox, Trinitarianism remains the belief of the average, i.e. "common" Christian--which was the question of this thread.

If we ask "What IS Orthodox?," it's the established, official belief and practice, whether correct or not, because whether it's correct is only a matter of opinion.

Trinitarianism is, therefore, orthodox.

Albion said:

Orthodox or Unorthodox, Trinitarianism remains the belief of the average, i.e. "common" Christian--which was the question of this thread.

If we ask "What IS Orthodox?," it's the established, official belief and practice, whether correct or not, because whether it's correct is only a matter of opinion.

Trinitarianism is, therefore, orthodox.

Click to expand...

We could say that the idea Trinitarianism evolved, and wasn't taught. Would that be true? Remember, the church accepted the idea of Trinity, something it had not accepted before. And Orthodox is nothing more than "common" belief. Nothing makes it a "correct" belief. That is in the mind God. Emphasis on "belief".

Phantasman said:

We could say that the idea Trinitarianism evolved, and wasn't taught. Would that be true?

Click to expand...

I suppose you could make something of a case for that perspective, but I'm not comfortable with it. "Evolved" seems too strong a word to use, if you ask me. When Nicaea was held, there was the recent rise of Arianism and the confusion among Christian laity over Christ's nature-- so that was the issue handled. The place of the Holy Spirit was a complicating addition of a less pressing nature, so it was not handled until a follow-up council in the same century. Is this the evolution of a belief? I probably would draw back from agreeing to that.

Remember, the church accepted the idea of Trinity, something it had not accepted before.

Click to expand...

It hadn't defined or officially explained it before. Put on the spot by reports of a diversity of opinions among ordinary Christians, the church needed to take a stand.

And Orthodox is nothing more than "common" belief.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. That would just describe the "typical" or "conventional" belief. To call it "orthodox" means that it is the standard belief, and it takes something to make it the standard other than just counting noses.

Well put Albion!

"adherence to accepted norms,more specifically to creeds, especially in religion"-WIKI on Orthodox


My question will always be, if Constantine invited 1800 church leaders, all expenses paid, to create a common church, why did as little as 250 or as many as 318 only, show up? If you are going to speak "typical", "conventional" "common" or even "counting noses", let's start there.

Phantasman said:

"adherence to accepted norms,more specifically to creeds, especially in religion"-WIKI on Orthodox

Click to expand...

OK. That's more or less how I explained it, if you ask me.

My question will always be, if Constantine invited 1800 church leaders, all expenses paid, to create a common church, why did as little as 250 or as many as 318 only, show up?

Click to expand...

Sounds like a decent showing when you consider that these leaders lived scattered from the Tigris and Euphrates to the English channel in a day when travel was extremely hazardous and time-consuming, especially to men of advanced age. Even centuries later, it took literally YEARS for anyone to make the journey you are talking about, not to mention all the other problems involved.

Albion said:

OK. That's more or less how I explained it, if you ask me.



Sounds like a decent showing when you consider that these leaders lived scattered from the Tigris and Euphrates to the English channel in a day when travel was extremely hazardous and time-consuming, especially to men of advanced age. Even centuries later, it took literally YEARS for anyone to make the journey you are talking about, not to mention all the other problems involved.

Click to expand...

It didn't take years to get the invitations. It's clear a majority rejected the idea, to me. At the meeting, the first two who made an objection were exiled by Constantine. He paraded himself around in a glorious robe as some "God", as suggested as some. Once a minority makes a Creed, and the World Emperor enforces it (with his approval), I guess that makes it Spiritually correct.

So God must have not been pleased. Soon later, the Empire falls, the Western church falls. Only the Byzantine Church hangs on, but not until they had succeeded in destroying all opposition to their creed. Then we enter the Dark Ages. The Church controls governments. They use barbarian mercenaries to fight for them. Pope Urban promises them forgiveness of sins if they die taking Jerusalem from the Muslims. The Crusades. Really? Where does "My kingdom is not of this Earth" do they not understand?

Phantasman said:

It didn't take years to get the invitations.

Click to expand...

I assumed that the question asked about them getting (or not) to Nicaea.

So God must have not been pleased. Soon later, the Empire falls, the Western church falls. Only the Byzantine Church hangs on, but not until they had succeeded in destroying all opposition to their creed. Then we enter the Dark Ages. The Church controls governments. They use barbarian mercenaries to fight for them. Pope Urban promises them forgiveness of sins if they die taking Jerusalem from the Muslims. The Crusades. Really? Where does "My kingdom is not of this Earth" do they not understand?

Click to expand...

Are we still talking about what's orthodox and what's not?