Poll for belief in the trinity as a requirement for membership

[GuardianShua]

So Paul is a denomination?

2Co 13:13 All the saints greet you.
2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.

My understanding of that verse is intirely different than yours.

 

[DeanM]

Has anyone noticed a parallel between the discussion here, and the process used to sort out immigrants at Ellis island?

The board here is called nondenominational, and that's all it says. Persons who do not fall into the categories of existing denomination, you would think, should be welcome here.

But, like on Ellis Island, the plaque read "Give us you poor, your tired, your huddled masses." Only to find out that the immigrants went through a screening process to find out if they were skilled laborers. Many who lacked skills were turned away.

I'm not voting here, nor trying to sway votes. I'm just making an observation that this voting process seems to be to allow this forum to cherry-pick its membership based on a criteria that has nothing to do with the name of this subforum.

And the fact that this decision will be based on majority rules instead of a policy of keeping true to its name, frankly sends a shiver down my spine.

I hope that I do not upset the ongoing process here, nor step on any toes. That is not my intent. But I see a minority that is quietly being swept under the carpet by a majority. And who are the people that are being cast away? Jesus-loving and God worshipping folks who have come to this final outer fringe of ND hoping to share and learn.

And some of these folks may speak harshly as they cry out for justice. If you were about to swept away from the last vestige of the Christian faith that would accept you, would you go down without a fight?

In my case, i will not fight, not even vote. I have said my views. I wonder where the compassion that Christ taught to us has gone.

And all this over a word. A single word. No matter what word you picked, you could have started a division. Try "love" or "God" or "sin" or "belief". I've seen all these words get debated. Which word will be picked next when the majority decides to cast off Jesus-loving Christians? What word will spell your final removal from the majority?

 

[psalms 91]

Actually, what we have here is an ongoing process to define who we are and to bring peace to this board. Erwin has many sections created so that everyone has a place to go to with believers that share their beliefs and also has sections for spirited debate between those beliefs. Everyone is represented. I have no idea what this board will end up as a statement of faith and membership, at this point I am just sitting back watching and hoping that whatever is done is done without just talking about it as we really need a WIKI that is snapshotted and the only way to get there is to hash these things out. I wish you all the best as you continue to work this process. I also pray that someone will contribute to the WIKI as to beliefs and it can be shaped into what we will accept and so on. I believe that we all want a semblance of peace and order and the only way to bring that about is through WIKI. I will just watch and vote, but it is up to all the members to put the work in. I will contribute when asked but do not want to appear to drive anything so will just watch and see where we go.

 

[GuardianShua]

Have you noticed that Non Trinitarin Christians don't mind being asked or challenged, about why they don't believe in Trinitarism.

 

[DeanM]

Have you noticed that Non Trinitarin Christians don't mind being asked or challenged, about why they don't believe in Trinitarism.

No, Michael, i had not noticed that.

Unfortunately, what I have noticed is harsh words and put-downs from both sides, and this includes you (and at one time, me).

Please do not take my observation as an attack on anyone. I'm afraid that I see this upcoming division as a way to separate those who tend to argue the loudest. Loud people are not wanted here.

It saddens me that the discussion here really has taken on the characteristics of a 'cleansing'. That's why I'm not voting. If this passes, I will be the first one swept out, and not because of my view of the trinity, but because I do not refer to myself as christian.

And I will be sad to go, but my spirit will be lifted that I have been given a sign that this place seeks to cause further division among the followers of Christ. I think we've been divided enough, personally.

And to you, Michael, I say this. Wherever we end up, I wish you the best. You and I differ in that you are willing to fight to stay somewhere that you are unwanted, and I am not willing to fight for it. But even with our differences, I applaud your drive, and I know that your strength comes from your faith in God.

 

[GuardianShua]

Actually, what we have here is an ongoing process to define who we are and to bring peace to this board. Erwin has many sections created so that everyone has a place to go to with believers that share their beliefs and also has sections for spirited debate between those beliefs. Everyone is represented. I have no idea what this board will end up as a statement of faith and membership, at this point I am just sitting back watching and hoping that whatever is done is done without just talking about it as we really need a WIKI that is snapshotted and the only way to get there is to hash these things out. I wish you all the best as you continue to work this process. I also pray that someone will contribute to the WIKI as to beliefs and it can be shaped into what we will accept and so on. I believe that we all want a semblance of peace and order and the only way to bring that about is through WIKI. I will just watch and vote, but it is up to all the members to put the work in. I will contribute when asked but do not want to appear to drive anything so will just watch and see where we go.

Im not a Morman, Unitarian, SDA or a Jehovah Witness and I don't want to talk about Non Nicene Theology only. Nor do I want to be isolated from other Non Denom Christians.

 

[GuardianShua]

No, Michael, i had not noticed that.

Unfortunately, what I have noticed is harsh words and put-downs from both sides, and this includes you (and at one time, me).

Please do not take my observation as an attack on anyone. I'm afraid that I see this upcoming division as a way to separate those who tend to argue the loudest. Loud people are not wanted here.

It saddens me that the discussion here really has taken on the characteristics of a 'cleansing'. That's why I'm not voting. If this passes, I will be the first one swept out, and not because of my view of the trinity, but because I do not refer to myself as christian.

And I will be sad to go, but my spirit will be lifted that I have been given a sign that this place seeks to cause further division among the followers of Christ. I think we've been divided enough, personally.

And to you, Michael, I say this. Wherever we end up, I wish you the best. You and I differ in that you are willing to fight to stay somewhere that you are unwanted, and I am not willing to fight for it. But even with our differences, I applaud your drive, and I know that your strength comes from your faith in God.

It's not easy to responed kindly to people calling you Satan, blasphemer, heretic, or making other false allegations.

 

[DeanM]

It's not easy to responed kindly to people calling you Satan, blasphemer, heretic, or making other false allegations.

You are 100% correct. It is not easy to stand up to namecalling.

I have been called all these things, and a few others. At one point, I had put together a post with a few of the best quotes against me that I had ever seen.

But some of the harshest words said on these boards, I'm sad to say, come from you Michael.

Now, before you get angry with me, let me add a few things. I am not trying to distance myself from you. Lord knows that I have been incredibly rude to people here before. And I'm not saying that you have never been provoked. I've read what has been said to you in the past. Much of it was below the belt. You certainly could make a strong case for defending yourself.

But, as an outside observer, I also notice one other thing. You are (sometimes) being baited into fights, and you never back down, so we have big fights here. Check my signature to see how I get baited (this past week).

What can you do? Well, for me, I try to assess whether a poster may be trying to bait me into a fight. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Dunno if you ever looked at it like that or not. I still have a few folks that try to bait me from time to time.

I used to tangle with folks that I thought deserved it. Now I really try not to. Like you said "it's not easy."

You are very correct. It's not easy.

And even if you try to stop fighting, there will always be somebody who still has a bone to pick with you. There always will be. But some of the more caring folks will come around, and in time, treat you with civility again.

I have learned that nothing devalues a point of view as much as some berating put-downs tagged onto it.

I'm not chastising you, Michael, as I was once perhaps even more acid tongued than anyone you've ever met here. I'm not happy about it, but it is my own fault, and I continue to pay the price, even now.

But there is a benefit to toning down. I have actually made a friend or two that I have literaly nothing in common with in terms of beliefs.

You have a fire and a drive that I respect, Michael. Your strength comes from your faith in God. That is noble. And you and I are in the same boat, as we are about to be cast away over one single doctrinal word.

It's not easy. No-sir-ee. But what if you were to be on the lookout for people baiting you into fights? What if you let your beliefs stand on their own merit and did not couple them with put-downs? It's not easy. I'd love to tell you that if I can do it, anybody can, but that would be a lie. I try to let my words stand on their own merit. Sometimes i want to jump through the computer and give somebody a piece of my mind. I haven't really pulled it (pacifism) off yet, but I'm still trying. I think that's all you can do; try.

But you're right. It's not easy. But is it worth a try?

 

[Svt4Him]

Which is why it's best to have some foundational beliefs, and this is one of them. This forum is not open to all, that was agreed in the beginning.

What I've noticed are things like:

I use to believe that- This is my favorite as it's so smug
That is the docrtine of man
It's a false doctrine
It's because the Bible is corrupted by the RC church
These are not statements that open the floor to discussion, and I do not want this forum like that.

So again I ask, when does this poll close?

 

[GuardianShua]

You are 100% correct. It is not easy to stand up to namecalling.

I have been called all these things, and a few others. At one point, I had put together a post with a few of the best quotes against me that I had ever seen.

But some of the harshest words said on these boards, I'm sad to say, come from you Michael.

Now, before you get angry with me, let me add a few things. I am not trying to distance myself from you. Lord knows that I have been incredibly rude to people here before. And I'm not saying that you have never been provoked. I've read what has been said to you in the past. Much of it was below the belt. You certainly could make a strong case for defending yourself.

But, as an outside observer, I also notice one other thing. You are (sometimes) being baited into fights, and you never back down, so we have big fights here. Check my signature to see how I get baited (this past week).

What can you do? Well, for me, I try to assess whether a poster may be trying to bait me into a fight. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Dunno if you ever looked at it like that or not. I still have a few folks that try to bait me from time to time.

I used to tangle with folks that I thought deserved it. Now I really try not to. Like you said "it's not easy."

You are very correct. It's not easy.

And even if you try to stop fighting, there will always be somebody who still has a bone to pick with you. There always will be. But some of the more caring folks will come around, and in time, treat you with civility again.

I have learned that nothing devalues a point of view as much as some berating put-downs tagged onto it.

I'm not chastising you, Michael, as I was once perhaps even more acid tongued than anyone you've ever met here. I'm not happy about it, but it is my own fault, and I continue to pay the price, even now.

But there is a benefit to toning down. I have actually made a friend or two that I have literaly nothing in common with in terms of beliefs.

You have a fire and a drive that I respect, Michael. Your strength comes from your faith in God. That is noble. And you and I are in the same boat, as we are about to be cast away over one single doctrinal word.

It's not easy. No-sir-ee. But what if you were to be on the lookout for people baiting you into fights? What if you let your beliefs stand on their own merit and did not couple them with put-downs? It's not easy. I'd love to tell you that if I can do it, anybody can, but that would be a lie. I try to let my words stand on their own merit. Sometimes i want to jump through the computer and give somebody a piece of my mind. I haven't really pulled it (pacifism) off yet, but I'm still trying. I think that's all you can do; try.

But you're right. It's not easy. But is it worth a try?

thank you for your advise DeanM.

 

[GuardianShua]

Which is why it's best to have some foundational beliefs, and this is one of them. This forum is not open to all, that was agreed in the beginning.

What I've noticed are things like:

I use to believe that- This is my favorite as it's so smug
That is the docrtine of man
It's a false doctrine
It's because the Bible is corrupted by the RC church
These are not statements that open the floor to discussion, and I do not want this forum like that.

So again I ask, when does this poll close?

Any advise on how I should have worded, doctrine of man, false doctrine, mistranslation and ect.

 

[HypnoToad]

based on a criteria that has nothing to do with the name of this subforum.

Again, Non-Denominational does NOT mean every person believing anything they want is a member. It means the CONGREGATION can choose its own statement of faith, and then everyone who comes to the congregation is expected to affirm that statement of belief.

Just because members of this congregation want to include the Trinity in their statement of faith in NO way goes against Non-Denominationalism.

Non-Denominational is not WWMC. Some of you may need to write that down 100 times for it to sink in.

What is the purpose of allowing anyone and anything with no regulation whatsoever?? What will be the purpose of this forum if you make it IDENTICAL to the General Theology and General Apologetics forums? Why have the Non-Denomination forum at all??

 

[DeanM]

Again, Non-Denominational does NOT mean every person believing anything they want is a member. It means the CONGREGATION can choose its own statement of faith, and then everyone who comes to the congregation is expected to affirm that statement of belief.

I agree with this. I think that guidelines such as a belief in God do make sense. Jesus and the holy Spirit would make sense as well.

Just because members of this congregation want to include the Trinity in their statement of faith in NO way goes against Non-Denominationalism.

You may be correct, but it just feels wrong to me. I'm sorry.

Non-Denominational is not WWMC. Some of you may need to write that down 100 times for it to sink in.

I have a hard time spelling whomsoever even one time! Of course I'm kidding~

But, for example, say a new convert to Christianity came here with only the most basic understanding that Christ died for their sins. Wouldn't something as complicated as the understanding of "the indivisable oneness of the trinity" not be a possible stumbling block?

What is the purpose of allowing anyone and anything with no regulation whatsoever?? What will be the purpose of this forum if you make it IDENTICAL to the General Theology and General Apologetics forums? Why have the Non-Denomination forum at all??

I agree that some regulation may be warranted. All of your points are clear and well thought out. I just think that something so disagreed on as the trinity might not be a good choice for a delineator. Just look how many varied responses to what the trinity is we see on these threads. Add to that the fact that is not an easy concept to grasp, and also the fact that there are a number of people here who are nondenomination christians who do not accept the trinity.

It is in this instance that I take issue.

Perhaps you want to keep out undesirables, and keep only nondenominational christians. Personally, I don't necessarily think that all non-christians would be undesirable here, but let's focus on some of the folks who are already here. There are folks who fit the definition of ND christians to a T, but will soon be asked to step down over one single word.

And it might be easier to say 'good riddance' to them if your perceive them as troublemakers. Let's be honest, some of them are!

But can you really blame them for starting a few arguments? After all, they consider themselves ND in an ND forum, but yet will soon asked to leave because their definition of ND does not include accepting a very popular, yet non-biblical word as a mandatory belief.

I admit, XianJedi, that you are well meaning and certainly level-headed. I have often admired you for your understanding of God's word. And I will reflect on what you have said here today because I do have a respect for you.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, XianJedi. You have made a lot of sense here.

 

[Svt4Him]

But, for example, say a new convert to Christianity came here with only the most basic understanding that Christ died for their sins. Wouldn't something as complicated as the understanding of "the indivisable oneness of the trinity" not be a possible stumbling block?

You think it would be more of a stumbling block than coming here and listening to how Jesus isn't really God? Sorry, I think finding out truth is what sets people free, and encouraging beliefs that don't adhere to these truths is more of a stumbling block that being so open minded our brains fall out.

 

[Cris413]

<snip>

But can you really blame them for starting a few arguments? After all, they consider themselves ND in an ND forum, but yet will soon asked to leave because their definition of ND does not include accepting a very popular, yet non-biblical word as a mandatory belief.

Hi Dean,

First I would like to say the change in your attitude is notable...

Even though the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible...neither are the words "Bible" nor "biblical"...but there is a very common understanding of what these words mean. (which there are many who argue that the word "Bible" as unbiblical.... )

The etymology of "bible"

plural of biblion book, diminutive of byblos papyrus, book, from Byblos:

Joh 20:30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; (translated from biblion where we get the word bible)


The etymology of the word "trinity"


Middle English trinite, from Anglo-French trinité, from Late Latin trinitat-, trinitas state of being threefold, from Latin trinus threefold

Personally....I prefer the term "Triunity" but I am certainly not going to spilt that hair with someone who prefers "Trinity"

The point is...the triunity of God is all through Scripture...

To deny the Trinity or the Triune God...is to deny the identity of Jesus Christ as God...no matter what type of complicated spin or interpretation one should like to put on it.

It's not the word "Trinity" that is an issue here...it's the concept of the Triunity of God...

God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

We can have disagreement regarding the word "trinity"...as long as the concept remains the triunity of God and in no wise lessens the fact that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are equal to God the Father in the form of One God...

This is the basic and simple truth of the Triunity of God and anyone who tries to make it more complicated than that is simply trying to confound the true identity, power and authority of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit....

Which...without these two unified as God and with God the Father as One...makes a relationship with God and salvation unattainable....

Pretty important stuff...


Again... on the new 'tude...

 

[DeanM]

Hi Dean,

First I would like to say the change in your attitude is notable...

Even though the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible...neither are the words "Bible" nor "biblical"...but there is a very common understanding of what these words mean. (which there are many who argue that the word "Bible" as unbiblical.... )

You make a good point.

The etymology of "bible"

plural of biblion book, diminutive of byblos papyrus, book, from Byblos:

Joh 20:30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; (translated from biblion where we get the word bible)


The etymology of the word "trinity"


Middle English trinite, from Anglo-French trinité, from Late Latin trinitat-, trinitas state of being threefold, from Latin trinus threefold

Personally....I prefer the term "Triunity" but I am certainly not going to spilt that hair with someone who prefers "Trinity"

I agree totaly.

The point is...the triunity of God is all through Scripture...

Yes and no. I agree that we do see plenty of evidence for it, and I myself do believe in the trinity. But we also see evidence that the components of the trinity are independent as well. Your statement is quite true, but there is an addition that there are times where, for example, Jesus refers to His Father. I understand the oneness, but can you blame others for seeing this as one entity refering to another?

To deny the Trinity or the Triune God...is to deny the identity of Jesus Christ as God...no matter what type of complicated spin or interpretation one should like to put on it.

I can see your point. But this 'spin' might be no more than someone's interpretation; right or wrong, I cannot see it precluding one from being a ND Christian. I suppose that if we asked the folks that do not accept trinitarianism if they considered themselves Christians, that they would answer in the positive. And wouldn't their own sense of Christianity be all that should matter?

It's not the word "Trinity" that is an issue here...it's the concept of the Triunity of God...

God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Then, perhaps, if the new rule was stated this way, we would have far less problems. I like your definition. It may not be enough to bring everyone back to the fold, but it would certainly be a compromise that should go a long way toward reuniting the splintered factions here.
You may have just put forth an idea that could help bring us all together again.

We can have disagreement regarding the word "trinity"...as long as the concept remains the triunity of God and in no wise lessens the fact that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are equal to God the Father in the form of One God...

This is the basic and simple truth of the Triunity of God and anyone who tries to make it more complicated than that is simply trying to confound the true identity, power and authority of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit....

I honestly don't know enough about the issue to comment with anything of value. I do know that there are some Christians who do not accept the idea of the trinity. This would seem to be impossible if what you said was completely true in the eyes of these Christians.
~I am just guessing at this~

Which...without these two unified as God and with God the Father as One...makes a relationship with God and salvation unattainable....

Pretty important stuff...

Ok, here's where I am going to split off from you a little more, Cris. I take issue with your conclusion about whether or not salvation is attainable to these Christians. I know that this may be a point of great debate, as i can think of scriptures that would support your idea, as well as scriptures that would not.

You may have noticed that I sometimes take issue with anyone who makes claims of what God will or will not do, such as saving a particular person. When you say that salvation is unattainable, this strikes me as one of those statements. God and God alone has full understanding of His plan. We may study and learn from the scripture (and from eachother), but God's judgement rests with God alone. I truly believe this.

It is on this premise that I take issue. If this vote should pass, as it looks like it probably will, some Christians will be removed from membership. And these are Christians. Some may not believe them to be Christians at all. I cannot trust my judgement in this regard over God's judgement.

But we may found a possible solution! As you have posted earlier, perhaps a wording similar to what you have stated could make the difference. The word 'trinity' could be removed, and the simple definition that you provided could be substituted. It may not be a total fix, but would this idea be amenable to you?

Again... on the new 'tude...

Thank you Cris. It's a struggle every day. Let's hope it lasts. With God's grace, I pray it can.

 

[Zecryphon]

You make a good point.



I agree totaly.



Yes and no. I agree that we do see plenty of evidence for it, and I myself do believe in the trinity. But we also see evidence that the components of the trinity are independent as well. Your statement is quite true, but there is an addition that there are times where, for example, Jesus refers to His Father. I understand the oneness, but can you blame others for seeing this as one entity refering to another?



I can see your point. But this 'spin' might be no more than someone's interpretation; right or wrong, I cannot see it precluding one from being a ND Christian. I suppose that if we asked the folks that do not accept trinitarianism if they considered themselves Christians, that they would answer in the positive. And wouldn't their own sense of Christianity be all that should matter?



Then, perhaps, if the new rule was stated this way, we would have far less problems. I like your definition. It may not be enough to bring everyone back to the fold, but it would certainly be a compromise that should go a long way toward reuniting the splintered factions here.
You may have just put forth an idea that could help bring us all together again.



I honestly don't know enough about the issue to comment with anything of value. I do know that there are some Christians who do not accept the idea of the trinity. This would seem to be impossible if what you said was completely true in the eyes of these Christians.
~I am just guessing at this~



Ok, here's where I am going to split off from you a little more, Cris. I take issue with your conclusion about whether or not salvation is attainable to these Christians. I know that this may be a point of great debate, as i can think of scriptures that would support your idea, as well as scriptures that would not.

You may have noticed that I sometimes take issue with anyone who makes claims of what God will or will not do, such as saving a particular person. When you say that salvation is unattainable, this strikes me as one of those statements. God and God alone has full understanding of His plan. We may study and learn from the scripture (and from eachother), but God's judgement rests with God alone. I truly believe this.

It is on this premise that I take issue. If this vote should pass, as it looks like it probably will, some Christians will be removed from membership. And these are Christians. Some may not believe them to be Christians at all. I cannot trust my judgement in this regard over God's judgement.

But we may found a possible solution! As you have posted earlier, perhaps a wording similar to what you have stated could make the difference. The word 'trinity' could be removed, and the simple definition that you provided could be substituted. It may not be a total fix, but would this idea be amenable to you?



Thank you Cris. It's a struggle every day. Let's hope it lasts. With God's grace, I pray it can.

I think you can do it Dean. Remember after like a week or so, it becomes habit to not return insult for insult. Remember what I told you about people in internet forums and their impact on your life? Remember that and then there's two ways to look at involvement in a flame war. PM me if you'd like me to explain it to you.

 

[DeanM]

I think you can do it Dean. Remember after like a week or so, it becomes habit to not return insult for insult. Remember what I told you about people in internet forums and their impact on your life? Remember that and then there's two ways to look at involvement in a flame war. PM me if you'd like me to explain it to you.

Yes I do remember, Zecro. Thank for looking out for me, friend.

You have been the greatest help to me finding my new voice. I'll be sure to PM you before I explode on somebody!

Thanks!

 

[Cris413]

<snip>
Yes and no. I agree that we do see plenty of evidence for it, and I myself do believe in the trinity. But we also see evidence that the components of the trinity are independent as well. Your statement is quite true, but there is an addition that there are times where, for example, Jesus refers to His Father. I understand the oneness, but can you blame others for seeing this as one entity refering to another?

This is a good point...Jesus refering to His Father...also acknowledges He was not only fully God...but also fully man.

I can see your point. But this 'spin' might be no more than someone's interpretation; right or wrong, I cannot see it precluding one from being a ND Christian. I suppose that if we asked the folks that do not accept trinitarianism if they considered themselves Christians, that they would answer in the positive. And wouldn't their own sense of Christianity be all that should matter?

I'm going to have to go with "no" here. This is the same theology that "all roads lead to Heaven/God" Simply not true.

There are simple, undeniable foundational truths that are Christianity. The identity, power and authority of Jesus Christ and the The Holy Spirit...One with the Father is one of them. Without the Trinity...Christianity would be polytheistic rather than monotheistic...and pretty much the whole thing crumbles from there.

Then, perhaps, if the new rule was stated this way, we would have far less problems. I like your definition. It may not be enough to bring everyone back to the fold, but it would certainly be a compromise that should go a long way toward reuniting the splintered factions here.
You may have just put forth an idea that could help bring us all together again.

I like the positive outlook...but the bottom line is ...a rose by any other name....simply because I prefer the term Triunity...does not lessen the Trinity. It's the same thing...God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit...God in three persons of the One Godhead.

No matter what terminology we attach to it. Godhead, Fountainhead or Triune God....it's all the same.

Ok, here's where I am going to split off from you a little more, Cris. I take issue with your conclusion about whether or not salvation is attainable to these Christians. I know that this may be a point of great debate, as i can think of scriptures that would support your idea, as well as scriptures that would not.

Let me clarify...I in no way suggested salvation was not attainable to anyone. Please don't confuse what I said with what you may think I said as it applies to anyone...

The point is that only God can reconcile us to Himself. As part of the Trinity.... Jesus has authority as God incarnate. He notes throughout...Whoever saw Him...saw the Father.

We would not have the indwelling of God ...without God The Holy Spirit...God is the only acceptable Spirit to dwell within us. Who but God would have the authority to seal us with His redeeming power. Again, Christains are not polytheistic.

You may have noticed that I sometimes take issue with anyone who makes claims of what God will or will not do, such as saving a particular person. When you say that salvation is unattainable, this strikes me as one of those statements. God and God alone has full understanding of His plan. We may study and learn from the scripture (and from eachother), but God's judgement rests with God alone. I truly believe this.

(bold added for emphasis) Dean...it seems you've taken issue with something I never said...nor implied...I believe I have clarified as noted above...I'm not saying acceptance of the Trinity equates salvation...I'm saying without the Trinity...salvation would not be attainable...Jesus would have not had the authority...nor would the Holy Spirit...unless both are equally God with the Father....

Personally, I fully believe Scripture is the inerrant, infallable word of God in the original language. I also firmly believe it is the living word of God as we are led into wisdom and understanding by the power of the Holy Spirit as we search the Scriptures.

It is on this premise that I take issue. If this vote should pass, as it looks like it probably will, some Christians will be removed from membership. And these are Christians. Some may not believe them to be Christians at all. I cannot trust my judgement in this regard over God's judgement.

I'm not in anyway commenting on who is or is not a Christian...only that there are certain fundamental beliefs that are what defines "Christianity"

But we may found a possible solution! As you have posted earlier, perhaps a wording similar to what you have stated could make the difference. The word 'trinity' could be removed, and the simple definition that you provided could be substituted. It may not be a total fix, but would this idea be amenable to you?

As I said earlier...I honestly do not consider that it's the word "Trinity" that is at issue here...we can call it Triunity...but I do not think it will change the concept to those who do not believe in the Trinity...I could be wrong...

The two words mean the same thing. I use them interchangably all the time...

Thank you Cris. It's a struggle every day. Let's hope it lasts. With God's grace, I pray it can.

With God...all things are possible.

 

[LJSGM]

I do admit, that when dealing with the "trinity," one enters shakey ground. Perhaps we should just outline what God and Jesus are not...

An example would be that Jesus was not "created"