Jesus and the Trinity

[Monergism]

I don't believe in that god is exist in three successive mode. i believe that they exist simulteounsly, the father and son.

my explanation may not be theologically complete, but i do'n think it suggest thatthe father ans son existed in succesive modes.

I know, hybrid. I read too quickly and had mistaken your position on the Trinity. But I do apologize for that.

 

[hybrid]

I know, hybrid. I read too quickly and had mistaken your position on the Trinity. But I do apologize for that.

thanks, that is comforting.

none the less, if my statement may be miscontrued, i think i need to clarify it.

i said the things i said because this is how i see it.

i am saying that the subordination of the son goes all the way to eternity(from eternity beginning to eternity end), not during only the incanation. i think that this the traditional orthodox view.

the son is eternally begotten by the father. it means that the nature of the father was in the son. therefore if the father is eternal the son also is eternal. so the begotten does not refer to beginning but to nature, it means that the son is also eternal. it means that there was never a time that the father existed without the son.

but the source of the son's eternity is still from the father.

If God, by Nature, is Immutable then there could never have been a point when the Father existed without the Son, otherwise the Divine Nature is not Immutable (not to mention that God could not possibly be Love unless he is Eternally Trinitarian by Nature (1Jn.4:8) independent of the Creation (i.e. God has not become Trinitarian for the purpose of redeeming Creation but will then 'revert' to being Unitarian once the Creation has been redeemed, no, God is Trinitarian regardless of whether the Creation exists or not)).

Simonline.

i agree perfectly. my only point simon is that many trins are guily of explaining trinty in a shortcut way by saying

Father is god, son is god, spirit is god. and they are one.

it is it not enough to say this without explaning that the source of unity and diety of the son and spirit is from the father.

i think this is the key to understand trinity by trins, non-trins and anti-trins alike.

 

[Simonline]

[/font]

Unitarian is a loaded word I say God is one, there is only one God.
but yes it does. we humans only have finite logic to figure things out with that is all we have been given by god to understand his word with. the only other option is finite illogic, which trinitarians use and call infinite logic of god. god makes finite logical sense elsewhere in the bible on subjects not related to the identity of god, no trinitarian trys and use gods so called inifiinte logic, (which translates to mans finite illogic) to interpet scritpure not realted to the trinity. if you are going to be illogical about scirtpure related to trinity then you should be illogical in iterpreting all ascritpure as well.

You really are on another planet aren't you?!

Unitarian is not a loaded word at all. It simply means a single being with a single personality (what you keep insisting God is like) what's so loaded about that?!

The whole point of Divine Revelation is that we don't start from the point of human reason or logic. The truth is that unless God revealed himself to Mankind then we would know absolutely nothing at all about him. Anything that we can arrive at purely on the basis of human reasoning and logic will not by definition be Divine. The Creator, by definition, is infinitely greater and more complex than any of his creatures (that's why he got the job and we didn't) God is not the 'Wizard of Oz' you know!

Of course the Scriptures makes perfect sense when dealing with subjects other than the Nature of God since nothing created is as infinite or complex as the Nature of God (nor can it be). Please stop playing dumb and actually think for a change. Man's starting point for our knowledge of God has always got to be God's revelation of himself as contained within the Scriptures. We then use our reason and logic to build upon that but it is the revelation which is the foundation and which determines the course of our reasoning and logic and not the other way around. You cannot ignore dificult passages of Scripture simply because they conflict with your finite (and sinful) human reasoning or logic. To do that is to sit in judgment both upon God and his revelation in the Scriptures. You cannot dictate what God is like according to your own limited understanding. You must allow God to define himself.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Is the person of god a being?

Let me expound your question correctly for the benefit of the lurkers.

Is the person of God a being? I said yes.

Say…Jehovah is God.

The person of god is Jehovah and Jehovah is a being.

So the real relevant question is why Jehovah was called God.

The answer is of course clear, simple and obvious.

We call a person god because He possessed attributes like being eternal, almighty etc.

So in scriptures we found the son to posses these attributes we normally attributed to god. That is because by virtue of his son ship he is like the father in all aspect (same nature, same essence, same substance) except for being a father. But the bible teaches that the Father is the true God. So the Nicene Creed , the son, whom was found to possess godly attributes, was called true god from true god. True light from true light because the word god is reserve for the father for the simple reason that Christianity is monotheism.

I say that it is also correct to say that Jesus is God without doing violence to monotheism as long as it recognized that the sourness of his deity is from the father. So that the source of unity and equality of the Father, the son and the spirit are derived from the father

Your line of questioning is not new. The tactic is to show that trinity worships 3 gods, in the case of our discussion, to portray that the father and the son are two different gods and make it appear that trinity is pagan.

This was the aged long attempt to separate the Father from the son.

Frankly, I would rather be accused of being polytheist than to separate the father from the son to satisfy my logic. for how can you separate the speker from the word or the radiance from the light?

For to separate the two will contradict the repeated and emphatic declaration of Jesus that the Father and the Son are one.

Jesus said, “The Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

If x is in y and y is in x, in what sense they are separate?

So I think that what the trinity doctrine teaches is nothing more than what was only found written in the bible. The doctrine only collates all the data from scriptures and arrange it in to one orderly fashion we call confession of faith.

With respect, this is not correct. What you are espousing is the existence of two entirely separate and distinct Eternal, Infinite Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient Immutable Beings or 'Gods'. This is a contradiction. There can be only One Being who is Eternal, Infinite Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Immutable. You cannot have more than One God (Isa.43:10-13). It appears that, based on your subjective experience of being unitarian in nature and spending all your life so far interacting with other finite beings who, like you, are also finite unitarians, you are assuming that 'Being' and 'Person' are synonymous but the Truth is that they are not. Being and Person are not synonymous and it is possible for one Being to consist of more than one Person (as in the case of the Trinity).

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same essence and attributes precisely because they are One Being. The Infinite God, by definition, cannot be duplicated.

The Son is absolutely not a created being (Col.1:15-17). The Divine Nature is Immutable [that which, by nature, is absolutely impervious to and incapable of change in any way] therefore no part of God can, by Nature, become anything that he is not already (including a 'Father' or a 'Son'). All three Persons are YHWH - God.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

I don't believe in that god is exist in three successive mode. i believe that they exist simulteounsly, the father and son.

my explanation may not be theologically complete, but i do'n think it suggest thatthe father ans son existed in succesive modes.

Unfortunately hybrid, yes it does (and I don't think you've realized that either). If you believe that God [according to you, the 'Father' alone] begat ['gave birth to'] the Son, then you must believe that there was a point when the Father [i.e. God] existed when the Son didn't?

The problem with this understanding is that it requires time (in order to facilitate change (i.e. the coming into existence of the Son)) but the problem is that Eternity is existence without time (which is why finite creatures (such as humans) can never experience Eternity. It's an exclusive club and membership requires one to be infinite). Part of being Immutable is that you're also absolutely impervious to and incapable of experiencing time and death as well, since they both involve change.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

thanks simon, but i think that the subordination of the son goes way back to eternity.

That is heresy. Only the Messiah is 'subordinate' to the Father (Jn.14:28) precisely because as well as being the Infinite Divine Creator he is also a finite human creature and as such necessitates being subordinate to his Divine Father. As the Infinite Divine Creator the Messiah is definitely not subordinate to the Father or the Spirit (Jn.1:1; 10:30)

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

i am saying that the subordination of the son goes all the way to eternity, not during only the pre-incanation. i think that this the traditional orthodox view.

the son is eternally begotten by the father. it means that the nature of the father was in the son. therefore if the father is eternal the son also is eternal. so the begotten does not refer to beginning but to nature, it means that the son is also eternal. it means that there was never a time that the father existed without the son.

but the source of the son eternity id from the father.

No. The traditional Orthodox view is what I have stated in my last post (#66).

The fact that the Son is Eternally begotten of the Father does not mean that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. They are ONE BEING and therefore cannot be subordinate to each other. The Messiah is subbordinate to the Father because he is a hybrid of Infinite Divine Creator and finite human creature. It is the finite human creature that is subordinate to the Divine Father, not the Infinite Divine Creator which is absolutely equal with both the Father and the Spirit.

Simonline.

 

[2ducklow]

You really are on another planet aren't you?!

A negative opinon and slur of yours about me that has no place in a debate and proves nothing.

Unitarian is not a loaded word at all. It simply means a single being with a single personality (what you keep insisting God is like) what's so loaded about that?!

To say I believe God to be unitarian is to in some way associate me with the unitarian church and thier beliefs. I am not unitarian, unitarian is not a biblical word. I prefer to say that I believe God is one and that there is only one God. I have in addition some negative connotations of the word unitarian because of certain beliefs of the unitarian church. I never say that God is unitarian for these reasons.

The whole point of Divine Revelation is that we don't start from the point of human reason or logic.

I have had god reveal things to me from the scriptures before and everytime God revealed something to me it made sense. I have never had god reveal something to me from the scriptures that didn't make logical sense.

The truth is that unless God revealed himself to Mankind then we would know absolutely nothing at all about him.

If God revealed something that doesn't make any sense (which I believe he would never do) then we still know nothing about him.

Anything that we can arrive at purely on the basis of human reasoning and logic will not by definition be Divine.

I don't try and understand god purely on the basis of human reasoning and logic but I don't discard it either. I use scripture, seek the guidance of the holy spirit, listen to my god given teachers, study scritpures etc. as well.

The Creator, by definition, is infinitely greater and more complex than any of his creatures (that's why he got the job and we didn't)

got what job? We decide what we will believe not God. He gave us free will to choose what we want to believe and we determine for ourselves how we will decide what the truth is.

God is not the 'Wizard of Oz' you know!

More proof by sluring me. really proves nothing. I do not believe god is the Wizard of Oz whatever that personal insult means.

Of course the Scriptures makes perfect sense when dealing with subjects other than the Nature of God since nothing created is as infinite or complex as the Nature of God (nor can it be).

Everything in the bible that describes god's qualities is understandable. God is love that is understandable. God is longsuffering towards us, god is just and righteous an holy and all powerfull and full of all wisdom. these things that describe god are all understandable and increase our knowledg of who god is.

Please stop playing dumb and actually think for a change.

calling me dumb proves nothing.

Man's starting point for our knowledge of God has always got to be God's revelation of himself as contained within the Scriptures. We then use our reason and logic to build upon that

Correct. except that i would say scripture is the starting point then study and then revelation.

but it is the revelation which is the foundation and which determines the course of our reasoning and logic and not the other way around.

Wrong, it is scripture not revelation which determines the course our reasoning and logic take. and we should not use illogic to interpret scripture. First scritpure, then reasoning and logic, then revelation from God as to what the truth is. there are many logical ways to interpet scripture, not all of them are right. Revelation from god comes in at that times if we are following the leading of the holy spirit, to help us.

You cannot ignore dificult passages of Scripture simply because they conflict with your finite (and sinful) human reasoning or logic.

Human reasoning is not sinfull. I do not ignore difficult passages of scritpure, and no scritpure conflicts with my finite reasoning or logic because I believe God never contradicts himself and I believe God always explains things in ways that make sense.

To do that is to sit in judgment both upon God and his revelation in the Scriptures. You cannot dictate what God is like according to your own limited understanding. You must allow God to define himself.

Simonline.

I do not sit in judgement of God Because I interpret scripture in ways that make sense. god gives us all the right to decide what the truth is he doesn't decide for us that isn't sitting in judgement of God. I do not dictate what god is like according to my understanding. I decide what god is like from what the scriptures say. And scriture makes sense. God does define himself in scritpure, he is love, holy righteous, kind long suffereing towards us. God no where says he is a trinity. that is a nonsensical interpretation of his word that you call revelation and which i call nonsense. you can take any passage in the bible probably and either intpret it in ways that make sense or in ways that don't make sense. there are no scritpures in the bible that can only be intpreted in ways that make no sense, which i feel is what you are alluding to.

 

[2ducklow]

Persona Tertullian introduced this Latin term to translate the Greek word hypostasis, which had begun to gain acceptance in the Greek-speaking church. Scholars have debated at length over what Tertullian meant by this Latin term, which invariably translated into English as "person" (on which see pp. 267-73). The following explanation commands a wide degree of assent, and casts some light on the complexities of the Trinity.

The term persona literally means "a mask," such as that worn by an actor in a Roman drama. At this time, actors wore masks to allow the audience to understand which of the different characters in the drama they were playing. The term persona thus came to have a developed meaning, along the lines of "the role that someone is playing." It is quite possible that Tertullian wanted his readers to understand the idea of "one substance, three persons" to mean that the one God played three distinct yet related roles in the great drama of human redemption. 1

The Persons are "distinct, yet not divided, different, yet not separate." You have a totally different definition of "person." I concede that the term coined by Tertullian isn't the best and can cause confusion (which I see you are utterly confused).

Then a person of God is not a person but is something else which means person of god is a misnomer. Which means you are calling a person of God something that it isn't. which means that you are defining trinity with terms that dont mean what they mean, which means you don't have a definition of trinity. you need to call it what it is what ever it really is not call it something it isnt. Calling a person of god a person of god makes any definition of trinity deceptive. Saying the term person isnt the best means it isnt accurate. if you have no accurate term it is better to call it an 'unknown' . the trinity is 3 unknowns that make up one god would be a more accurate definition of trinity than saying persons of god cause you guys don't know what a person of god is . it isn't a being, imagine that god the father a person of god the only true god isnt a being. so if a person isnt a being then what is it? it certainly isnt a person .

 

[hybrid]

With respect, this is not correct. What you are espousing is the existence of two entirely separate and distinct Eternal, Infinite Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient Immutable Beings or 'Gods'. This is a contradiction. There can be only One Being who is Eternal, Infinite Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Immutable. You cannot have more than One God (Isa.43:10-13). It appears that, based on your subjective experience of being unitarian in nature and spending all your life so far interacting with other finite beings who, like you, are also finite unitarians, you are assuming that 'Being' and 'Person' are synonymous but the Truth is that they are not. Being and Person are not synonymous and it is possible for one Being to consist of more than one Person (as in the case of the Trinity).

actually on the contrary by not recognizing that the father is the source, the son and the spirit would appear to be two independent gods on their own. some kind of a divine comittee.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same essence and attributes precisely because they are One Being. The Infinite God, by definition, cannot be duplicated.

yes

The Son is absolutely not a created being (Col.1:15-17). The Divine Nature is Immutable [that which, by nature, is absolutely impervious to and incapable of change in any way] therefore no part of God can, by Nature, become anything that he is not already (including a 'Father' or a 'Son'). All three Persons are YHWH - God.
Simonline.

the son was not made nor created but dont also neglect that the scriptures clearly teaches that he is begotten by the father. the creeds states unanimously that the son is begotten before the worlds. if we neflect this one word, the trinity will slide down to tritheism.

 

[hybrid]

No. The traditional Orthodox view is what I have stated in my last post (#66).

The fact that the Son is Eternally begotten of the Father does not mean that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. They are ONE BEING and therefore cannot be subordinate to each other. The Messiah is subbordinate to the Father because he is a hybrid of Infinite Divine Creator and finite human creature. It is the finite human creature that is subordinate to the Divine Father, not the Infinite Divine Creator which is absolutely equal with both the Father and the Spirit.

Simonline.

Subordination means that the Father is thought to be the first but only as a matter of principle not of reality, not of chronology nor by degree.

that the Father is first, the son is second and the Sprit is third.

Why do you think they are called first, second and third persons of the trinity?

Not by chronology meaning that the son and the spirit are both eternal. That there was never a time that the father existed without the son and the spirit. They are co-eternal

Not by degree meaning that the deity of the son and the spirit was never diminished nor limited in any way. The three are co-equal.

Subordination means that we only recognized the father as the source or the fountain of the godhood. that the two are one with the father.

Isn’t that is what the creeds states,

The father is god.

The son is begotten (not made) of god, true god from true god.

The holy spirit proceeds from the father (and the son.) filio que


the whole of christendom was practically divided into two parts, because the latins added the phrase filio que because they believed that the holy spirit proceeds both from the father and the son. while the greeks believec that the spirit proceeds only from the father.

which ever is true, it is important to see that both the western and eastern church recognized that the father is the source of the spirit.

 

[larchen]

If you don't mind my interjection into this conversation, I must say that I agree with hybrid.

How can one being be made up of more than one person? In a human being we would call that schizophrenia. Is it not a basic tenent of the Christian faith that "There is one God, in whom is the Divine Trinity, and that God is the Lord Jesus Christ?"

To demonstrate this point I will relate this quote, taken from the book Conjugial Love by Emanuel Swedenborg:

"Is God not one and indivisible? Is there not a Trinity? If God is one and indivisible, is He not one person? If He is one person, is the Trinity not in that person? "That He is the Lord Jesus Christ I demonstrate by the following points: Jesus Christ was conceived by God the Father (Luke 1:34,35), so that in regard to His soul He was God. And therefore, as He Himself says, the Father and He are one (John 10:30). He is in the Father and the Father in Him (John 14:10,11). He who sees Him and knows Him, sees and knows the Father (John 14:7,9). No one sees and knows the Father but He who is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18). All things belonging to the Father are His (John 3:35, 16:15). He is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6), thus by Him, because the Father is in Him. And, according to Paul, all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily (Colossians 2:9). And furthermore, He has authority over all flesh (John 17:2), and He has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). "From all this it follows that He is God of heaven and earth."


This seems like a logical conclusion to me given the passages cited.


Cheers, a skylark

P.S. What about trinity like soul, mind and body? Is the soul a different person from the mind? How about the mind from the body or the body from the soul, or aren't they all parts of ONE person? Just a thought.

 

[Simonline]

If you don't mind my interjection into this conversation, I must say that I agree with hybrid.

How can one being be made up of more than one person? In a human being we would call that schizophrenia. Is it not a basic tenent of the Christian faith that "There is one God, in whom is the Divine Trinity, and that God is the Lord Jesus Christ?"

To demonstrate this point I will relate this quote, taken from the book Conjugial Love by Emanuel Swedenborg:

"Is God not one and indivisible? Is there not a Trinity? If God is one and indivisible, is He not one person? If He is one person, is the Trinity not in that person? "That He is the Lord Jesus Christ I demonstrate by the following points: Jesus Christ was conceived by God the Father (Luke 1:34,35), so that in regard to His soul He was God. And therefore, as He Himself says, the Father and He are one (John 10:30). He is in the Father and the Father in Him (John 14:10,11). He who sees Him and knows Him, sees and knows the Father (John 14:7,9). No one sees and knows the Father but He who is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18). All things belonging to the Father are His (John 3:35, 16:15). He is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6), thus by Him, because the Father is in Him. And, according to Paul, all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily (Colossians 2:9). And furthermore, He has authority over all flesh (John 17:2), and He has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). "From all this it follows that He is God of heaven and earth."


This seems like a logical conclusion to me given the passages cited.


Cheers, a skylark

P.S. What about trinity like soul, mind and body? Is the soul a different person from the mind? How about the mind from the body or the body from the soul, or aren't they all parts of ONE person? Just a thought.

The reason why multiple personalities are a disorder in humans is because we were created by the Creator to be unitarian in nature. Just because we are unitarian in nature it does not follow that the Creator also has to be unitarian in Nature (especially when he has revealed himself to be Trinitarian in Nature). We need to start from God's own revelation of himself in the Scriptures and not from our own subjective experience and defective/impaired reasoning and logic. Only then will we be likely to reach the correct conclusions.

No, it is absolutely not a basic tenent of the Christian faith that "There is one God, in whom is the Divine Trinity, and that God is the Lord Jesus Christ". That is 'Oneness' heresy. Orthodox conservative Evangelical Christianity affirms the Biblical Truth that God by Nature is strictly Trinitarian and not Unitarian. God is Trinitarian in Nature and the Messiah is the Living Incarnation of God but there is more to God than the Living Incarnation. The Messiah is only one of the three Persons of the Trinity, not all three Persons combined into one. It is the Being which is One, not the Persons.

As for Emmanuel Swedenborg, he was a heretic: http://www.carm.org/list/swedenborg.htm, therefore I will not accept anything that man espouses as authoritative (and you would be wise not to either).

Again, you are starting from your own subjective experience, flawed human reasoning and logic rather than Divine Revelation. On that basis your conclusions are guaranteed to be wrong.

Simonline.

 

[hybrid]

No. The traditional Orthodox view is what I have stated in my last post (#66).
Simonline.

let me quote tertullian, the man who thought to be the one who coined the word trinity...

if...from that perfect knowledge which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, we were to invoke a plurality of gods and lords, we should quench our torches, and we should become less courageous to endure the martyr's sufferings, from which an easy escape would everywhere lie open to us, as soon as we swore by a plurality of gods and lords, as sundry heretics do, who hold more gods than One. I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father "God," and invoke Jesus Christ as "Lord." But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him "God," as the same apostle says: "Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever." For I should give the name of" sun" even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.

Modern writers (like Augustine before them) have restated Tertullian as follows: (quote)

One of the comparisons or likenesses I am speaking of is taken from the most glorious object which our eyes see, the sun. That ball of light and heat, which we call most properly the sun, may be compared to the Father, from whom both the Word and the Spirit come. From this sun the light issues, and is as it were a part of it, and yet comes down to our earth and gives light to us. This we may compare to the Word, who came forth from the Father, and came down on earth, and was made man, and who, as St. John tells us, is "the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

or

The light comes from the sun, the source of light, but we see the light most clearly when it pieces through the clouds as a sunbeam. When we are sitting in a room and the light shines in and touches us, we are warmed and can feel the light. So, the sun is like the Father, the beam like the Son and the warmth like the Holy Spirit.

(quote)words from John Calvin's Institutes on sourceness of the father...

The observance of order is not meaningless or superfluous, when the Father is thought of as first, then from him the Son, and finally from both the Spirit.

For this reason, the Son is said to come froth from the Father alone; the Spirit, from the Father and the Son at the same time.

When we mark the relation that the Son has with the Father, we rightly make the Father the beginning of the Son.

Even though the name "God" is also common to the Son, it is sometimes applied to the Father par excellence because he is the fountainhead and beginning of deity - and this is done to denote the simple unity of essence.

In respect to order and degree the beginning of divinity is in the Father.

Inasmuch as the Father is first in order ... he is rightly deemed the beginning and fountainhead of the whole of divinity. Thus God without particularization is unbegotten; and the Father also in respect to his person is unbegotten.

Since he is the Son, we say that he exists from the Father.

When a comparison of one person is made with another, the name of God is not to be taken without particularization, but restricted to the Father, seeing that he is the beginning of deity.

 

[hybrid]

so the scriptures, the classical christian writers and the creeds as well as christian history all attest that the father is the source of the diety of the trinity.

one essence, the Father's. three persons, the father the son and the spirit.
the son and the spirit shares the fathers essence.

this is the trsditional orthodox view.

 

[Simonline]

so the scriptures, the classical christian writers and the creeds as well as christian history all attest that the father is the source of the diety of the trinity.

one essence, the Father's. three persons, the father the son and the spirit.
the son and the spirit shares the fathers essence.

this is the trsditional orthodox view.

No, it isn't.

The essence is God's [Father Son and Holy Spirit] not the Father's alone which he then subsequently shares with the Son and the Spirit. That is the traditional orthodox view.

Simonline.

 

[Mikecpking]

Or

One God,
Father Son and Holy Spirit ,each God,
Father,Son and Holy Spirit, each distinct

 

[Simonline]

A negative opinon and slur of yours about me that has no place in a debate and proves nothing.

...even if it is true?!

To say I believe God to be unitarian is to in some way associate me with the unitarian church and thier beliefs. I am not unitarian, unitarian is not a biblical word. I prefer to say that I believe God is one and that there is only one God. I have in addition some negative connotations of the word unitarian because of certain beliefs of the unitarian church. I never say that God is unitarian for these reasons.

To believe that God is unitarian does not mean that you are a member of the Unitarian Church or share their beliefs (except that God is unitarian in nature), otherwise the Jews, the Muslims, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. would all members of the Unitarian Church since they are all strict unitarians (your reasoning is warped beyond belief)?!

I have had god reveal things to me from the scriptures before and everytime God revealed something to me it made sense. I have never had god reveal something to me from the scriptures that didn't make logical sense.

Ever considered the possibility that it might not have been God who revealed those things to you? No, of course not, since that requires an open mind.

If God revealed something that doesn't make any sense (which I believe he would never do) then we still know nothing about him.

I rest my case. You have just admitted that if God ever did reveal anything that didn't make sense to you then you would reject it anyway for not making sense. [You are effectively dictating terms to God - he can only reveal what makes sense to you (irrespective of the Truth) otherwise you will reject it as false regardless?!] In other words the 'God' whom you worship is a creation of your own imagination and fundamentally flawed reasoning rather than the God who has revealed himself through the Scriptures. The Scriptures call that idolatry.

I don't try and understand god purely on the basis of human reasoning and logic but I don't discard it either. I use scripture, seek the guidance of the holy spirit, listen to my god given teachers, study scritpures etc. as well.

You have unequivocally demonstrated time and time again that your starting point is always what you can understand rather than what is True. Thus your God is no bigger than your own flawed reasoning and logic. You will only accept as Divine revelation what makes sense to you. Anything that does not make sense to you, you reject. You are effectively your own God, dictating your own terms and the God in which you claim to believe has no objective existence except as a figment of your own imagination and is therefore YOUR 'creature'.

got what job? We decide what we will believe not God. He gave us free will to choose what we want to believe and we determine for ourselves how we will decide what the truth is. More proof by sluring me. really proves nothing. I do not believe god is the Wizard of Oz whatever that personal insult means.

You can't even distinguish when I'm having a dig at you and when I'm not?! My reference to God getting the job (of being God) rather than us was a roundabout way of saying that only God could be God because, by Nature, he is fundamentally different from us. He is not simply a bigger version of a human being (like Gulliver in Lilliput).

Likewise my reference to the Wizard of Oz was not a dig at you either though it won't make sense unless you've either read the book or seen the film? Throughout the story the 'great' Wizard of Oz is built up to be awesome beyond belief and possessing all the attributes of Divinity - omnipotence, omnipresence, Omniscience etc. but eventually at the end of the story it transpires that the 'great' Wizard of Oz is no more than a mere man behind a curtain. My point was that God is not like the wizard of Oz (just a man, even a 'big' man such as 'Gulliver' in 'Lilliput') but really is fundamentally different to all his creatures.

Everything in the bible that describes god's qualities is understandable. God is love that is understandable. God is longsuffering towards us, god is just and righteous an holy and all powerfull and full of all wisdom. these things that describe god are all understandable and increase our knowledg of who god is.

But not in your case. If what you have said is true (and, for the record, I believe it is) then explain how God is Love (1Jn.4:8) whilst at the same time being unitarian, since Love requires both a lover AND a beloved (an impossibility for a unitarian being)?!

[The very reason why God is Love is because he is Trinitarian in Nature rather than Unitarian]

calling me dumb proves nothing.

I have absolutely no need to prove that you're dumb. You're doing a more than excellent job yourself!

Correct. except that i would say scripture is the starting point then study and then revelation.

You really don't get it do you?! THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES ARE THE REVELATION. By studying the Scriptures (and believing them) we are receiving God's revelation of Himself. Except that you are refusing to accept any part of that revelation that doesn't make sense to you therefore you are sitting in judgment over God's revelation. Your faith is clearly not in God but in your own reason and logic since that is clearly the criteria you are using to determine Truth?!

Wrong, it is scripture not revelation which determines the course our reasoning and logic take. and we should not use illogic to interpret scripture. First scritpure, then reasoning and logic, then revelation from God as to what the truth is. there are many logical ways to interpet scripture, not all of them are right. Revelation from god comes in at that times if we are following the leading of the holy spirit, to help us.

Like I said, the Judeo-Christian Scriptures ARE the revelation of God and they are our starting point for any understanding of what God is like. God's revelation takes precedence over our reason and logic. If what the Scriptures teach do not make sense to our finite human logic then we seek God for understanding. We do not reject God's revelation as nonsense simply because we do not understand it (Isa.55:8-9).

Human reasoning is not sinful. I do not ignore difficult passages of scritpure, and no scritpure conflicts with my finite reasoning or logic because I believe God never contradicts himself and I believe God always explains things in ways that make sense.

I don't mean that it's sinful to think, I mean that all our faculties as humans are subject to the effects of the Fall and therefore are defective/impaired.

You do ignore difficult passages of Scripture. In fact, you ignore any passages of Scripture that conflict with your flawed understanding of God. You force the Scriptures to conform to your limited understanding, as countless posts on these forums will testify.

I do not sit in judgement of God Because I interpret scripture in ways that make sense. god gives us all the right to decide what the truth is he doesn't decide for us that isn't sitting in judgement of God. I do not dictate what god is like according to my understanding. I decide what god is like from what the scriptures say. And scriture makes sense. God does define himself in scritpure, he is love, holy righteous, kind long suffereing towards us. God no where says he is a trinity. that is a nonsensical interpretation of his word that you call revelation and which i call nonsense. you can take any passage in the bible probably and either intpret it in ways that make sense or in ways that don't make sense. there are no scritpures in the bible that can only be intpreted in ways that make no sense, which i feel is what you are alluding to.

What?! God gives no man the right to decide what the Truth is. God and God alone decides what the Truth is and everyone else is judged according to how we conform to the Truth, or not, as the case may be. God has revealed the Truth to Man through various means, including the Judeo-Christian Scriptures and the Messiah as his supreme revelation of his Truth. It is according to these revelations of the Truth and how we conform to them that all men will be judged by the Messiah on the great Day of Judgment.

It is clear that you will NEVER accept the Truth since you refuse to even consider the possibility that you could be wrong and the Trinitarian doctrine could actually be Biblical. Anything that does not make sense to you is automatically false. You have effectively hamstrung yourself sir. I leave you to your god.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Then a person of God is not a person but is something else which means person of god is a misnomer. Which means you are calling a person of God something that it isn't. which means that you are defining trinity with terms that dont mean what they mean, which means you don't have a definition of trinity. you need to call it what it is what ever it really is not call it something it isnt. Calling a person of god a person of god makes any definition of trinity deceptive. Saying the term person isnt the best means it isnt accurate. if you have no accurate term it is better to call it an 'unknown' . the trinity is 3 unknowns that make up one god would be a more accurate definition of trinity than saying persons of god cause you guys don't know what a person of god is . it isn't a being, imagine that god the father a person of god the only true god isnt a being. so if a person isnt a being then what is it? it certainly isnt a person .

Hands up all those who have even the slightest idea what he's babbling about?! I understood what Monergism said, but this...[Yeah, my head's spinning too!]

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

actually on the contrary by not recognizing that the father is the source, the son and the spirit would appear to be two independent gods on their own. some kind of a divine comittee.

No. The Divine Nature is One. The three Persons of the Trinity are One Being and therefore cannot be subordinate to each other.

The Athanasian Creed states: "The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other: none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together: and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved: must thus think of the Trinity."

the son was not made nor created but dont also neglect that the scriptures clearly teaches that he is begotten by the father. the creeds states unanimously that the son is begotten before the worlds. if we neflect this one word, the trinity will slide down to tritheism.

Not true. God is One Immutable Being and therefore cannot degenerate into tritheism (or anything else for that matter). The important point is that the Son/Word of God - the second Person of the Trinity is ETERNALLY begotten of the Father and not just temporally begotten of the Father as the Messiah was temporally begotten of his mother at the Incarnation. This is because the Divine Nature is Immutable and therefore absolutely impervious to and incapable of change in any way. "And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other: none is greater or less than another"

Simonline.