Addressing Heretical Application of the Trinity Doctrine

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:"

What does proceed from God mean to you?

Wgw said:

Dude, have you actually read the New Testament? Does the ending of Matthew ring a bell?
And again, I will not as a rule theologically respond to proof texts. If you want to challenge the Trinitarian beliefs of the majority of Christisns, I insist you criticize the exegesis of Tertullian, who coined the word, and Ss. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Ephrem the Syrian, Ambrose of Milan, Epiphanius of Salamis, and John Chrysostom, who in the fourth century defended it. And regarding Sabellianism, St. Irenaeus clearly condemned it as well, presenting Biblical proofs. I need to see a rebuttal of their exegesis, not random proof texts you've pulled up to support your position.

Click to expand...

Wgw said:

Dude, have you actually read the New Testament? Does the ending of Matthew ring a bell?
And again, I will not as a rule theologically respond to proof texts. If you want to challenge the Trinitarian beliefs of the majority of Christisns, I insist you criticize the exegesis of Tertullian, who coined the word, and Ss. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Ephrem the Syrian, Ambrose of Milan, Epiphanius of Salamis, and John Chrysostom, who in the fourth century defended it. And regarding Sabellianism, St. Irenaeus clearly condemned it as well, presenting Biblical proofs. I need to see a rebuttal of their exegesis, not random proof texts you've pulled up to support your position.

Click to expand...

Alexandria met intense opposition from the Arians and was banished from his see five times. In his chief dogmatic work, the Orations against the Arians (hereafter abbreviated Ar.), he summarized the Arian doctrine and defended the Nicene formula. His Letter concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicea (hereafter De decret.) described the proceedings at Nicea and defended the Council's use of non-Biblical terms. For everything that is begotten is a silent word of him that begot it (Or. 30.20). Gregory of Nyssa writes along similar lines, though less explicitly (Or. Cat. 1).
It need not appear too surprising, then, that Western theologians will later seize on the relation of the Word to the mind of the Father to indicate why the Son's origin from the Father is by way of generation and the Spirit's is not.
Though Athanasius had maintained the full divinity and con-substantiality of the Holy Spirit, this doctrine was not universally accepted As late as 380 Gregory of Nazianzus declared (Or. 31.5) that some regarded the Holy Spirit as a force, others as a creature, others as divine but with a lesser degree of divinity than the Father and the Son, while of those who considered Him to be fully divine some held this as a private opinion while others proclaimed it publicly. Those who opposed the full deity of the Holy Spirit were known as Macedonians or Pneumatomachi On the Holy Spirit Basil did not explicitly call the Spirit God nor explicitly affirm that He was consubstantial with the Father, and for this he was strongly censured. Arians had objected that if the Holy Spirit were consubstantial with the Son, then He must be a `Son' and the Father must have two `Sons.'
Gregory of Nyssa substantially repeats this doctrine but does not seem to have called the Holy Spirit 'God' explicitly in his treatise On the Holy Spirit, although he emphasizes the oneness of nature of the three (Or. Cat. 1-4). Gregory admitted he could not explain, any more than his opponents could explain in what precisely the Son's generation consisted. Basil merely said that the Holy Spirit 'comes forth as a breath from the mouth of the Father' (De Sp. S. 46), in a manner unutterable. Gregory of Nyssa saw a difference in the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son, but the intimate nature of this 'procession' baffled him also (C. Maced. 2, 10, 12, 24). Although the Cappadocians ascribed to the generation of the Word a relation to the Father's intellect that they did not ascribe to the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father, they did not seem to see in this any answer to their problem.
Just as the Cappadocians nowhere said the Holy Spirit 'proceeds' (ekporeuetai) from the Son but always that He 'proceeds' (ekporeuetai) from the Father, so nowhere did they say any more than John the Evangelist that the Holy Spirit `proceeds from the Father alone.'

he-man said:

Alexandria met intense opposition from the Arians and was banished from his see five times. In his chief dogmatic work, the Orations against the Arians (hereafter abbreviated Ar.), he summarized the Arian doctrine and defended the Nicene formula. His Letter concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicea (hereafter De decret.) described the proceedings at Nicea and defended the Council's use of non-Biblical terms. For everything that is begotten is a silent word of him that begot it (Or. 30.20). Gregory of Nyssa writes along similar lines, though less explicitly (Or. Cat. 1).
It need not appear too surprising, then, that Western theologians will later seize on the relation of the Word to the mind of the Father to indicate why the Son's origin from the Father is by way of generation and the Spirit's is not.
Though Athanasius had maintained the full divinity and con-substantiality of the Holy Spirit, this doctrine was not universally accepted As late as 380 Gregory of Nazianzus declared (Or. 31.5) that some regarded the Holy Spirit as a force, others as a creature, others as divine but with a lesser degree of divinity than the Father and the Son, while of those who considered Him to be fully divine some held this as a private opinion while others proclaimed it publicly. Those who opposed the full deity of the Holy Spirit were known as Macedonians or Pneumatomachi On the Holy Spirit Basil did not explicitly call the Spirit God nor explicitly affirm that He was consubstantial with the Father, and for this he was strongly censured. Arians had objected that if the Holy Spirit were consubstantial with the Son, then He must be a `Son' and the Father must have two `Sons.'
Gregory of Nyssa substantially repeats this doctrine but does not seem to have called the Holy Spirit 'God' explicitly in his treatise On the Holy Spirit, although he emphasizes the oneness of nature of the three (Or. Cat. 1-4). Gregory admitted he could not explain, any more than his opponents could explain in what precisely the Son's generation consisted. Basil merely said that the Holy Spirit 'comes forth as a breath from the mouth of the Father' (De Sp. S. 46), in a manner unutterable. Gregory of Nyssa saw a difference in the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son, but the intimate nature of this 'procession' baffled him also (C. Maced. 2, 10, 12, 24). Although the Cappadocians ascribed to the generation of the Word a relation to the Father's intellect that they did not ascribe to the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father, they did not seem to see in this any answer to their problem.
Just as the Cappadocians nowhere said the Holy Spirit 'proceeds' (ekporeuetai) from the Son but always that He 'proceeds' (ekporeuetai) from the Father, so nowhere did they say any more than John the Evangelist that the Holy Spirit `proceeds from the Father alone.'

Click to expand...

Dude, have you not heard of the filoque controversy of the Photian Schism?

The doctrine of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Assyrians, is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. This has always been our position. The Father is the eternal source pf the Holy Spirit and of the Spn; there was never a time when either was not. Based on confusion arisong from Christ sending the Holy Spirit into the world, Charlemagne, who had subverted the Papacy, demanded the Romans change the creed to "And we believe in the Holy Spirit [...] who proceeds from the father and the son..." This insertion was condemned by St. Photius as a heresy, leading to a temporary schism that was resolved at the Eighth Ecumenical Council when the Romans agreed to drop it, in the year 879 or thereabouts.

A century later the Romans reneged on it, and then in 1054 the Papal legate excommunicated the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople for not including the filioque clause (and the son, the Double Procession heresy), and for the fact that Eastern Orthodox Priests wore long hair and beards rather than shaving and wearing short hair in the Roman style (!), and dor using leavened rather than unleavened bread in the Eucharist, and lastly, and most importantly, for refusing to recognize the Roman Pontiff as the supreme bishop, the Vicar of Christ with universal authority over all other bishops, including the autocephalous (autonomous) Orthodox Patriarchs.

The Roman doctrine of double procession of the Holy Spirit is anathema to us because it depersonalizes the Spirit, rendering him an imoersonal force, and it wrecks our triadology, which identifies the Father as the eternal and unoriginate Source of the eternal, uncreated Godhead, who begat the Word, Jesus Christ, before all ages, and from whom the Spirit proceeds eternally.

Everything you have posted is true, correct and in accord with Orthodox theology regarding the Trinity, and the terrible persecution my patron St. Athanasius and his supporters suffered at the hands of the wicked Arians and their sinister leader, Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was expert at court intrigue and kept the Eastern Emperors in his camp. Five times St. Athanasius was banished or forced to flee the See of St. Mark the Evangelist, the first Alexandrian Pope, despite his massive popularity with the people. Each time he was replaced by cruel robber barons posing as Patriarchs; gross amoral men who abused the populace. For this reason the Alexandrians developed a lasting resentment of the Emperor, and the abuse of St. Alexandria probably explains why nearly all of them aside from a small Greek minority supported Pope Dioscorus against the Roman Patriarch Leo I (The Bishop of Rome did not follow Alexandrian custom and style himself Papem, or Pope, until the Seventh Century) during the Chalcedonian schism, that led to the separation of my church from the Eastern Orthodox, a schism which has now very nearly healed between the EO Antiochians and the OO Syriac Orthodox, and also between the OO Coptic and EO Greek Popes of Alexandria.

So anyway, what is your point? What are you trying to prove with that quote? Because everything there is true, accurate and reflects the aftermath of Nicea. Its no secret that a major objection the Arians used was to claim the Greek word meaning "of the same essence" was unscriptural, but they conveniently ignored the fact that their preferred alternatives "of like essence" and "odpf different essence" were also not to be found in the Bible. It doesnt matter.

If you would actually read the works of St. Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and the Acts of the Council of Nicea, rather than a historical overview of the controversy, you would find the scriptural basis that underpins their Orthodox theology.

By the way, are you actually suggesting that Athanasius isnt credible because the Arians in collusion with the Emperor repeatedly and illegally forced him into exile? Do you not see how the Trinitarians were the victims of monstrous persecution? Some were martyred by the Arians.

The Trinity can be a difficult topic for discussion. Many have issue with the concept of three in one. Throughout the entire Bible, God has revealed Himself in three distinct persons. These three persons are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit each existing since the dawn of creation. This truth about God can be quite difficult for us mere humans to fully understand, but the Truth can be found in the Old and New Testament. The most notable instance is where John the Baptist baptized Jesus, the Son, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him from Heaven. Then God the Father said “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3: 16-17)

The first two persons of the Trinity, Father and Son, are most understood but who exactly is the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is the divine source of God's renewing power and guidance. It is an active power in all of God's servants to give them strength to fulfill His will. The Holy Spirit is God within us, revealing the truth and setting us apart from evil. While God the Father is our loving Creator, and Jesus is our Savior who brings us to the Father, the Holy Spirit binds us all as one family and the One who guides and teaches us. "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me." (John 15:26)

Let it be understood that the Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. The Father who created us chooses who will be saved; our Savior the Son redeems us; and the Holy Spirit seals us in His holy power. As you read through this difficult topic, I pray "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him." (Ephesians 1:17)

Wgw said:

Dude, have you not heard of the filoque controversy of the Photian Schism? The doctrine of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Assyrians, is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

Click to expand...

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
I see no scriptual evidence in your post, only why you think the men were correct but were actually fallible.
Pro 14:12 (12) There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.
The Apostolic Fathers gave solid evidence of a belief in three pre-existent `beings,' but they furnished no Trinitarian doctrine, no awareness of a Trinitarian problem.
They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons.

What can the Holy Spirit receive by proceeding from the Son that He has not already by His procession from the Father (ibid., 7)? If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son would this not imply a Sabellian confusion of Father and Son (ibid., 9)? If two principles are admitted in the Trinity, must this not involve the destruction of the monarchy and the introduction of polytheism (ibid., 11)?

If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son would this not imply a Sabellian confusion of Father and Son (ibid., 9)? If two principles are admitted in the Trinity, must this not involve the destruction of the monarchy and the introduction of polytheism (ibid., 11)?
If the Spirit's procession from the Father is perfect, what can His procession from the Son add to this (ibid., 31)?
If everything in the Trinity is either common to the three or proper to one person, then must not the production of the Holy Spirit be proper to the Father alone (ibid., 36) ?
But the Filioque controversy will go on and on, provoking an endless literature out of all proportion to its importance. The theological energies of East and West could be much better spent in a unified ecumenical effort to make the doctrine of the Trinity and the fact of the Trinity more intelligible to men and more influential in their lives.
Had Athanasius had an adequate vocabulary of terms and definitions he could have coped better with his opposition. He left many questions for later Fathers to ponder and answer
Athanasius had done much toward the development of trinitarian doctrine by his vigorous defense of the real distinction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and of their identity of substance. But he had no word or definition for person, no formula to express God's triunity, and he had made little or no attempt to face up to the trinitarian problem of how God can be at the same time objectively one and three.
In the matter of sanctification he seems to posit a mysterious dual filiative union with Christ and a very special, almost hypostatic, union of the just with the Holy Spirit.
CHAPTER FIVE
The Post-Nicene Phase

To all,
1. In scripture there are three entities, if you will; The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. John said they bear record in the earth and heaven. If one of those entities are real then all three have to be real. This means the Holy Spirit is not God the father's personal spirit within himself. This is why Christadelphianism cannot be right.
2. Jesus said I and my father are one and that the church has many members and yet are one. Because it is compound unity with more than one person proves that the Jesus only doctrine is not true because he would be in harmony with only himself. The reason the bible states that God is one is because of harmony and the fact that there were so many false Gods he wanted them to know there was only one God over all and this speaks of the whole Godhead.
3. The Godhead are one in harmony in everything they do and they each have particular duties they take care of. They are not one in number and yet they are not three because of one unity and harmony.
For those that believe Jesus was only God's son on earth fail to understand that he was in the old testament, not as the son but as God. 1 Corinthians 10:4 says Jesus Christ was that rock that Israel drank out of. He wasn't Jesus Christ back then but it shows that he was pre-existent before he came to earth as God's son for his messianic mission and world wide mission to save the world.
4. To say that because we don't worship the Holy Spirit that he is not God is not anymore true than Jesus not being God because we are to pray to the father in Jesus name. Also, the Christadelphians who believe Jesus was just human and not deity miss the fact that only the God-man could be mediator between God and man and that Jesus being in subjection to the Father doesn't defeat compound unity and it is not that Christ is less than God the father and that is why he is just human. Each individual in the Godhead has a specific role that they participate in and are fully God.
5. All three positions can be somewhat full proof in their own exegesis. However, the bible clearly teaches compound unity of separate persons in the Godhead as well as in the body of Christ. It teaches they are one in harmony and not three so they can be One God. The bible also teaches the divinity of all three according to John 1 and the last part of 1 John.
We were created in God's image; body, mind, and soul and God is a spirit and there are spirit bodies according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. I welcome comments. Jerry Kelso

GillDouglas said:

The Trinity can be a difficult topic for discussion. Many have issue with the concept of three in one. Throughout the entire Bible, God has revealed Himself in three distinct persons. These three persons are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit each existing since the dawn of creation. This truth about God can be quite difficult for us mere humans to fully understand, but the Truth can be found in the Old and New Testament. The most notable instance is where John the Baptist baptized Jesus, the Son, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him from Heaven. Then God the Father said “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3: 16-17)

The first two persons of the Trinity, Father and Son, are most understood but who exactly is the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is the divine source of God's renewing power and guidance. It is an active power in all of God's servants to give them strength to fulfill His will. The Holy Spirit is God within us, revealing the truth and setting us apart from evil. While God the Father is our loving Creator, and Jesus is our Savior who brings us to the Father, the Holy Spirit binds us all as one family and the One who guides and teaches us. "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me." (John 15:26)

Let it be understood that the Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. The Father who created us chooses who will be saved; our Savior the Son redeems us; and the Holy Spirit seals us in His holy power. As you read through this difficult topic, I pray "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him." (Ephesians 1:17)

Click to expand...

Nice Trinitarian theology. Very well expressed. I am not a Calvinist but you chaps do a splendid job defending the Trinity, perhaps due to the historical battle between the Calvinists and Unitarians, that first happened in Poland (the Polish Minor Brethren or Soccinians became the Unitarians of Transylvania and Hungary), and the second in the US around 1790 where the former Puritans split into Calvinist congregationalists with Yale as their seminary, and Unitarians with Harvard as their seminary.

jerry kelso said:

To all, 1. In scripture there are three entities, if you will; The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. John said they bear record in the earth and heaven. If one of those entities are real then all three have to be real. This means the Holy Spirit is not God the father's personal spirit within himself. We were created in God's image; body, mind, and soul and God is a spirit and there are spirit bodies according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. I welcome comments. Jerry Kelso

Click to expand...

Shortly after Nicea a powerful Anti-Nicene group developed which for years refused to accept the homoousion as the test of orthodoxy. Against these Anti-Nicene a smaller group, headed by Athanasius, battled tenaciously for the Nicene homoousion and put forth a sound Trinitarian doctrine. But this doctrine left unsolved many questions about the divine persons, their definition and distinction and relation to one another and to the godhead.
The Council of Nicea had merely declared, 'And we believe in the Holy Spirit.' Augustine's theology left many questions unanswered: What is the nature of the two processions? How do they differ? Why are there only two processions and only three persons?
What, how many years after the death of Christ did it take to fool people in the belief of a polythestic God intead on the one Paul taught?
Between Augustine in the 5th century and Anselm in the 12th, two men stood out for their Trinitarian contributions, Boethius (d. 524) and Eriugena (d. 877 c.). In the 13th century Dominicans and Franciscans .
There were three great Trinitarian councils in the 13th and 15th centuries. In the 17th century Protestant theologians .
Kant, by his Critiques, put an end to the Enlightenment; he rejected both orthodox and rationalist views of religion, regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as of no practical value, and opened the way to the modern theological mood.
We do not intend to seek in the Old Testament and in the New Testament what is not there, a formal statement of Trinitarian doctrine. More recent scholars find no evidence in the Old Testament that any sacred writer believed in or suspected the existence of a divine paternity and filiation within the Godhead itself.
The word of Yahweh effects what it signifies : 'so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose' (Is 55.11).1 The word of Yahweh is a creative agent, and it is fulfilled in the visible creation that results from it (Genesis ch. 1). Nature as well as history is a word that reveals Yahweh who speaks it, but the word of Yahweh is also the written law.
Nowhere in the Old Testament is there any solid evidence that a sacred writer viewed the word of Yahweh as a personal being distinct from Yahweh, and thus had intimations of plurality within the Godhead. The word of Yahweh is only Yahweh acting, or the means by which He revealed His will to men. It has been much discussed down the centuries. Jewish speculation saw in it the affirmation of the pre-existence of the Law, which was easily identified with the wisdom of God. The Arians found in it a strong argument to show that Christ was but a creature.' The people of the Old Testament, however, did not see wisdom as a person to be addressed. Today scholars agree with them and see in wisdom only God's own activity, or an attribute of God, or just a personification, or an extension of the divine personality.
But to the people of the Old Testament the wisdom of God was never a person to be addressed but only a personification of an attribute or activity of Yahweh. PART ONE The Biblical Witness to God

he-man said:

Shortly after Nicea a powerful Anti-Nicene group developed which for years refused to accept the homoousion as the test of orthodoxy. Against these Anti-Nicene a smaller group, headed by Athanasius, battled tenaciously for the Nicene homoousion and put forth a sound Trinitarian doctrine. But this doctrine left unsolved many questions about the divine persons, their definition and distinction and relation to one another and to the godhead.
The Council of Nicea had merely declared, 'And we believe in the Holy Spirit.' Augustine's theology left many questions unanswered: What is the nature of the two processions? How do they differ? Why are there only two processions and only three persons?
What, how many years after the death of Christ did it take to fool people in the belief of a polythestic God intead on the one Paul taught?
Between Augustine in the 5th century and Anselm in the 12th, two men stood out for their Trinitarian contributions, Boethius (d. 524) and Eriugena (d. 877 c.). In the 13th century Dominicans and Franciscans .
There were three great Trinitarian councils in the 13th and 15th centuries. In the 17th century Protestant theologians .
Kant, by his Critiques, put an end to the Enlightenment; he rejected both orthodox and rationalist views of religion, regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as of no practical value, and opened the way to the modern theological mood.
We do not intend to seek in the Old Testament and in the New Testament what is not there, a formal statement of Trinitarian doctrine. More recent scholars find no evidence in the Old Testament that any sacred writer believed in or suspected the existence of a divine paternity and filiation within the Godhead itself.
The word of Yahweh effects what it signifies : 'so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose' (Is 55.11).1 The word of Yahweh is a creative agent, and it is fulfilled in the visible creation that results from it (Genesis ch. 1). Nature as well as history is a word that reveals Yahweh who speaks it, but the word of Yahweh is also the written law.
Nowhere in the Old Testament is there any solid evidence that a sacred writer viewed the word of Yahweh as a personal being distinct from Yahweh, and thus had intimations of plurality within the Godhead. The word of Yahweh is only Yahweh acting, or the means by which He revealed His will to men. It has been much discussed down the centuries. Jewish speculation saw in it the affirmation of the pre-existence of the Law, which was easily identified with the wisdom of God. The Arians found in it a strong argument to show that Christ was but a creature.' The people of the Old Testament, however, did not see wisdom as a person to be addressed. Today scholars agree with them and see in wisdom only God's own activity, or an attribute of God, or just a personification, or an extension of the divine personality.
But to the people of the Old Testament the wisdom of God was never a person to be addressed but only a personification of an attribute or activity of Yahweh. PART ONE The Biblical Witness to God

Click to expand...

he-man,
1. God is Spirit says the scripture. He is a Spirit being who created us in his image body, mind and soul. God the father showed himself in the old testament though not in his total glory. Yahweh was Christ before he became Christ on earth, the God-man for Yahweh was salvation to those of Israel. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 10:4 that Christ was that rock that Moses and all of Israel drank from. Christ was not the actual rock that the water physically flowed out of but it was Christ who was Yahweh back then that supplied the miracle. This was no present then or prophetic hailing of a personification or an attribute or activity.
2. God did speak the worlds and man into existence and no one would argue that his word is a creative agent of a real God and not a personification, etc.
3. For one to believe that the God head is just a personification, attribute, activity, etc. destroys the validity of a real Creator for his creation.
4. In Genesis 1 and 3 both show more than one person in the Godhead. Let us make man in our image and when Adam and Eve had to be forced out of the garden so they wouldn't eat of the tree of life and live forever as sinful creatures which would have resulted in destroying the redemptive plan for man and as a result would have lost the war to Satan as God of the universe.
5. The secular theologians tend to water down the true biblical interpretation just like the Arians who claimed Jesus was just a human being that God gave the position and power etc. and that he is in subjection as being inferior to God the father. This is taken because of the account of his relationship with his father etc. and the way it is worded and because Paul said that he would be subject to the father so God could be all in all. The whole essence of Paul is to show the essence of their relationship and how it works and not to prove that Jesus was not divine. The arians misconstrue the facts of the virgin birth.
6. Paul, who I believe wrote Hebrews says that Jesus did not take on the nature of angels but of man. This implies that he was not originally creation at all and it shows that he was divine. This was the reason for the virgin birth and why he was born sinless. It took one greater than any of the created order to be a mediator between God and man.
7. The arians bring up objections without either no understanding of the kenosis of Christ or because they want to discount that God becoming the God-man as being an impossibility. This is merely using human reasoning, conjecture and poor hermeneutics.
8. The oneness want to prove that God is one in number without understanding all the contexts in the scriptures. They definitely see Christ as being in the old testament and Jesus said before Abraham was I am. They miss all the scriptures that show more than one entity in the Godhead and their role put into action. Yahweh is Christ and the Spirit proceeds from the father and was sent to replace Jesus when he had to go back to heaven. It does not say that the Holy Spirit is the same as the personal spirit of God the father or God the son. He speaks to the father and the son and believers. Jesus told the pharisees that anyone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. He wasn't implying that it was him or the father or their manifestations.
9. Also, the oneness misunderstand the whole essence of compound unity. This is shown when Jesus said, I and my father are one and he knew that every word is established in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses. Also, it is shown in the body of Christ that there are many members in the one body of Christ. There is more logic to compound unity for the Godhead than oneness or dualism such as christadelphianism.
10. Compound unity is shown in the scriptures. The bible shows the reality of three different entities in the Godhead that work together in their perspectives roles that they carry out and this is why they are not inferior to each other as God in the Godhead. They are one in complete and perfect harmony that cannot be broken. This is why they are three in one and all divine. This is bible and not just because the Nicene creed says it, they just happen to agree with it. Jerry kelso

jerry kelso said:

God is Spirit says the scripture. He is a Spirit being who created us in his image body, mind and soul Paul said in 1 Corinthians 10:4 that Christ was that rock that Moses and all of Israel drank from.

Click to expand...

It does not, of course, follow from this allusion that St. Paul, or even the rabbis, believed their Hagadah in other than a metaphorical sense.
Matthew does not agree with you for he says you hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Mat_24:36 "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.
Mat 12:32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1Co 15:27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that He is excepted who put all things in subjection under Him.
28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

James Is Back said:

Holy Spirit = God
Holy Spirt = Part of the Trinity
We worship God

So with those 3 points above we worship The Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

this is true, if the simple basic trinitarian concept of "submission in the Godhead" were not widely accepted.

so with that added feature, you may technically worship any of the above, however between the persons of the Godhead there is a heirarchy. The Spirit testifies of the son (not of itself, ever in scripture), and the Son honors the Father. Thats where submission ends. The father in some ways honors both the other two, but not in the same depth. But I can see where this may lead us to think that we are to worship the spirit.

Is someways, instead of worshipping the spirit,

we Worship THROUGH the spirit.

in this way the Spirit is the conduit of worship, and also in other ways the conduit of all spiritual based understanding of the Bible and Theology in General.

I hope that makes sense,

anyway, thanks for the conversations.

ttyl

he-man said:

Shortly after Nicea a powerful Anti-Nicene group developed which for years refused to accept the homoousion as the test of orthodoxy. Against these Anti-Nicene a smaller group, headed by Athanasius, battled tenaciously for the Nicene homoousion and put forth a sound Trinitarian doctrine. But this doctrine left unsolved many questions about the divine persons, their definition and distinction and relation to one another and to the godhead.
The Council of Nicea had merely declared, 'And we believe in the Holy Spirit.' Augustine's theology left many questions unanswered: What is the nature of the two processions? How do they differ? Why are there only two processions and only three persons?
What, how many years after the death of Christ did it take to fool people in the belief of a polythestic God intead on the one Paul taught?
Between Augustine in the 5th century and Anselm in the 12th, two men stood out for their Trinitarian contributions, Boethius (d. 524) and Eriugena (d. 877 c.). In the 13th century Dominicans and Franciscans .
There were three great Trinitarian councils in the 13th and 15th centuries. In the 17th century Protestant theologians .
Kant, by his Critiques, put an end to the Enlightenment; he rejected both orthodox and rationalist views of religion, regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as of no practical value, and opened the way to the modern theological mood.
We do not intend to seek in the Old Testament and in the New Testament what is not there, a formal statement of Trinitarian doctrine. More recent scholars find no evidence in the Old Testament that any sacred writer believed in or suspected the existence of a divine paternity and filiation within the Godhead itself.
The word of Yahweh effects what it signifies : 'so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose' (Is 55.11).1 The word of Yahweh is a creative agent, and it is fulfilled in the visible creation that results from it (Genesis ch. 1). Nature as well as history is a word that reveals Yahweh who speaks it, but the word of Yahweh is also the written law.
Nowhere in the Old Testament is there any solid evidence that a sacred writer viewed the word of Yahweh as a personal being distinct from Yahweh, and thus had intimations of plurality within the Godhead. The word of Yahweh is only Yahweh acting, or the means by which He revealed His will to men. It has been much discussed down the centuries. Jewish speculation saw in it the affirmation of the pre-existence of the Law, which was easily identified with the wisdom of God. The Arians found in it a strong argument to show that Christ was but a creature.' The people of the Old Testament, however, did not see wisdom as a person to be addressed. Today scholars agree with them and see in wisdom only God's own activity, or an attribute of God, or just a personification, or an extension of the divine personality.
But to the people of the Old Testament the wisdom of God was never a person to be addressed but only a personification of an attribute or activity of Yahweh. PART ONE The Biblical Witness to God

Click to expand...

your history seems very intricately quoted, and possibly counterfeited as someone elses (take as your own, I presume)?

I apologize, if your stuff is not plaigerized. I simply have spoken numerous times with you on the annihilation threads, and I must say, it's impossible to tell your quotes from your posts, which technically is under copywrite, and not only illegal, it's against forum rules.

but again, I have no idea if you post is c&p'd.

but anyone can google many sentences and see, this is how I caught you in at least 2 maybe 3 other plaigerisms in the past.

Again, if this is something you don't do anymore, please accept my humble apologies.

and dig in.

but anyway, I just wanted to say, that though the stuff posted is intricate, I am not sure if it is accurate or not (regardless of the lack of quotation marks)

I would double check your sources.

anyway, pm me if you want the details.

and also I found this very helpful, it's a chart by rose publishing (very good charts sold in most bible book stores).

http://www.rose-publishing.com/The-Trinity-Download-Make-1-3-Copies-P478.aspx

and from the site above, it is summarized regarding the chart:

"God is not, 1+1+1=3; God is 1x1x1=1. The Trinity pamphlet addresses six of the most common Trinity misunderstandings:

1. Misunderstanding 1: "The word Trinity does not appear in the Bible; it is a belief made up by 4th century Christians."
2. Misunderstanding 2: "Christians believe there are three Gods."
3. Misunderstanding 3: "Jesus is not God."
4. Misunderstanding 4: "Jesus is a lesser God than the Father."
5. Misunderstanding 5: "The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are just different titles for Jesus, or three different ways that God has revealed himself."
6. Misunderstanding 6: "Jesus wasn't really fully God and fully man."

The Trinity pamphlet reveals how early Christians addressed these misunderstandings through some of the earliest statements of faith including:

• The Apostles' Creed written in the second century
• The Nicene Creed AD 325
• Athanasian Creed written c. AD 400
• Chalcedoian Creed written in AD 451

The pamphlet includes the full text of each of these four creeds.
One of the most powerful sections of the pamphlet includes a chart that shows that God and Jesus Christ share10 key traits that are mentioned in the Old Testament as applying to no-one but God. Another chart shows seven Divine attributes shared by Father, Son and Holy Spirit with Scripture references for each."

(if you sign up at the website, you may get a few free downloads, I believe I was able to get like 5, a few years ago), not sure if they still do it.

they are pdf's but you can convert them at online converter dot com to RTF, then convert the rtf to word, both of which are searchable in windows search.

why have an expensive bible software, when you can convert various books to RTF and then to WORD, and search them with windows for free?

it's a good way to expand library, and fully editable, and copyable for quoting as well.

anyway, I digress.

good to see ya HE MAN, don't know if you remember me, but have a good one.

TTYL

(P.S.- I saw you added possibly one source: "PART ONE The Biblical Witness to God" however without quotation marks (ellipses), no one knows what is yours and what is there's, and hence it is stealing intellectual property and illegal)

he-man said:

It does not, of course, follow from this allusion that St. Paul, or even the rabbis, believed their Hagadah in other than a metaphorical sense.
Matthew does not agree with you for he says you hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Mat_24:36 "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.
Mat 12:32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1Co 15:27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that He is excepted who put all things in subjection under Him.
28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

Click to expand...

he-man,
1. To get just metaphorical in 1 Corinthians 10 would have to be because Christ was not Christ in the old testament for he was not born yet to the virgin Mary. I stated that and that is biblically true.
However, it doesn't mean Christ was not pre-existent before the Messianic birth to Mary.
2. Jesus said, Before Abraham was I am and Paul said Christ was the rock they drank of. What would be the purpose for these being metaphysical? The actual rock was not Christ but it was because he was the supplier. A metaphysical meaning would mean no real entity to perform that miracle be a purposeful meaning for Christ to be before Abraham.
If you take these scriptures verbatim you would conclude oneness as in Christ, God's son being the one God with 3 manifestations.
The problem with this is that it destroys the validity of compound unity which has the plural of Elohim to show more than one person in the Godhead and not manifestations.
God the Father is God and there is no contradiction of lying to God and not men.
3. The subjection theory is understood in the inferior context. It should be understood in the position context. Employees are subject accordingly in the correct perspective job and must be for the employer is responsible for overseeing. The employer does not laud his authority in the wrong way and it doesn't cover every aspect of his life. Even a son when he is on his own his father has no more hold of authority on him. This clearly shows that the plan of redemption was created by all the God head not just the father.
4. I understand the scripture of the church to Christ because he is the absolute authority over his church and the wife is to be in subjection in everything because the woman was made from man and was the first to sin. The man has to be subject to Christ in order for his wife to be in subject to him for the intended purpose of harmony and design. This in no way should make the wife inferior for the husband is also to be subject to his wife too.
Christadelphians go to seed to much on the subjection theory and I think sometimes they have an alpha male attitude. Outside of that others just go to seed on the word subjection. Subjection is not used in the inferior context or meaning in 1 Corinthians 15.
5. The father's responsibility and knowledge of the coming is his and not the son. There is no inferior subjection context to this. It does show the true nature of relationship and their order of responsibility.
6. The sin against the son being forgiven doesn't show inferiorism with God the Father. It contrasts with the Holy Spirit who is 3rd person of the Godhead unless you are christadelphianism and believe it is the personal spirit of God the father or use the scriptures metaphorically which is not the case according to the context of the scriptures that show him as a person like the father and the son and the fact that he can be lied to and he can brood over the waters as in Genesis 1 and many other scriptures.
7. I have addressed Ephesians and Corinthians.
8. I will say the last verse in Corinthians 15 is about being God all in all. This is speaking about the physical kingdom of Heaven which Daniel talks about being forever in Daniel 7. This physical earth which is the kingdom of heaven that Jesus preached to the jews about the KoH rule in his Messianic ministry that they rejected and will accept in the future when they obey him; Hebrews 8:7-13 as a nation. The KoH will usher in the KoG when all sin and rebellion will be rid of.
God is all in all in himself but the KoH as in the physical aspect of this earth has to be brought back into harmony. There is no inferior context or meaning in this verse either.
9. Oneness destroys the validity of compound unity expressed in the scriptures and the validity of a relationship of a family structure and lowers it to metaphysical manifestations.
10. Christadelphianism devalues the reality of the virgin birth and the only hope and need for redemption as being a sinless man and not deity. This means that a sinless man could be the mediator between God and man.
11. It also denies that God could pull off the virgin birth etc. because deity cannot die etc. It also creates an inferior context of subjection and destroys the true picture of authority and responsibility and harmony.
It is of utmost importance to understand how the Godhead works and operates and makes decisions etc. It is of utmost importance to understand the kenosis of Christ which was the emptying of his Godly attributes.
Hebrews said, he took on the nature of man and not of angels. This shows that he was God and this is why he is referred to as the God-man. He had to be birthed as a man, live as a man and die as a man. Being birthed as a man he was the Son of God. To live as a man he could show compassion to man because it was through his sufferings that he learned obedience and showed that man with God could overcome. He also suffered so he could identify with man and intercede for him in the Holy of Holies. He had to die like man for deity cannot die. Because he took on the nature of man and not of angels he had to be deity for there are no other species to fit the criteria. Taking on the nature of man is proof he was deity and becoming a man shows he had to die like a man and not deity.
12. The trinity proves compound unity, true relationship and responsibility in the proper order and the proper perspective of the scriptures across the board. Oneness and dualism or Christadelphianism does not. Jerry Kelso

one of my favorite books on the trinity when I was into debating cults (did that for about 5 years)....

was "oneness pentecostals and the trinity."

by james white if I am not mistaken....but I could be wrong on the author, it's a blue book.

very good.

never needed another book after that, it really got to the nitty gritty on what the trinity was and is.

anyway, remember the trinity is not in the bible, as to the word.

but the "three in one" is...in 1 John 5:7-9

as quoted by cyprian ( a church father) in his manuscripts of his writtings, validating the presence of the comma prior to the era of roman domination of the text in the vatican (as some allege the vatican corrupted the text, and/or early scribes added to it).. however with cyprian's quote of it, that puts that to rest.

but there are several verses proving the trinity.

but again the word is not in greek nor hebrew, similair to the word rapture, which is neither too, in the scriptures of greek and hebrew.

but rapture, being a translituration I believe of rapturus, in the codex vaticanus scriptures of the new testament, it is found in the originals as basically the word "rapture."

but in our greek and hebrew, it's not there.

but both trinity and rapture, are latin words and logically would not be in the original texts of the Bible which were not officially and originally coined in anything other than ancient hebrew, and koine greek.

(with some aramaic)


anyway

thanks for the comment,

ttyl

gradyll said:

one of my favorite books on the trinity when I was into debating cults (did that for about 5 years)....

was "oneness pentecostals and the trinity."

by james white if I am not mistaken....but I could be wrong on the author, it's a blue book.

very good.

never needed another book after that, it really got to the nitty gritty on what the trinity was and is.

anyway, remember the trinity is not in the bible, as to the word.

but the "three in one" is...in 1 John 5:7-9

as quoted by cyprian ( a church father) in his manuscripts of his writtings, validating the presence of the comma prior to the era of roman domination of the text in the vatican (as some allege the vatican corrupted the text, and/or early scribes added to it).. however with cyprian's quote of it, that puts that to rest.

but there are several verses proving the trinity.

but again the word is not in greek nor hebrew, similair to the word rapture, which is neither too, in the scriptures of greek and hebrew.

but rapture, being a translituration I believe of rapturus, in the codex vaticanus scriptures of the new testament, it is found in the originals as basically the word "rapture."

but in our greek and hebrew, it's not there.

but both trinity and rapture, are latin words and logically would not be in the original texts of the Bible which were not officially and originally coined in anything other than ancient hebrew, and koine greek.

(with some aramaic)


anyway

thanks for the comment,

ttyl

Click to expand...

Is it this one?:

James Is Back said:

Is it this one?:

Click to expand...

thats a good one too,

although I have some issues with mr white.

He is fairly good, I think he comes from a reformed apologetic standpoint.

it's cool to be reformed, but he seems to want to reform everyone else.

but anyway.

that one is decent,

I like actually this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Oneness-Pentecostals-Trinity-Gregory-Boyd/dp/0801010195

I like how he deals with the trinity not only on a Biblical manner, but deals with it logically.

I respect that.

Not the the Bible is not enough, it is.

but for that matter, I already have a Bible, I don't need to purchase a book that tells me what's in the Bible.

if you know what I mean.

anyway,

(just my thoughts, if that came out wrong, then I probably didn't mean, what you thought, I thought I meant)?

huh??

I used to think Bible.ca on the trinity was the most comprehensive, and it still maybe the case. It deals with how various christian cults misinterpret the trinity, or outright reject it for that matter.



this is an old graphic that I could not find on their site anymore, but I liked it best.

but anyway here is the link:
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/

Thanks for the link to the book gradyll

.. God the Father spoke his Word and created all things by it ...
This same Word at the appointed time became flesh in the person of God the Son Jesus .. Probably spoken before creation
The Holy Spirit overshadowed the virgin Mary and she conceived Jesus by His power .. So the Holy Spirit has to be God ..
But Father God rightly calls Jesus His only Begotten Son , three persons all one same God ...

James Is Back said:

Thanks for the link to the book gradyll

Click to expand...

just so you know, the Book was written to help try to convert oneness pentecostals to orthodox christianity.

it's a stubborn viewpoint for sure, but it makes some basic flaws in the interpretation of scripture.

the most known flaw is that they require one to speak in tongues to be saved (but they word it in a way that makes it sound like it is the Bible making the requirement)....in truth it's there interpretation that is creating this soteriological error.

but anyway, just so you know major portions of the book are refuting this particular unorthodox viewpoint (I know that it is against the forum I believe to call anyone that claims to be christian a cult, but this particular denomination, is definately not orthordox)