Debating the Trinity

[St_Worm2]

It says here that non Triniatarian posts may be posted here:


Source:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/general-theology-statement-of-purpose.7780354/


"Discussions in all "Christians Only" forums must be in alignment with Nicene and Trinitarian beliefs. Christian non-Nicene and non-Trinitarian topics may only be discussed in the Controversial Theology forum. The Controversial Theology forum is open to Christian members only (faith groups list). These unorthodox topics include (but are not limited to):

• Universalism
• Open Theism
• Full Preterism
• Non-Trinitarianism
• Annihilations
• Gnosticism

May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer. -- Psalm 19:14

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this
everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. -- John 13:34,35"


Which is why I posted my topic here and not elsewhere. As for the rest of the replies, I'll answer them all tomorrow. I'm heading to bed now.

Yep, that's what the 2013 General Theology Statement of Purpose says, but your thread is on the Controversial Theology Board, and that board's 2015 Statement of Purpose says that Non-Trinitarian posts are no longer allowed (as you have read). The GT Statement of Purpose needs to be updated. I'll let CF know.

Thanks!

--David

 

[Neostarwcc]

I apologize for taking so long to reply to the replies. Things have been really busy between the wife and I and my Dad's accident.

When you experience the oneness Jesus is talking about in John 17, with other people ... you will then have a living parable of how trinity works. It's a pretty deep concept.

Maybe you're right, I'll have to live my life more and dive deeper into theology to really get a concept of how things work. Perhaps my views will change later in life or perhaps, not. Only time will really tell.

Thanks for the OP.

I see a lot of arguments against the Deity of Jesus Christ in this forum so want to clear up a few things before we start.

First your OP sounds like a Jehovah's Witness argument yet your tag has "non denominational." If so what is your church statement of faith on the nature of Jesus Christ? This helps us not go in circles for pages. Thank you in advance.

Second where do you see the shift from Son to Father in Revelation? How do you distinguish where Lord refers to Father and not Son or is that your preconception the Son cannot be Lord so therefore must be the Father?

Third, if you do see a distinction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit do you see them separate distinct Beings with no common substance? Meaning tritheism? Or do you see a Oneness approach and if so how does this come about?

JW's have some different views that I somewhat agree with. I agree with them on the fact that the Trinity doesn't exist obviously. I do believe that the world is unfixable until the LORD comes down to fix it all so, they've got a good point there. There are several good points to what JW's believe.

But, I don't consider myself a Jehovah's Witness for several reasons. One, they almost completely deny Christ. They deny the immortality of a soul when the bible is extremely clear that Jesus is capable of giving us everlasting life. And, they completely deny hell. Well, I believe in hell. The bible (And Jesus) were extremely clear on the existence of eternal hellfire.

There isn't really a single church denomination that goes completely by the bible so, I label myself Nondenominational. As someone who refuses to affiliate himself with any religious denomination. Since a lot of them have forgotten several key basic tenants to Christianity and have molded Christianity into something completely different. I believe that all Christians should merge into one again. I don't think that we should all be divided into various denominations with varying beliefs.

I realize that many Nondenominational Christians believe in the trinity. However, there are many that don't as well. I'm just more of a Fundamental Christian than anything. If there aren't clear signs through prayer to the Father and from the bible, I don't really believe in it.

I have complete trust in the LORD, and I am faithful to the LORD. So really, if I had to give myself a religious label, my religion is Jeshua, Yahweh, and the bible.

The Apostles also Claimed Jesus to be God and to worship him.

Titus 2:13
while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify Christ the Lord in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I haven't quite delved deep enough into the Apocrypha to come to a conclusion on it. But, if the Apocrypha is in fact, accurate you'd be correct that man at one point in time wrote a religious book from God that said that God was Jesus Christ. I was looking more for a sign that Jesus himself came and said it rather than a person though. Because the entire thing just smells fishy to me at this point in time.

The Old Testament claims the Messiah to be Mighty God:

Isaiah 9:6 (5)

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Interesting, I missed that point. I don't have much to say about it at this point. I'll have to study Isaiah a bit more.

That was the reason Why jews killed Jesus, him claiming to be equal to God.

John 5:18

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Correct, they thought that he said that. But, also in John 10:30-36 when this same issue came up Jesus said "I am the son of God."

He also said in John 10:29 "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand".

So, the Jews who tried stoning him thought also that he was claiming to be God. But, he wasn't he was claiming to be the son of God. Just because Jesus claimed to be the son of God doesn't mean that he is God.

So, the Romans thought that Jesus was claiming to be God also which is why he was put to death. But, the Bible as a whole also taught us in my point of view that Jesus said over and over again that he wasn't. Just because the Romans thought that that's what Jesus was saying doesn't mean that Jesus himself thought. Jesus's execution was technically unjustified in that sense.

And also, if all of the Apostles thought that Jesus was equal to God don't you think that religious belief would have been in some of the first churches? Jesus would have made sure when he established some of the first true Churches that the Church worshiped him as a God. But, he didn't. And he wouldn't have said over and over again "The only person you pray to and worship is the Father." Churches didn't start worshiping Jesus until almost 400 years AFTER he died. I mean, that's a VERY big concern for me personally. And until that is addressed I don't think I can budge from my current stance at the moment.

Yep, that's what the 2013 General Theology Statement of Purpose says, but your thread is on the Controversial Theology Board, and that board's 2015 Statement of Purpose says that Non-Trinitarian posts are no longer allowed (as you have read). The GT Statement of Purpose needs to be updated. I'll let CF know.

Thanks!

--David

Oh, okay I'll also let a mod know if they're not already aware of it. Thanks.

 

[redleghunter]

I apologize for taking so long to reply to the replies. Things have been really busy between the wife and I and my Dad's accident.



Maybe you're right, I'll have to live my life more and dive deeper into theology to really get a concept of how things work. Perhaps my views will change later in life or perhaps, not. Only time will really tell.




JW's have some different views that I somewhat agree with. I agree with them on the fact that the Trinity doesn't exist obviously. I do believe that the world is unfixable until the LORD comes down to fix it all so, they've got a good point there. There are several good points to what JW's believe.

But, I don't consider myself a Jehovah's Witness for several reasons. One, they almost completely deny Christ. They deny the immortality of a soul when the bible is extremely clear that Jesus is capable of giving us everlasting life. And, they completely deny hell. Well, I believe in hell. The bible (And Jesus) were extremely clear on the existence of eternal hellfire.

There isn't really a single church denomination that goes completely by the bible so, I label myself Nondenominational. As someone who refuses to affiliate himself with any religious denomination. Since a lot of them have forgotten several key basic tenants to Christianity and have molded Christianity into something completely different. I believe that all Christians should merge into one again. I don't think that we should all be divided into various denominations with varying beliefs.

I realize that many Nondenominational Christians believe in the trinity. However, there are many that don't as well. I'm just more of a Fundamental Christian than anything. If there aren't clear signs through prayer to the Father and from the bible, I don't really believe in it.

I have complete trust in the LORD, and I am faithful to the LORD. So really, if I had to give myself a religious label, my religion is Jeshua, Yahweh, and the bible.





I haven't quite delved deep enough into the Apocrypha to come to a conclusion on it. But, if the Apocrypha is in fact, accurate you'd be correct that man at one point in time wrote a religious book from God that said that God was Jesus Christ. I was looking more for a sign that Jesus himself came and said it rather than a person though. Because the entire thing just smells fishy to me at this point in time.





Interesting, I missed that point. I don't have much to say about it at this point. I'll have to study Isaiah a bit more.



Correct, they thought that he said that. But, also in John 10:30-36 when this same issue came up Jesus said "I am the son of God."

He also said in John 10:29 "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand".

So, the Jews who tried stoning him thought also that he was claiming to be God. But, he wasn't he was claiming to be the son of God. Just because Jesus claimed to be the son of God doesn't mean that he is God.

So, the Romans thought that Jesus was claiming to be God also which is why he was put to death. But, the Bible as a whole also taught us in my point of view that Jesus said over and over again that he wasn't. Just because the Romans thought that that's what Jesus was saying doesn't mean that Jesus himself thought. Jesus's execution was technically unjustified in that sense.

And also, if all of the Apostles thought that Jesus was equal to God don't you think that religious belief would have been in some of the first churches? Jesus would have made sure when he established some of the first true Churches that the Church worshiped him as a God. But, he didn't. And he wouldn't have said over and over again "The only person you pray to and worship is the Father." Churches didn't start worshiping Jesus until almost 400 years AFTER he died. I mean, that's a VERY big concern for me personally. And until that is addressed I don't think I can budge from my current stance at the moment.



Oh, okay I'll also let a mod know if they're not already aware of it. Thanks.

Praying for your father's full healing and recovery. More later.

 

[Butch5]

Debatable to say Ransom Atonement was the 'original'. People say that of Christus Victor and Moral Influence theories as well. Ransom is associated with Origen though and quite common in the Church Fathers.

Ransom still requires a trinity, for to buy humanity from Satan or Death's bondage to maintain Justice - the essence of the theory - only works because God or Life itself, cannot die or be held in Hades. The Unity of the Father and Son allows the Son as a perfect Man to transcend the limitation of men and Man can then also defeat death via our unity of God via Christ.
If Jesus had been a separate entity handed over in Ransom for our debts incurred, not only would this impinge Justice - as God would be condemning the innocent for others' crimes - it would also require an explanation of how Jesus could have overcome death. For if the Father raised him, then the Father cheated and acted unjustly in the arrangement, breaking contract as it were. Likewise if Jesus raised himself somehow, he is not a willing ransom and therefore it is also unjust.
Only if Jesus is innately incapable of dying - if He is Life itself, God Himself - can justice be maintained in Ransom theory. A created being cannot do this without leaving an Unjust Father.

I don't know how you've drawn these conclusions as I don't see them as necessary. Likewise, this conclusion accepts as it's basis a Penal understanding of the Atonement.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I don't know how you've drawn these conclusions as I don't see them as necessary. Likewise, this conclusion accepts as it's basis a Penal understanding of the Atonement.

You are incorrect. Poenal atonement denotes punishment being required as shown by the latin word poena that it references. This is not evident in my explanations at all. I am sorry if I have not explained this in a clear manner.

 

[Butch5]

You are incorrect. Poenal atonement denotes punishment being required as shown by the latin word poena that it references. This is not evident in my explanations at all. I am sorry if I have not explained this in a clear manner.

The Penal model is based on justice. It basically says that man must be punished for his sins, that is justice. It says that Christ died to pay a debt.

The Ransom theory doesn't require a Trinity as understood by most today, that being a being called God who consists of three persons. That isn't even what the early Christians believed.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The Penal model is based on justice. It basically says that man must be punished for his sins, that is justice. It says that Christ died to pay a debt.

You are equating Satisfaction, poenal substitution and Governmental Atonement it seems. They all seek to maintain Justice.

The Ransom theory doesn't require a Trinity as understood by most today, that being a being called God who consists of three persons. That isn't even what the early Christians believed.

That is debatable. You are asserting a point that needs to be proven in and of itself as if a self-evident axiom.

 

[Butch5]

You are equating Satisfaction, poenal substitution and Governmental Atonement it seems. They all seek to maintain Justice.

The problem is that Penal is wrong. It's not what the Bible teaches.

That is debatable. You are asserting a point that needs to be proven in and of itself as if a self-evident axiom.

I think it's already been proven since the Ransom theory was held before the Athanasian understanding of the Trinity came about.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The problem is that Penal is wrong. It's not what the Bible teaches.

I disagree. I think the Bible is compatible with all the different theories of Atonement.

I think it's already been proven since the Ransom theory was held before the Athanasian understanding of the Trinity came about.

I disagree, as I don't think it works without the trinity as I outlined above.
Regardless, Moral Influence and Christus Victor are arguably just as old if not older views of the Atonement and they also work via trinitarianism.
The early theologians had not taken all their views to their logical extremes, which is why so much quibbling on the nature, essence, will etc. of God was done. It is no proof against a concept that other concepts predate it that does not contradict it as such.

 

[Butch5]

I disagree. I think the Bible is compatible with all the different theories of Atonement.

The Penal model isn't. Where do you find anything in Scripture of God requiring payment?

I disagree, as I don't think it works without the trinity as I outlined above.
Regardless, Moral Influence and Christus Victor are arguably just as old if not older views of the Atonement and they also work via trinitarianism.
The early theologians had not taken all their views to their logical extremes, which is why so much quibbling on the nature, essence, will etc. of God was done. It is no proof against a concept that other concepts predate it that does not contradict it as such.

That the Ransom theory predates the the Athanasian understanding of the Trinity does prove that the Athanasian understanding isn't required. The early Christians did not hold that view. They held the to the Nicene understanding.

 

[newlightseven]

I will write a couple instances off the top of my head.

Go and baptize in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit

There are three which bare record in heaven, the Father, the Word(Jesus), and the holy ghost

 

[Butch5]

I will write a couple instances off the top of my head.

Go and baptize in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit

There are three which bare record in heaven, the Father, the Word(Jesus), and the holy ghost

This doesn't prove the Athanasian view. Also the Johannine comma isn't even original

 

[newlightseven]

This doesn't prove the Athanasian view. Also the Johannine comma isn't even original

Those are God's words.. they stand on their own and don't need to be proven

 

[Butch5]

This doesn't prove the Athanasian view. Also the Johannine comma isn't even original

It's how one interprets them that is at issue. However, the Johannine comma isn't God's word. It was added.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

People still proving the trinity from the Gospel of John? Use unconventional sources like Genesis.

 

[newlightseven]

Genesis 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. and God SAID, Let there be light.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Genesis 3
And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day

 

[Neostarwcc]

I mean, It's clear that the Father is in Jesus. But, I don't think Jesus is God at all. If it is the truth though, I will be lead to it one day.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The Penal model isn't. Where do you find anything in Scripture of God requiring payment?

God doesn't need payment. That is not the point thereof. It is about maintaining Justice, for it would be unjust if evil actions went unpunished.

That the Ransom theory predates the the Athanasian understanding of the Trinity does prove that the Athanasian understanding isn't required. The early Christians did not hold that view. They held the to the Nicene understanding.

What are you talking about? The council of Nicaea established the Trinitarian position which you call Athanasian.

 

[newlightseven]

I mean, It's clear that the Father is in Jesus. But, I don't think Jesus is God at all. If it is the truth though, I will be lead to it one day.

It is True God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are one. Like you said hopefully one day you will see it.