Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[Butch5]

Substance is the makeup wether it be physical or spiritual. What makes something what it is.

In PHILOSOPHY it means
the essential nature underlying phenomena.

So what ever the Father is the Son is also.

For example in terms of nature human beings have the same makeup and therefore have the same nature.

When you consider the nature of God this becomes a singularity where there is one Godbeing and so what he is must the Father and the Son also be. So the Father and the Son have to be the one in the same Godbeing who is one, yet within that being exists a taxonomy of three persona's which are not physical quantitues that make three persons rather they are self existing as characters within the one Godbeing and therefore must be coeternal and coequal as they are one in the same substance who is the infinite Godbeing.

If a human being were to have three personalities existing simultaneously then it would be impossible, yet God is just that, he exists as three personalities and not three separate substances/Spirits/beings.

Some people have been diagnosed with multiple personality disorder but even so they can only play one character at any one time, whereas God plays all three simultaneously.

Say what?

 

[Job8]

The passage doesn't say anything about God. It says baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

This comment would be humorous if the subject were not serious. After all who is the Father, and who is the Son? Scripture does not always have to spell it out as "God the Father" and "God the Son".

 

[Berean777]

The Son received the Spirit that was sent forth from the Father, and then the apostles received the Spirit that was sent to them by the Son, and then everyone else received the Spirit as it was passed along by the apostles and then those that received it from them. I believe it to be a spiritual genealogy as it is passed down from person to person that has it, and each person that receives it is considered the fruit of the person that imparted it.

If you make it a spiritual genealogy analogy then the trinity came on Pentecost and we are extensions of the genealogy, which is what I have been saying all along.

That is why Jesus would say

John 14:23
Jesus replied, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

 

[Berean777]

Say what?

I am not a mind reader beloved, please give me a little way to understand what your thoughts are. What don't you understand from what I wrote.

 

[cgaviria]

That's not what substance means. We don't know what Father is made of. Whatever that is the Son is the same thing. I am human, my child is human. I am no more or no less human than my child. We are equally human.

You are presuming that the Father is made of something, which in my opinion goes outside of scripture. No one has seen the Father except the Son. Yet also, we know that the Father is infinite. How can any material thing that has limits house something that is infinite? Its way beyond us. Jesus is not infinte though, as we see in scripture that Jesus does not know everything,

"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matthew 24:36)

Jesus is instead, the very "image" of the Father. So I wouldn't use the word "substance", and especially it being that it isn't a word used in the scriptures to define the relationship between the two. "Image" is,

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. (Colossians 1:15)

And in the usage of the world "image", we see the Son reflect QUALITIES, ATTRIBUTES, and ACTIONS of God instead. I wouldn't create a philosophy and call it "substance". Its just not whats conveyed in the scriptures.

 

[Berean777]

As the Lord is one with the Father we are being made one with the Godhead that now resides spiritually in his temple as prophesied by the prophets of old.

The spiritual genealogy points to the one devine being who in all his coequal and coeternal attributes is present today in the born again of the Spirit believer in Christ Jesus.

This means that the Son is coequal and coeternal with the Father and has invited us finite beings to have a destiny with eternity with him intimately as the family members of the triune Godhead.

 

[Wgw]

Yeh I know.

Why I support my Catholic brothers and sisters on this one is that in scripture it highlights the Father sending the Spirit and also the Son sending the Spirit. In scripture the apostles also speak of the faithful having Christ's Spirit which indicates that it proceeds from the Son also. I feel the Catholics may be right after all.

Since the decision for the Spirit to be sent must have been an agreed decision between the Father and the Son and so in that respect the Son was involved with the Father in the decision making as well. This would be plausible since the Son was glorified and matters given into his hands then he had to be part of that decision making and have equal say with the Father.

The Spirit must have also proceeded from the Son as he is now sitting on the right side of the Father on the throne of the Almighty as the commander and chief.

I disagree, for various reasons (see Ss. Photius, Mark of Ephesus, et cetera) but am disinclined to explore it further. Suffice it to say this issue reamins an internal bone of contention; Imagican is wrong that there are many doctrines of the Trinity; there are really just two, the double orocession doctrine you outlined and the Orthodox doctrine.

However it should be noted that "filioque" waa not in the initial Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381; it was an interpolation. The question is whether or not Rome was correct in adding the interpolation on dogmatic grounds or whether or not this was a real transgression of the canons of the Council of Ephesus.

This fundamental dispute does put paid Imagican's view that the Orthodox are a Roman Catholic offshoot however.

 

[cgaviria]

If you make it a spiritual genealogy analogy then the trinity came on Pentecost and we are extensions of the genealogy, which is what I have been saying all along.

That is why Jesus would say

Spirtually yes, all three would dwell in us, but literally no. Literally ONLY the spirit would dwell in us, as the Spirit of God is a LITERAL thing that goes into your body, AND Jesus Christ is seat at the right hand of God, he doesn't come down when you receive the Spirit, but he does dwell in you spiritually because that same Spirit in you was the same Spirit that was in Jesus Christ, and the Spirit is sent forth by the Father through the Son, so that Father also dwells in you, spiritually, but not literally.

 

[Butch5]

This comment would be humorous if the subject were not serious. After all who is the Father, and who is the Son? Scripture does not always have to spell it out as "God the Father" and "God the Son".

That's my point! What you've done is called begging the question, it's a fallacy. The text doesn't say they are God. It doesn't even use the word God. Yet, you're using this passage to try to prove the Trinity. Your premise is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God and a Trinity. You presented this passage to prove that point. Then you've concluded from this passage that it proves that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God and a Trinity. It's begging the question or circular reasoning. You haven't proven anything. Your conclusion is just a restatement of your premise

 

[Butch5]

I am not a mind reader beloved, please give me a little way to understand what your thoughts are. What don't you understand from what I wrote.

Oh, I understood what you said. I'm just not sure where you got the idea.

 

[Wgw]

That's my point! What you've done is called begging the question, it's a fallacy. The text doesn't say they are God. It doesn't even use the word God. Yet, you're using this passage to try to prove the Trinity. Your premise is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God and a Trinity. You presented this passage to prove that point. Then you've concluded from this passage that it proves that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God and a Trinity. It's begging the question or circular reasoning. You haven't proven anything. Your conclusion is just a restatement of your premise

We can use that text to prove the Trinity in conjunction with other texts like John 1:1-14 and so on. An exegetical view regards it as proof, albeit not the sole proof; if read either in the manner you propose or in a manner where it alone supports the Trinity one would engage in eisegesis.

 

[Berean777]

Spirtually yes, all three would dwell in us, but literally no. Literally ONLY the spirit would dwell in us, as the Spirit of God is a LITERAL thing that goes into your body, AND Jesus Christ is seat at the right hand of God, he doesn't come down when you receive the Spirit, but he does dwell in you spiritually because that same Spirit in you was the same Spirit that was in Jesus Christ, and the Spirit is sent forth by the Father through the Son, so that Father also dwells in you, spiritually, but not literally.

God is Spirit and he spiritually dwells in me and my brothers and sisters and I praise his name.

I look forward to the day that I be reunited with the risen Lord and be at his feet. On that day I will come face to face with the visible Yahweh.

 

[Butch5]

We can use that text to prove the Trinity in conjunction with other texts like John 1:1-14 and so on. An exegetical view regards it as proof, albeit not the sole proof; if read either in the manner you propose or in a manner where it alone supports the Trinity one would engage in eisegesis.

Firstly, I was addressing that specific passage. it doesn't prove the Trinity. Whether or not the Trinity can be proven would first depend on defining exactly what one means by the term. Just saying what the Nicene creed says isn't good enough. I accept the Nicene creed yet differ markedly in my understanding of that creed than quite a few other Christians who also claim they believe the Nicene creed.

 

[Berean777]

.
This fundamental dispute does put paid Imagican's view that the Orthodox are a Roman Catholic offshoot however.

I don't see how brother. I know that there are those who want to claim that but surely not.

The Spirit after Christ was glorified had to also been sent by the right hand man of the Father otherwise what would be the purpose when the Father says that all things are given into the hands of the Son.

The Spirit must also proceed from the right hand man wouldn't you agree?

 

[cgaviria]

As the Lord is one with the Father we are being made one with the Godhead that now resides spiritually in his temple as prophesied by the prophets of old.

The spiritual genealogy points to the one devine being who in all his coequal and coeternal attributes is present today in the born again of the Spirit believer in Christ Jesus.

This means that the Son is coequal and coeternal with the Father and has invited us finite beings to have a destiny with eternity with him intimately as the family members of the triune Godhead.

You've got it wrong bud. There is only ONE God, the Father. It is not three, it is ONE. There is no other like him. And from him stems a family, first of which is his "only child" Jesus Christ, who spoke all things into existence,

but to us there is one God the father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we by him. (I Corinthians 8:6 [ABP])

Both the Father and the Son are not exactly the same. The son is an "image" of the Father. An image is lesser than the thing it reflects, therefore they are not literally coequal. Why do you think Jesus said, "the Father is greater than I"? He is in fact affirming he is lesser than the Father.

Jesus Christ is made God by the Father because he has chosen him to be the very highest of all his creation.

And you're taking my spiritual genealogy statement way off on a tangent. What I mean LITERALLY by spiritual genealogy is that you can only receive the Holy Spirit by someone else that has it. It is imparted by the laying of hands although it can be imparted without intention as is clear in a passage in Acts. Either way, it is always imparted by someone that has it. And in that is created a spiritual genealogy because now you are considered their spiritual child.

 

[Berean777]

I feel that were all getting somewhere here because the thoughts are somehow being unified with the exception of a few who are on the verge of understanding it as well in time. The seed is planted and only God can make it grow.

 

[Butch5]

You are presuming that the Father is made of something, which in my opinion goes outside of scripture. No one has seen the Father except the Son. Yet also, we know that the Father is infinite. How can any material thing that has limits house something that is infinite? Its way beyond us. Jesus is not infinte though, as we see in scripture that Jesus does not know everything,

"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matthew 24:36)

Jesus is instead, the very "image" of the Father. So I wouldn't use the word "substance", and especially it being that it isn't a word used in the scriptures to define the relationship between the two. "Image" is,

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. (Colossians 1:15)

And in the usage of the world "image", we see the Son reflect QUALITIES, ATTRIBUTES, and ACTIONS of God instead. I wouldn't create a philosophy and call it "substance". Its just not whats conveyed in the scriptures.

That wasn't the point of the post. Whatever God is the Son is. That was the point of the post. The argument that brought about the Nicene creed was whether or not Jesus was a created being or not. The Arians argued that He was, the orthodox Christians argued that He was not, but rather was begotten. That's why it is said that He is the say substance/essence/ nature, take your pick as the Father. The point is that whatever the Father is, the Son is also. This is how the creed opens.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

You may disagree with the creed but that is the point being made.

 

[cgaviria]

God is Spirit and he spiritually dwells in me and my brothers and sisters and I praise his name.

I look forward to the day that I be reunited with the risen Lord and be at his feet. On that day I will come face to face with the visible Yahweh.

The Spirit is not a "figurative" thing as could be indicated by something "spiritual". The Spirit is a LITERAL thing. So when you say he "spirtually dwells in me" that is already incorrect. You would know if you had the Spirit of the living God. It comes with signs and real power. It also literally turns you into another person, LITERALLY, to cause you to obey God and sin no more.

 

[Butch5]

Berean777,

Let me apologize for my earlier post. I shouldn't have been sarcastic.

 

[civilwarbuff]

What makes this the correct definition?

So what does monogenes mean? According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition), monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son" (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.

If you remove the covenant with Abraham, Issac is no one special....He is not even Abraham's 1st born son. So Issac is only special within the framework (specific relationship) of the covenant. That is the correct definition of monogenes in this context.

The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.

There is only one Son of God....and He is "the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind". He is unique, there are no others like Him. That is the correct definition of monogenes in this context.