Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[thecolorsblend]

Ok, my apologies, that was never my intention as I made it clear.

Please kindly answer my question asked of you in my previous post, as to whether you support a universalist one world religious ideology?

If you mean that in the Left Behind sense, the answer is no. Bear in mind that I'm a partial-Preterist (ie, an Orthodox Preterist) so End Timey matters don't weigh heavily on my mind.

 

[thecolorsblend]

As Jesus said I come with a sword to separate my sheep from the rest of the world. Universalism (interfaith) is the world and as Christians we should not be supporting such apostate venture.

To be frank and honest with one another, we must make our intentions clear upfront, rather than fishing people along to impregnate them with hints of universalism, which is tied to myriads of manifestations of false gods of the false religions of the world.

You're again imputing nefarious motives upon my posts. "Fishing people along"? Honestly. I will not ask you again. Please stop assigning your conspiracy theories to my posts. I believe I've been fair with you. Please be fair with me in return.

Now, I do support the Catholic Church's ecumenical dialogues as mutual understanding has a demonstrable track record of enhancing unity. For example, the Catholic Church is better understood and respected by the evangelical community now than it was back in, say, the 1970's. The reason for that is because my Church's leaders made dialogue and ecumenism a priority. Catholics better understand evangelicals and evangelicals better understand Catholics now as a result. I would see unity return to the Christian world as Our Lord intended.

 

[Berean777]

If you mean that in the Left Behind sense, the answer is no. Bear in mind that I'm a partial-Preterist (ie, an Orthodox Preterist) so End Timey matters don't weigh heavily on my mind.

You haven't answered my question and this is your second attempt.

Listen please, your head priest believes in universalist one world religion, which is based on the concept of God manifesting himself in different forms to the different religions of the world.

My question to you is.......

Do you believe that th Egyptians, the Buddhists, the Hindus and the rest of the interfaith religions out there, worship the God of the Bible?

Yes/No?

 

[Berean777]

You're again imputing nefarious motives upon my posts. "Fishing people along"? Honestly. I will not ask you again. Please stop assigning your conspiracy theories to my posts. I believe I've been fair with you. Please be fair with me in return.

Now, I do support the Catholic Church's ecumenical dialogues as mutual understanding has a demonstrable track record of enhancing unity. For example, the Catholic Church is better understood and respected by the evangelical community now than it was back in, say, the 1970's. The reason for that is because my Church's leaders made dialogue and ecumenism a priority. Catholics better understand evangelicals and evangelicals better understand Catholics now as a result. I would see unity return to the Christian world as Our Lord intended.

I am not talking within the Christian context of talks, that I have no problems with. Rather I am pointing out the interfaith side and its kitten caboodle.

Thank you kindly for your response.

 

[Berean777]

But if one must eschew the Trinity, I can only see increasing the number of manifestations rather than decreasing them.

Is the above your statement brother?

Please tell us how many manifestations you see of God? We are all ears!

You do realise that you are saying that to accept the trinity, we must also entertain the thought of manifestations more than the trinity.

 

[Berean777]

The Spirit is all knowing brother!

 

[thecolorsblend]

I am not talking within the Christian context of talks, that I have no problems with. Rather I am pointing out the interfaith side and its kitten caboodle.

I also believe in interfaith dialogues. Many Muslims, for example, believe that Christians are polytheists based on our belief in the Trinity. As such, many dislike us because they believe we reject monotheism. Dialogues work to correct those misunderstandings. Recognizing commonality in a supposed enemy is one step closer to peace and acceptance.

We can debate amongst ourselves how successful those dialogues have been considering the continuing stereotype many Muslims have of Christians as polytheists, of course, but I do admire the Church's attempts to clarify what we truly do believe among those who have no understanding of Christianity.

You haven't answered my question and this is your second attempt.

You moved the goal posts in your second post, the one to which I replied. I'll deal with the middle section of your post momentarily. For now...

My question to you is.......

Do you believe that th Egyptians, the Buddhists, the Hindus and the rest of the interfaith religions out there, worship the God of the Bible?

Yes/No?

I don't think there's a simple yes or no answer to that. Did God inspire those religions? I don't believe so, no. Those are not the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. And I've seen credible arguments that they were actually inspired by demonic episodes of some description. Who can say? But they were not inspired by God and thus at best have an imperfect and incomplete understanding of God.

That having been said, the Catholic Church teaches that each religion might have some amount of truth to it. By definition it won't be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The Church teaches that she alone has that. But they may have some facet of belief in common with us.

Of course, the corollary there is that they may have no truth whatsoever. Certainly that is a possibility.

Listen please, your head priest believes in universalist one world religion, which is based on the concept of God manifesting himself in different forms to the different religions of the world.

No. He doesn't.

 

[Wgw]

Ok, my apologies, that was never my intention as I made it clear.

Please kindly answer my question asked of you in my previous post, as to whether you support a universalist one world religious ideology?

The Nicene Creed itself requires belief in a universal church, which can pbviously be interpreted in different ways, hence the Ecclesiology subforum. It also precludes syncretism with the clause "I believe in one God," so IMO we don't need to go there.

 

[Berean777]

Thank you for your response in this matter.

I also believe in interfaith dialogues. Many Muslims, for example, believe that Christians are polytheists based on our belief in the Trinity. As such, many dislike us because they believe we reject monotheism. Dialogues work to correct those misunderstandings. Recognizing commonality in a supposed enemy is one step closer to peace and acceptance.

The argument sounds fair at first glance, but as Christians we don't care how the world looks at us, nor perceives us. Saint Paul repeatedly instructs us that we are not to comply with the world based on concessional grounds which you have implied in this statement. Their misunderstandings of us is either two fold, that is, either we are not doing our great commission job properly and preaching to them Christ for their conversion or that they have heard but are not interested, in which we are obligated to wipe the dust of our feet as instructed by the Lord and to let their denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ be a curse onto them as the Lord has declared.

We can debate amongst ourselves how successful those dialogues have been considering the continuing stereotype many Muslims have of Christians as polytheists, of course, but I do admire the Church's attempts to clarify what we truly do believe among those who have no understanding of Christianity.

Again the word used here TO CLARIFY what we believe amongst non-Christians who have no understanding, is a cope out, don't you think?

We are commissioned to preach the gospel unwaveringly and if that doesn't suffice, then what we do over and beyond the gospel is vain and counterproductive to the body of Christ, because our time and energy should be placed on those who have yet to hear the message, or have we given up on them and placed them in the same basket as those who have heard and continued to reject Christ?

What is our business with the learnered of each non-Christian religions who have heard the gospel and have chosen to reject it on many occasion, through contentions and debates, where there was no fruitful results.

I don't think there's a simple yes or no answer to that. Did God inspire those religions? I don't believe so, no. Those are not the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. And I've seen credible arguments that they were actually inspired by demonic episodes of some description. Who can say? But they were not inspired by God and thus at best have an imperfect and incomplete understanding of God.

Let me rephrase your statement in regards to imperfect and incomplete understanding of God sounds like to to young Christians. They will perceive that non-Christians too are worshipping the God of the Bible, but in an incorrect and uninspired manner. It would be like someone teaching his son to accept a cointerfeit $100 bill and to educate him that this is not legal tender, but non the less is useful to keep in hand, because it carries some truths of the genuine $100 bill.

That having been said, the Catholic Church teaches that each religion might have some amount of truth to it. By definition it won't be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The Church teaches that she alone has that. But they may have some facet of belief in common with us.

So what you are advocating is along the lines the Catholic leadership has been pushing for the last three or four decades, by teaching young Christians that we the Catholic Church are the genuine article and even those who are counterfeits have truths and therefore we should embrace them.

My question is embrace them as what?

Brothers and sisters in Christ!

Or

Brothers and sisters in the universalist (Christless) one world religion?

Or

Brothers and sisters in the universalists (many christs) one world religion?

Which one is it?

No. He doesn't.

You shall know them by their works says the Lord!

 

[Berean777]

The Nicene Creed itself requires belief in a universal church, which can pbviously be interpreted in different ways, hence the Ecclesiology subforum. It also precludes syncretism with the clause "I believe in one God," so IMO we don't need to go there.

But with the huge dilemma that the one God mentioned in the Nicene Creed isn't the God of the counterfeit religions of the world and so the Nicene Creed is universal within the context of the body of Christ and certainly not those who have been baptised by the Hindu goddess Sheba or the Buddha or the snake worshippers of the world or the South American witch doctors.

Universalist church in Christ!

 

[Wgw]

But with the huge dilemma that the one God mentioned in the Nicene Creed isn't the God of the counterfeit religions of the world and so the Nicene Creed is universal within the context of the body of Christ and certainly not those who have been baptised by the Hindu goddess Sheba or the Buddha or the snake worshippers of the world or the South American witch doctors.

Universalist church in Christ!

The one God of the Nicene Creed is obviously not the Islamic allah, the Druze deity, the Hindu deity Brahmin/Vishnu/Shiva/Ganesha/Smarti/whatever one wnats to call it (see Trimurti), or any other non-Christian deity. Syncretism is contrary to the Creed and contrary to Sacred Scripture. "The gods of the gentiles are devils." Psalm 95:5(LXX)

 

[thecolorsblend]

The argument sounds fair at first glance, but as Christians we don't care how the world looks at us, nor perceives us. Saint Paul repeatedly instructs us that we are not to comply with the world based on concessional grounds which you have implied in this statement. Their misunderstandings of us is either two fold, that is, either we are not doing our great commission job properly and preaching to them Christ for their conversion or that they have heard but are not interested, in which we are obligated to wipe the dust of our feet as instructed by the Lord and to let their denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ be a curse onto them as the Lord has declared.

We have a mandate to share the faith. If viewing us as polytheists as some Moslems do is a barrier to conversion, we owe it our would-be brothers and sisters in Christ to clarify the true nature of our beliefs. Even if only a few thousand Moslems out of millions are converted, it's worth the effort.

This is one of the many problems I have with Protestant Christianity. There's no vision to it. There's no long game. The Catholic Church converted the Roman Empire to Christianity in spite of being a hated minority because she consistently taught that, yes, Christianity IS theism rather than the atheism people of the time believed it to be. Had the Church taken your advice back in the first century, she wouldn't have survived into the second century.

Again the word used here TO CLARIFY what we believe amongst non-Christians who have no understanding, is a cope out, don't you think?

No. I don't. For the reasons I've cited above.

Let me rephrase your statement in regards to imperfect and incomplete understanding of God sounds like to to young Christians. They will perceive that non-Christians too are worshipping the God of the Bible, but in an incorrect and uninspired manner.

Then it is incumbent upon their priests and other authorities to correct their misapprehensions.

So what you are advocating is the lone the Catholid leadership has been pushing for the last three or four decades, by teaching going Christians that we the Catholic Church are the genuine article and even those who are counterfeits have truths and therefore we should embrace them.

I do believe the argument, at least intellectually, is unassailable. Either the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Our Lord or else there is no true authority from God anywhere in the world that guides and leads.

Those wrong religions are not to be "embraced", whatever that means. We're to share the gospel with them so that they can complete their conversion and serve the true God.

The Church's point is and has been that even wrong religions may have some nugget of truth to them. The purpose of that teaching, apart from recognizing the obvious, is to help the Catholic understand that these people seek truth themselves and are faithfully obeying what they have been taught. In many cases there is no sinister motive to their belief. We are blessed for having a saving faith but we are not somehow superior because of it.

The recognition of possible truth in other religions is intended to be a starting point for evangelism.

You shall know them by their works says the Lord!

Through history popes have been persecuted, beaten, pursued or even martyred without renouncing the faith. Pope Francis walks to the beat of his own drummer, there can be no doubt of that, but he risks his life in so much as going outdoors in ways that his most recent predecessors simply haven't. ISIS and similar extremists would love to separate the Holy Father's head from his shoulders. They've outright said he's one of their targets. It's funny to me how those same terrorists hordes haven't targeted Protestant leaders. Nope, only the Pope has so far earned a death warrant from those savages.

If Pope Francis does get martyred, the Church will elect a new pope. The mission will go on.

 

[Berean777]

Welcome to the strong delusion of universalist salvation.

Did you know that many comments made by the leadership of many mainstream religions have denied Christ before the world. Jesus said if you deny me, then I will deny you before my Father.

Universalist one world religion arising from entertaining the many manifestations of God over and above the trinity, is not only against th Nicene Creed, but it is also dangerous to the body of Christ and forms part of the nexus of evil that brainwashes future generations to welcome and embrace a Christless (void of the cross of Christ) religious worldly system.

We have been warned about such venture..........Daniel 11:31

Jesus cares so much about future generations that he will not put up with this foley and it is a foley and one that is based and built up on flatteries that is entertained because many have not yet denied the SELF. To deny the SELF is to deny anything that is counterfeit and has absolutely no scope within the Nicene Creed, solely based on the universal Christ salvation context.

In fact the apostle in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 even warns of THE LIE being flogged off in his time by wait for it, GNOSTICS.

The Gnosticism of the First Century embraced the doctrine of Universal Salvation (Universalism). In fact there were three gnostic branches that were kicked out by the apostles, because they had infiltrated and started to spread within the numbers and John preached to the believers that

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

We need to tread very carefully brothers and sisters because th deception is very subtle and those who are leaders of the mainstream religions have espoused this gnostic universal salvation doctrine. Only time will tell to how long Christ will put up with this imminent danger to his body of believers and especially future generations to come.

This universalist agenda is diametrically opposed to all what the church fathers stood for and is in opposition to the Nicene Creed.

Universalism:

The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years

Universalist Publishing House, 1899

Chapter 7: Three Gnostic Sects.

By J.W. HANSON, D. D.

The Basilidians. The Carpocratians. The Valentinians.

Three Gnostic sects flourished nearly simultaneously in the Second Century, all which accepted universal salvation: the Basilidians, the Valentinians, and the Carpocratians.

 

[Wgw]

In fact the apostle in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 even warns of THE LIE being flogged off in his time by wait for it, GNOSTICS.

The Gnosticism of the First Century embraced the doctrine of Universal Salvation (Universalism). In fact there were three gnostic branches that were kicked out by the apostles, because they had infiltrated and started to spread within the numbers and John preached to the believers that

Actually, as one of the more knowledgeable members of this forum, immodestly perhaps, the most knowledgeable, on the subject of Gnosticism, this is not quite correct. Whereas modern day neo-Gnosticism is closely related and often comorbid with theological modernism, postmodernism, universalism and transcendentalism, early Gnosticism tended to be rather dogmatic and highly discriminatory towards non Gnostics.

Valentinus believed that people could be regarded as "material" and thus irredeemable, "pscyhic," that is to say, able to learn of Gnosticism but unable to ascend to the Pleroma, and "gnostic," posessing secret salvific knowledge.

The lone surviving unambiguously Gnostic religion, Mandaism, is limited only to the descendants of Mandaeans. The Yazidis, who adhere to an emanationist theology evocative of Gnosticism, and the Druze, who could be regarded as Gnostic in many respects, likewise do not accept proselytes.

Now several Gnostic sects did believe in the transmigration of souls. This is not quite the same things. Origen combined such a believe with a universalist soteriology based on apocatastasis, for which Ss. Jerome, Epiphanius and others campagined to have him anathematized, something which ultimately happened with the Three Chapters.

Universalism is a nasty heresy, but it is not inherently Gnostic.

One thing that troubles me about double predestination forms of Calvinism is the resemblance of those theological schemes to Gnosticism. This becomes particularly troubling in light of the popularity of cremation and other practices which show a dualist contempt for physical material creation.

 

[YHWH's Lion]

He is of one in the same substance as the Father. The Nicene Creed states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit has also his unique personal role.

There is one Godbeing in contrast to many human beings.

Even before the incarnatiom in human flesh (blood), the Son who is visible Yahweh appeared to many prophets of Old as the Angel of of Yahweh's presence. Prophet Daniel called him the Son of Man. So we have a distinction of the same infinite Godbeing between the invisible Father and His Holy Spirit and the visible Son.

The person of visible Yahweh in his creation where it be as the Angel of Yahweh's presence or in the servant form as Jesus of Nazareth is still identified as the preeminent Son before all creation as the uncreated Son, implying Yahweh Godbeing is present simultaneously in both realms with a different role/persona yet the one in the same Godbeing/substance. That is why visible Yahweh is called Emmanuel meaning Yahweh is with us.

That is why the manifestation of the Living Word who is of the one indivisible Holy Holy Holy Spirit is also of the one in the same Spirit who is God (John 4:24). So the one infinite Spirit within him has three distinct persona's / roles and these three is the one God.

For a human being to have three persona's would render that finite person with a multiple personality disorder which some humans are diagnosed with. The one infinite Spirit of the Godbeing/substance has done this within him to define himself as a relationship between a loving Father and a loving Son whilst the one Spirit testifies or narrates this epic love story between the two as the third personality in the trinity of persona's. Why God does this defines why he is called Love and how he does this is a mystery that he has not revealed.



Some project this verse to encompass the whole enterprise of God from the old testament to the New Testament and this would essentially also indicate a preincarnation presence of the Living Word as the Angel of Yahweh's presence right to the man Jesus of Nazareth. Prophet Daniel called him the Son of Man before incarnation and after incarnation he was called the Son of God and this was to also adopt us into his heavenly family, being joined to the epic love story.
That is why Jesus would say you are my mother, brothers and sisters.

What you are saying sounds like Sabellianism. Are you saying that right now in heaven there is only One Being?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Welcome to the strong delusion of universalist salvation.

If you have a problem with the Great Commission, your complaint is with the Lord, not me.

 

[Berean777]

We have a mandate to share the faith. If viewing us as polytheists as some Moslems do is a barrier to conversion, we owe it our would-be brothers and sisters in Christ to clarify the true nature of our beliefs. Even if only a few thousand Moslems out of millions are converted, it's worth the effort.

Firstly they are not would be brothers and sisters in Christ, either they have accepted Christ and they are brothers and sisters or they are not. There is no half measures and no argument that classifies them as would be!

Your argument that this is the correct process by which to covert thousands is proven wrong by history alone. How have billions throughout the ages converted to Christ by just the preaching of the gospel and then Christ doing the rest himself. Jesus said I will draw them onto me. In fact we read in the Acts of the Apostles, of Peter being instructed to go to the house of Cornelius to preach to him. Also Philip was taken by the chariot of fire to an Ethiopian Eunuch to preach to him. Countless visitations and manifestations by the man in white, who has single handedly approached all those born in other religions directly. Jesus sending his witnesses to undiscovered continents to spread the gospel.

Simply put there is no excuse and no statement that will appease me in thinking that this NEW AGE UNIVERSAL RELIGIOUS formulea that claims to covert thousands is beneficial to the body of Christ. Rather it is OUTRIGHT dangerous.

This is one of the many problems I have with Protestant Christianity. There's no vision to it. There's no long game. The Catholic Church converted the Roman Empire to Christianity in spite of being a hated minority because she consistently taught that, yes, Christianity IS theism rather than the atheism people of the time believed it to be. Had the Church taken your advice back in the first century, she wouldn't have survived into the second century.

I want to ask you to kindly reject the above statement owing to the pride of the Lord and what I mentioned above.

Then it is incumbent upon their priests and other authorities to correct their misapprehensions.

I do believe the argument, at least intellectually, is unassailable. Either the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Our Lord or else there is no true authority from God anywhere in the world that guides and leads.

There are no misapprehensions and if that was so, you would have to take up the charge with Christ himself because he is the head of his church and has been throughout the generations been personally and dynamically involved in his churches affairs. When I say his church I don't say my church or your church, but the church that he knows and has seeded throughout the world and in all denominations, before you, I or your church leaders were born.

Those wrong religions are not to be "embraced", whatever that means. We're to share the gospel with them so that they can complete their conversion and serve the true God.

So the church (world and not uniquely Catholic) for thousands of years has used a successful formulea for the conversion of nations and now we are hearing a new formulae that promises all the bells and whistles. There is no poof in the pudding in the new universal formulea and it just plays the gnostic universal agenda of yester years.

The Church's point is and has been that even wrong religions may have some nugget of truth to them. The purpose of that teaching, apart from recognizing the obvious, is to help the Catholic understand that these people seek truth themselves and are faithfully obeying what they have been taught. In many cases there is no sinister motive to their belief. We are blessed for having a saving faith but we are not somehow superior because of it.

Completely opposite to what Jesus had taught where he said the world does NOT see the Spirit of truth, nor does it know him for he shall be in you and guide you in all truth. Jesus would say the world sees me no more. How could there be truth without the anointing of the Spirit? and if there is a rejection of Christ after the gospel is preached, how could there be any truth in them?

Your just speaking from a humanist point of view and not from the God given biblical point of view as far as God the Father is concerned.

The recognition of possible truth in other religions is intended to be a starting point for evangelism.

When you face the Lord, is that what you will tell him. You will tell the Lord that the pre-requisite of establishing HIS truth in men's hearts, is by using their religious beliefs of other religions as the cornerstone to evangelising them?

Through history popes have been persecuted, beaten, pursued or even martyred without renouncing the faith. Pope Francis walks to the beat of his own drummer, there can be no doubt of that, but he risks his life in so much as going outdoors in ways that his most recent predecessors simply haven't. ISIS and similar extremists would love to separate the Holy Father's head from his shoulders. They've outright said he's one of their targets. It's funny to me how those same terrorists hordes haven't targeted Protestant leaders. Nope, only the Pope has so far earned a death warrant from those savages.

If Pope Francis does get martyred, the Church will elect a new pope. The mission will go on.

That is Catholic internal politics and problems of the past, it has nothing to do with the works of the Spirit that has been at work throughout the New Testament age. I strongly disagree that the weight of the world hangs on your church leader, rather he has plotted a path of least resistance to the gospel of Jesus Christ and in so doing he can be labelled as the leader who made endless concessions to sell a gnostic universal religious system, based on many half truths (cornerstones).

A Gnostic universal one world religious system built up on many cornerstones (HALF TRUTHS)

Wow, rather hypnotic wouldn't you say?



The strong delusion of half truths!

LIE!

 

[Berean777]

If you have a problem with the Great Commission, your complaint is with the Lord, not me.

I have no problem, that is why I have testified that the Lord has throughout the ages used a successful formulae for evangelising the world, without the need to revert to a gnostic universal one world religious system built up on half truths (many cornerstones).

 

[Berean777]

What you are saying sounds like Sabellianism. Are you saying that right now in heaven there is only One Being?

Three persons, the Father (invisible Yahweh), the Son (visible Yahweh) and the Holy Ghost that proceeds from the invisible Yahweh. But there is one infinite being called Yahweh.

One infinite being/substance who is God, three distinct personalities (persona's).

 

[Berean777]

Universalism is a nasty heresy, but it is not inherently Gnostic.

Very good. The point that I have been making is that the 1st century apostles had faced this heresy and so the context is from the gospels. Essentially within the gospel context it was inherently Gnostic in play as a apostate infiltration within the body, that the apostles had to purge out real quickly before the damage was done.

Unfortunately as Paul states in one of his epistles, where the wolves did manage to infiltrate in the 2nd century, long after the apostles departure and it became cryptic within the Christian religion, even at the time of the church fathers which contended with those elements and the creeds were evidence of this.

Recently what lies beneath has again started to emerge within the church. Whether we want to accept it or not we have infiltrators amongst our numbers today just as it was throughout the centuries,Mehdi are advocating universal salvation.

Therefore by definition this agenda is Gnostic.