Trinity?

Yes. All members wearing christian icons on these forums should believe in trinity or they are wearing the wrong icon. That's part of the definition CF uses. All congregational subforums at CF require this.

The trinity is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit

ChurchofChrist said:

The trinity is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit

Click to expand...

Indeed.

ChurchofChrist said:

The trinity is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit

Click to expand...

Are you sure...because the concept of the trinity didn't come around untill 3rd and 4th century. i understand that christ is god, but does it say in the nt that the holy spirit is god also

Flatscan82 said:

Are you sure...because the concept of the trinity didn't come around untill 3rd and 4th century. i understand that christ is god, but does it say in the nt that the holy spirit is god also

Click to expand...

The word "Trinity" was used in the 3rd century. The Nicene Creed was written in 325. But they reflect the teaching of the Bible.

Ths. Campbell was tried for heresy because he wouldn't use the word - he was tried for days, and the outcome was that his beliefs were completely within the concept of the Trinity - he just wouldn't use the word.

Constance

Yes I believe in the trinity!

constance said:

The word "Trinity" was used in the 3rd century. The Nicene Creed was written in 325. But they reflect the teaching of the Bible.

Ths. Campbell was tried for heresy because he wouldn't use the word - he was tried for days, and the outcome was that his beliefs were completely within the concept of the Trinity - he just wouldn't use the word.

Constance

Click to expand...

Can you please cite the sources that you used for this information? I am aware of an article that Thomas Campbell wrote for the Redstrone Baptists Association on the "Trinity" in which he never used that word. This was not a trial, and this article was very well received by all members of the association, and those "trinitarians" not in the association as well.

ChurchofChrist said:

The trinity is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit

Click to expand...

No, your terminology is wrong. The Trinity consists of the FATHER, the Word (or Son) and the Spirit. All three Persons of the Godhead are God.

Though the term 'trinity' is man-made the doctrine outlining the nature and Being of God is not - that God is triune is inferred from Genesis to Revelation. And, contrary to belief, the concept of the Trinity is NOT a NT revelation. The OT speaks of the Persons of the Trinity in more than one instance -

Isaiah 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto me (Jesus of Nazareth the Christ), hear ye this; from the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord Jehovah (the Father) hath sent me, and his Spirit (the Holy Spirit).
'The Lord Jehovah has sent Me, and His Spirit' - One God in plurality

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit (the Holy Spirit) of the Lord Jehovah (the Father) is upon me (Jesus of Nazareth the Christ); because Jehovah hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Isaiah 63:8-10 For he (the Father) said, Surely, they are my people, children that will not deal falsely: so he was their Saviour (Jesus of Nazareth the Christ, Saviour). In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled, and grieved his holy Spirit (the Holy Spirit): therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them.

Zechariah 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow (lit. My equal), saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me(Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ): and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts (the Father).

Genesis 1:26-27 'God said, let Us make man in Our image after Our likeness..and God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him.' (cf. Genesis 3:22; 11:6-7.)
The general term for 'God' is Elohim, whereas YHWH (i.e. 'the LORD') is His personal name. There are three possible personal numbers in Hebrew: singular, dual, and plural, the last-mentioned indicating three or more, and Elohim is of this kind - plural. It would be natural then to translate it as 'gods', save that it is followed by a singular verb, and there is interchange between singular and plural pronouns (as in Gen 1:26,27)

Isaiah 6:8 'I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?'. cf. Zechariah 2:8 with v 9 and v 11
- the Lord sends someone who is the Lord! Hence there is a distinction within God.

Isaiah 6:3 'Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts'. (cf. Revelations 4:8)
The threefold ascription of praise to God is significant to our understanding of God as a triune Being.

These all indicate that the Old Testament sees a plurality in the Godhead, a distinction of persons within God.




Ray

Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I worship all three.

aggie03 said:

Can you please cite the sources that you used for this information? I am aware of an article that Thomas Campbell wrote for the Redstrone Baptists Association on the "Trinity" in which he never used that word. This was not a trial, and this article was very well received by all members of the association, and those "trinitarians" not in the association as well.

Click to expand...

My husband passed this info on to me and he has to choose between finding the source and finishing his dissertation or preparing to negotiate for a pastoral position.



He thinks that it's either in the biography of Alexander Campbell by Richardson or Garrett's book on the Disciples. Of course, these are the two standard sources so he might just be confused.

In the meantime, how 'bout this, from
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tcb/TCB211.HTM
(this is Alexander Campbell talking)

It is one thing to speak of divine truths in our own language, and another to adopt a fixed style of expressing revealed truths to the exclusion of, or in preference to, that fixed by the Spirit, and sometimes, too, at variance with it. For instance, the terms Trinity, first and second person of--Eternal Son, and the eternal procession of the Spirit, are now the fixed style in speaking of God, his Son Jesus Christ, and of the Spirit, in reference to their "personal character." Now this is not the style of the oracles of God. It is all human, and may be as freely criticised as one of the numbers of the Spectator. Yet because of the sanctified character of these terms, having been baptized, or authorized by the orthodox and pious for centuries, it is at the risque of my reputation for orthodoxy, and at the expense of being charged with heresy, that I simply affirm that they are terms that the wisdom of this world teaches, and not the Spirit of God. I would not be startled to hear that I have denied the faith and rejected the revealed character of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because I have said that the fixed style in speaking of them in the popular establishments is of human origin and of the language of Ashdod, and not of the language of Canaan. This, however, only proves that the terms of human philosophy are held more sacred, than the words of the Holy Spirit.
These terms originate new doctrines. Thus the term "trinity" gives rise to the doctrine of the trinity. And what fierce controversies have originated out of this doctrine! How many creeds and martyrs has it made! Courteous and pious reader, would it not be as wise, as humble, and as modest, too, for us, on such topics, to prefer the words of the Holy Spirit, and to speak of God, his Son, and Spirit, as the apostles did. Moreover, these terms do not help our conceptions of God at all. They rather impede than facilitate our understanding the divine oracles. It is more difficult to conceive of an eternal Son eternally begotten, and of a Spirit eternally proceeding, than to understand anything God has ever spoken to men. And see on what a slender thread those distinctions hang! Because Jesus Christ told his disciples that he would send them the Spirit, which Spirit would or was to proceed from his Father, or to be sent forth by his Father as well as by himself; therefore the schoolmen affirm that the Spirit eternally proceeded, or was eternally coming from the Father!! This is the whole thread on which this "doctrine" hangs. I only instance this, and cannot now pause on the others.

Click to expand...

I worship God. He is all three in one. Not sure if that has a specific name, but I don't believe they are seperate, they are all three in one.

constance said:

My husband passed this info on to me and he has to choose between finding the source and finishing his dissertation or preparing to negotiate for a pastoral position.



He thinks that it's either in the biography of Alexander Campbell by Richardson or Garrett's book on the Disciples. Of course, these are the two standard sources so he might just be confused.

In the meantime, how 'bout this, from
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tcb/TCB211.HTM
(this is Alexander Campbell talking)

Click to expand...

I hope you don't mind my getting into a historical discussion with you From what I can recall, the article that you have put forward was written by Alexander - I thought Thomas was the one in question about being put on trial?

Regardless, the article you quoted from was from the Christian Baptist, which if I recall correctly, was a periodical that Alexander and Thomas both wrote in (Alexander the lion's share) during and after the time of their association with the "Redstone Baptist Association". It was titled "Christian" because Alexander believed that is what all "believers" should be called and baptist because he believed in immersion rather than other forms of "baptism".

If I remember correctly, neither Thomas or Alexander fell out of favor with the organization due to anything that they wrote concerning the "Godhead". Alexander preached a sermon in 1816 - now called the "Sermon on the Law" (it may have been titled that in 1816, too ) - that detailed the relationship between the Old and New Covenant. Hid views on this topic were not very popular with the Association, and there was a great deal of discussion that followed. This was what caused the eventual breach between the Campbell's and the Association.

After they left this group, I'm not sure who would have put either of them on trial - I don't believe that they formally belonged to any denominational group who would have had authority over them. Perhaps, you are referring to some of the problems that Thomas had in Ireland before coming to the US?

I surely don't want to disturb your husband's studies - and this isn't something incredible important. It's vaguely on topic and interests me very much, though If you happen to have a chance to look into these things more I would really appreciate it. I love discussing history.

Hahah.

I just told mrconstance to come here and answer this question.

if you PM mrconstance maybe he will come in here and talk to you his very self. Because if it's not reformation I just don't want to know any more...

La la la la la la

I'll put it this way. If you look at the very first book of the Bible in the very first chapter in the very first sentence it mentions the Trinity. Not in English, mind you. The Hebrew word used in Genesis there is 'Elohim'. Now we all know that the Arabic word for God is 'Allah'. Well, languages are related to one another, and the Hebrew word for God is 'Elah'. Why then does the Bible use 'Elohim'? Well, because it's plural. That's right plural. I could go on and on about theology and such, but in the end it gives us one of two choices: A) Judaism was a made up religion that evolved out of polytheism. B) The word is a sort of plural that does not translate perfectly into English and refers to the Trinity. The choice is yours.

Amen.

Aggie, mrconstance -

Why don't you start a new thread to talk about the Campbellites?

Many people get really upset if you say something about the trinity; but I must ask are we seeking truth or just defending our turf.

I have heard there are probably over two hundred different names or natures of God in the Bible. God has many natures and characters and I cannot find the word trinity in any of them. Elohim speaks of duality not the trinity.

If I was a Jew I would declare there is just one God in fact a Jew would get real upset with you if you tried to tell him God is three any thing, not one. Elohim was used in Ps 82 and it speaks of mankind and our fallen nature.


The only name used in the first chapter of Genesis, is GOD, or Elohim. This is the name we need to know before all others. And I declare, His children would have more peace if they knew it! Elohim, in the Hebrew, means "to swear." It describes One who stands i n a covenant-relationship ratified by an oath.

Psalm 110:4 says, "The Lord sware and will not repent. . . "and this was prior to creation. So, before He even made man, God made a covenant concerning him! Under this name we see God, according to His own will, working on a dark and ruined creation till, by His Word, all is set in order and made very good. He brings back His light and life and then His image into the creature. In virtue of His own nature and covenant-relationship to His creation, He can never leave it, fallen as it is, till all again is very good.

I have no problem with the fact that God has three manifestations; not three persons; the word person when it comes to the Godhead is put their by religion and cannot not even be found in the translation.

In fact the word Godhead was added by the translators: Strong’s Dictionary Number 2304 theios (thi'-os); from 2316; godlike (neuter as noun, divinity): notice you cannot find the word godhead in the strong’s translation. King James Version mistranslated it godhead. The proper translation would be devine or godlike.

Who sent the comforter Jesus or the Father? Gal 4:6 and because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (KJV) Jesus was not a representation of himself; he was a representation of an invisible God. God was in was in Christ; this was not an independent act of Jesus.

GeorgeE said:

In fact the word Godhead was added by the translators: Strong’s Dictionary Number 2304 theios (thi'-os); from 2316; godlike (neuter as noun, divinity): notice you cannot find the word godhead in the strong’s translation. King James Version mistranslated it godhead. The proper translation would be devine or godlike.

Click to expand...

Collosians 2:9:
For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity 4 bodily,

You are begging the question. How can the fullness (100%) of a deity dwell inside a a creature? That would make the creature that has 100% deity of the first, a second God.

1 Tim 2:5

Click to expand...

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (KJV)
​

Click to expand...

No argument here. Christ being the eternal Word of God and as True Man is the perfect mediator between The father and man,as per the Nicene Creed.​

John 15:26

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (KJV)​

Click to expand...

Yes, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. But he too can be lied too, can be blasphemed, and can grieve etc.​

​

I'm confused. While beleif in the Nicene Creed is a requirement to be defined as Christian according the over-all forum guidelines, one of the defining principles of the Restoration Movement is that it does NOT require beleif in any Creed, including the Nicene Creed. This seems a contradiction.

As trinitarianism in outlined the Nicene Creed but is not so specifically outlined in the Bible it would seem that the Restoration Movement does not, or at least should not, require beleif in a Trinity.

tsukino_Rei said:

I'm confused. While beleif in the Nicene Creed is a requirement to be defined as Christian according the over-all forum guidelines, one of the defining principles of the Restoration Movement is that it does NOT require beleif in any Creed, including the Nicene Creed. This seems a contradiction.

As trinitarianism in outlined the Nicene Creed but is not so specifically outlined in the Bible it would seem that the Restoration Movement does not, or at least should not, require beleif in a Trinity.

Click to expand...

There are two types of restoration movements. One type is the Orthodox trinitarian movements like the Trinitarian Bible Society and couple others. The other are heterodox movements that deny the trinity is some form or fashion such as the Mormons, JWs, Old guard SDAs, etc.