Trinity

[rnmomof7]

Hey rnmomof7
You keep bringing up Armstrong. Are you a former Armstrongite? I hear they have split into all sorts of factions, as the Protestants have done. Incidently, all the verses you quoted are all taken out of context.
I find it to be nonproductive to argue the trinity with trinitarians (so why am I doing it?), since they analogize it in modalistic terms, but deny modalism, and deny its polytheistic nature, but claim threeness, and finally profess faith in a trinity based on total unknowable ignorance.

Well Modalism is hard to make out from scripture , i suspect it is the easiest way to see the trinity so it is a fall back position .


In my younger days I watched his show..he never really dealt with doctrine on that , so it would be hard to sort out what he believed from his show.

Some years later neighbors of my sister in law were WWCoG , nice people , they were very good to them when they were sick.
They invited us to a birthday party and low and behold my cousin was there..yep he and his wife were members. They church members were cold and distant ..very strange for Christians .

That incident made me look into the doctrinal positions.

I have an interest in cults as a result of that inquiry.

A few years later a woman I worked with wanted to go to a WWCoG because she like Armstrongs end time teaching . She wrote to the head office of the church and was told she could not just come to a service , she needed to be invited by a member.

More recently I have engaged a member of that cult in conversation and I have had to study even more.

After the split between father and son and the later death of the father they have indeed split into a clone of the fathers cult (United Church of God)

The WWCoG that is moving into main stream doctrine (not there yet, but very close)

Instead of telling me the scripture is out of context prove it .
Place every one of those scriptures in context for me .

The Godhead of the Bible consists of the Father and Son. The Holy Spirit is the mind of the Father given us through his Son. That's it! Hanegraaff, like others, sets up a 'straw man" by claiming that the Holy Spirit in nontrinitarian terms is merely an unfeeling force like electricity, and then tries to shoot it down with many of the verses you quote.

Prove it

Of course the Holy Spirit has feelings etc., because the Holy Spirit is the mind of the Father, and the mind of Jesus Christ working in total agreement (as one). Try looking at it in those terms.There are many passages that

make this abundantly clear.

Lets have them ..start a thread

When you tell me why jesus called the Holy Spirt HE and spoke of Him as a separate entity you may have a leg to stand on. until then I will take the word of Christ. :>)

I'm not going to take space refuting each of the passages you cited, but if you are serious, I'll go over each of them with you - in context. If the Bible taught the trinity I would be a follower of Athanasius, but then, I guess I would have to become a Roman Catholic to make sure I had access.

There are many theological terms that are not found in scripture..that does not mean they are not correct.

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alter:

Concerning the EO Christians:

From your link, what you posted continues:

That the Trinity is this one God, is also an essential assertion underlying the Orthodox doctrine of theosis. Belief in the Trinity is the indispensible premise of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ: that He alone is the Son of God and the Son of Man, the only one who is ontologically both God and Man [Emphasis added. DA], having both natures, unmixed and distinct, in one person.

The proverbial expression of theosis, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God" (— Athanasius of Alexandria), presupposes the limitations made explicit by the doctrine of the Trinity [Emphasis added. DA]. That is, it is as absurd to suppose that a creature may become the eternally self-existant God, as that God would be changed into a creature. But what would otherwise seem to be absurd, that sinful people may become holy as God is holy [Emphasis added. DA], this has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Substantially the same idea can be expressed in terms more familiar to the Western Church: through the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, Man comes to know and experience what it means to be fully Man (the created image of God); through Man's communion with Jesus Christ God shares Himself with Man, in order to conform Man to all that God is in knowledge, righteousness and holiness.[Emphasis added. DA]

The quote I bolded I have posted on this message board. You were unimpressed. You suggested that “God” is to be understood as “judge.” The EO do not hold to your assumption.

" The quote I bolded I have posted on this message board. You were unimpressed." Context, context, context!

"You suggested that “God” is to be understood as “judge.”" This is an oversimplification and misrepresentation of what I said. Were one to actually read what I wrote, I made that reference when the ECF quoted Psalm 82. You having once again quoted Athanasius, let us see what he actually said. And note, Athanasius also references Ps 82.

Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians. Discourse I

39. Therefore He was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us, Since, if when He became man, only then He was called Son and God, but before He became man, God called the ancient people sons, and made Moses a god of Pharaoh (and Scripture says of many, `God standeth in the congregation of Gods ') [Ps 82. DA], it is plain that He is called Son and God later than they. How then are all things through Him, and He before all? or how is He `first-born of the whole creation ,' if He has others before Him who are called sons and gods? And how is it that those first partakers do not partake of the Word? This opinion is not true; it is a device of our present Judaizers. For how in that case can any at all know God as their Father? for adoption there could not be apart from the real Son, who says, `No one knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him .' And how can there be deifying apart from the Word and before Him? yet, saith He to their brethren the Jews, `If He called them gods, unto whom the Word of God came.' [Jesus quoting Ps 82. DA] And if all that are called sons and gods, whether in earth or in heaven, were adopted and deified through the Word, and the Son Himself is the Word, it is plain that through Him are they all, and He Himself before all, or rather He Himself only is very Son , and He alone is very God from the very God, not receiving these prerogatives as a reward for His virtue, nor being another beside them, but being all these by nature and according to essence. For He is Offspring of the Father's essence, so that one cannot doubt that after the resemblance of the unalterable Father, he Word also is unalterable.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-57.htm#P5255_2056234
​

 

[Peterson]

rnmomof7
I'm sorry that i haven't gotten back to you sooner, but this thread has gone by me without my notice.

I won't go over all the scriptures you cite at this sitting, but I'll hit a few. Apparently you feel that it isn't possible for me to do my own research without being influenced by someone else. My problem has been to divest myself of the Protestant influence in which I was raised. Anyway, I'll hit a few scriptures that you cite as trinity "proofs" and especially those that pertain to the Holy Ghost as a third person.

First you mention 1 John 2:27 as proof of a third personality; the "him" in this verse identifies Jesus Christ, as is made clear in the next verse (28). Christ is the one that "shall appear." The whole emphasis of chapter two is on Jesus Christ. Nowhere in this chapter can one infer a third person of a triadic godhead.

The whole of the Godhead is described in verses 22-24, and that involves the Father and the Son only - no third person.

1 John 4:13; In this chapter, "God is mentioned about 23 times. In each instance it is referring to the Father. In the verse you cite (13), Spirit is mentioned, but it does not refer to a separate entity from the Father. Refer back one verse to v. 12, and you will see that it is the Father that dwells in us. The masculine pronouns "him," "his" and "he" in verse 13 refer to the Father as verses 14 -16 make clear.

1 Corinthians 6:19; What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you?, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Compare this verse with 2 Corinthians 6:16 and verse 18; And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Verse 18; And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Clearly it is the Father himself that indwells Christians with his Spirit and not some third entity.

1 John 5:7 is often cited as proof of the trinity, but there is a question as to the authenticity of this verse.
The Godhead consists of the Father and Son only. All the apostles make this clear, and John gives a warning to those that make the Godhead something else in 2 John 9-10

 

[Der Alte]

rnmomof7
I'm sorry that i haven't gotten back to you sooner, but this thread has gone by me without my notice.

I won't go over all the scriptures you cite at this sitting, but I'll hit a few. Apparently you feel that it isn't possible for me to do my own research without being influenced by someone else. My problem has been to divest myself of the Protestant influence in which I was raised. Anyway, I'll hit a few scriptures that you cite as trinity "proofs" and especially those that pertain to the Holy Ghost as a third person.
* * *
1 John 5:7 is often cited as proof of the trinity, but there is a question as to the authenticity of this verse.
The Godhead consists of the Father and Son only. All the apostles make this clear, and John gives a warning to those that make the Godhead something else in 2 John 9-10

If you are capable of doing independent research, as you stated, why do you not use some of that "research" to support your assertion concerning 1 John 5:7? I have addressed that scripture, on this forum, with documentation dating to about 170 AD.

"The whole of the Godhead is described in verses 22-24, and that involves the Father and the Son only - no third person." Do those verses state categorically that the Godhead consists of the Father and the Son, only, and no other? Or is that what you infer because the H.S. is not mentioned. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Using that logic we could conclude that Jesus only had one or two disciples because some verses do not mention all twelve. Here is a little review of scriptures referring to the Holy Spirit. FYI the words "ghost" and "spirit" translate the same Greek word, pneuma

Why do Trinitarians refer to the Holy Ghost/Spirit as a person, distinct from the Father and the Son? Because the Holy Spirit does all these individual, personal, actions, distinct from the Father and the Son!

The Holy Spirit independently; comforts, reveals, bears witness, helps, has a mind, loves, leads, makes intercession, speaks, anoints, gives utterance (causes to speak), can be tempted, bids (tells, instructs); approves, suffers (permits) and forbids actions; searches hearts and consciences, can be insulted, can be lied to, can be grieved, can be quenched, bears witness; can be blasphemed and spoken against, distinct from the son; teaches, thinks, witnesses, sanctifies, sends and is sent, and ordains to office.

These are all characteristics of a person, not an impersonal force, energy, power, etc.

Ro 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Ro 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities:

Ro 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit,

Ro 15:30 Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit,

Mt 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit

Mt 10:20 the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

Lu 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted,

Ac 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Ac 5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?

Ac 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip,

Ac 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him,

Ac 11:12 And the Spirit bade (told, instructed) me go with them

Ac 16:7 but the Spirit suffered them not.

Ro 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God,

Ro 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: the Spirit itself maketh intercession

1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things,

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly

Heb 10:29 and hath done despite (insult) unto the Spirit of grace?

Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God,

1Th 5:19 Quench not the Spirit.

1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness,

1 Jon 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Re 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches;

Re 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit,

Mt 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Mt 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,

Mr 13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

Lu 2:26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost,

Lu 12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost

Lu 12:12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance

Ac 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Ac 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Ac 16:6 Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,

Ac 20:23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.

Ac 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,

Ac 21:11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost,

Ro 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying,

Re 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say,​

And although I exercised due care and diligence, I'm not sure these are all of the relevant scriptures.

 

[rnmomof7]

If you are capable of doing independent research, as you stated, why do you not use some of that "research" to support your assertion concerning 1 John 5:7? I have addressed that scripture, on this forum, with documentation dating to about 170 AD.

"The whole of the Godhead is described in verses 22-24, and that involves the Father and the Son only - no third person." Do those verses state categorically that the Godhead consists of the Father and the Son, only, and no other? Or is that what you infer because the H.S. is not mentioned. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Using that logic we could conclude that Jesus only had one or two disciples because some verses do not mention all twelve. Here is a little review of scriptures referring to the Holy Spirit. FYI the words "ghost" and "spirit" translate the same Greek word, pneuma

Why do Trinitarians refer to the Holy Ghost/Spirit as a person, distinct from the Father and the Son? Because the Holy Spirit does all these individual, personal, actions, distinct from the Father and the Son!

The Holy Spirit independently; comforts, reveals, bears witness, helps, has a mind, loves, leads, makes intercession, speaks, anoints, gives utterance (causes to speak), can be tempted, bids (tells, instructs); approves, suffers (permits) and forbids actions; searches hearts and consciences, can be insulted, can be lied to, can be grieved, can be quenched, bears witness; can be blasphemed and spoken against, distinct from the son; teaches, thinks, witnesses, sanctifies, sends and is sent, and ordains to office.

These are all characteristics of a person, not an impersonal force, energy, power, etc.

Ro 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Ro 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities:

Ro 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit,

Ro 15:30 Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit,

Mt 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit

Mt 10:20 the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

Lu 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted,

Ac 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Ac 5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?

Ac 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip,

Ac 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him,

Ac 11:12 And the Spirit bade (told, instructed) me go with them

Ac 16:7 but the Spirit suffered them not.

Ro 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God,

Ro 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: the Spirit itself maketh intercession

1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things,

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly

Heb 10:29 and hath done despite (insult) unto the Spirit of grace?

Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God,

1Th 5:19 Quench not the Spirit.

1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness,

1 Jon 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Re 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches;

Re 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit,

Mt 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Mt 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,

Mr 13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

Lu 2:26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost,

Lu 12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost

Lu 12:12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance

Ac 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Ac 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Ac 16:6 Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,

Ac 20:23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.

Ac 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,

Ac 21:11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost,

Ro 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying,

Re 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say,​

And although I exercised due care and diligence, I'm not sure these are all of the relevant scriptures.

Excellent post .

Thanks

 

[xsimmsx]

Excellent post .

Thanks

Terrible Post. The Spirit does nothing Seperate of the Father. The Spirit can't because the Spirit is the Father. The Holy Spirit is God the Father, for he and he alone is the Father of ALL Spirits.

Hebrews 12:9:
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and live?

Ephesians 4:4,6
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling;

6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

So who is in you the Father or the Holy Spirit?

I have both because they are One and the Same Spirit. By the way his name is Jesus.


In Truth fashioned by Love for the Truth,
Joshua

 

[Peterson]

You insist on getting it backwards. The Holy spirit is not a third God. God (Father) is the Holy Spirit. It seems strange that trinitarians argue that the Spirit is not an influence, but a separate entity. Even if this were the case - which it isn't - the effect on humans would still be that of an influence.

I would be highly suspect of the trinitarian concept by just looking at the wretched history of the traditional trinitarian churches from Nicea forward. They have certainly never exhibited the fruits of the Spirit of the Father spoken of in Galatians 5. By their fruits you shall know them (Matthew 7:15-16). Something to think about.

You make several references to Romans 8, as proof of the Holy Spirit being a third person. All one needs do is land on verse 10 and 11 to know that the Spirit is God the Father indwelling Christians through Christ - NO THIRD PERSON. We do not have the mind of a trinity, we have the mind of Christ in us (1 Corinthians 2:16).

No matter how you slice it, trinitarianism is either polytheism, or modalism.

 

[xsimmsx]

You insist on getting it backwards. The Holy spirit is not a third God. God (Father) is the Holy Spirit. It seems strange that trinitarians argue that the Spirit is not an influence, but a separate entity. Even if this were the case - which it isn't - the effect on humans would still be that of an influence.

I would be highly suspect of the trinitarian concept by just looking at the wretched history of the traditional trinitarian churches from Nicea forward. They have certainly never exhibited the fruits of the Spirit of the Father spoken of in Galatians 5. By their fruits you shall know them (Matthew 7:15-16). Something to think about.

You make several references to Romans 8, as proof of the Holy Spirit being a third person. All one needs do is land on verse 10 and 11 to know that the Spirit is God the Father indwelling Christian through Christ - NO THIRD PERSON. We do not have the mind of a trinity, we have the mind of Christ in us (1 Corinthians 2:16).

No matter how you slice it, trinitarianism is either polytheism, or modalism.

Um who are you answering?

 

[Peterson]

xsimmsx
I'm answering any trinitarians who insist on divining scripture with man-made, preconceived notions concerning the Godhead of the Bible, and those who might be led astray by the traditional historic churches that think they are the only authoritative representatives of God's word.

 

[xsimmsx]

xsimmsx
I'm answering any trinitarians who insist on divining scripture with man-made, preconceived notions concerning the Godhead of the Bible, and those who might be led astray by the traditional historic churches that think they are the only authoritative representatives of God's word.

O OK.

In Love,
Joshua

 

[rnmomof7]

xsimmsx
I'm answering any trinitarians who insist on divining scripture with man-made, preconceived notions concerning the Godhead of the Bible, and those who might be led astray by the traditional historic churches that think they are the only authoritative representatives of God's word.

Are you not a Trinitarian?

 

[TOmNossor]

I thought I might put in a small portion of my two cents.

I am a Trinitarian, but not because I believe one who embraces the Bible (or Bible and BOM) can be nothing but a Trinitarian.

Catholic’s are Trinitarians, but many of them know that they are not Trinitarians because the Bible cannot produce anything but Trinitarians.



Before 300AD there were no strictly Trinitarians of the “co-equal” formulation. That is zero Christians who didn’t subordinate Christ to Heavenly Father!

Pre-Nicea there were many men who were Arian. Post-Nicea it took quite a while before the world started to line up behind a Trinitarian structure denying semi-Arian positions.

Augustine struggled with the Trinity for many years (I think it was 15years) and finally formulated what I refer to as the Augustinian Trinitarian structure.



So, if you are a sola scriptura Trinitarian, that is fine. But the history of Christianity suggest that those who embrace sola scriptura do not have to be Trinitarian.

The JWs, whatever Mr. Peterson is, and other non-Trinitarians do have legs to stand on in a sola scriptura world.



Charity, TOm

 

[Der Alte]

Terrible Post. The Spirit does nothing Seperate of the Father. The Spirit can't because the Spirit is the Father. The Holy Spirit is God the Father, for he and he alone is the Father of ALL Spirits.

Hebrews 12:9:
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and live?

Ephesians 4:4,6
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling;

6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

So who is in you the Father or the Holy Spirit?

I have both because they are One and the Same Spirit. By the way his name is Jesus.

In Truth fashioned by Love for the Truth,
Joshua

Terrible post is it? Why? All I did was post scripture and summarize in one paragraph what the scriptures state. The one proof text you posted does not refute anything I posted and that verse does NOT say that "they are One and the Same Spirit."

"By the way his name is Jesus." By the way God's name is NOT Jesus! I have proved it several times and you do not have any answer to my posts. Ex 3:15, God told Moses that His name was YHWH and that would be His name forever and a memorial to all generations. You evidently do not understand the words "forever" or "all generations," because you keep saying that God's name is Jesus. The name Jesus is NOT YHWH, and YHWH is NOT the name Jesus!

If your false un-Biblical view, that Jesus is the name of the Father, were true you would be able to post a reasoned, coherent, answer to this. But since it is not true, you have no answer for Ex 3:15. You posted one vague reference to "I Am" in Ex 3:14 and John 8:58, which did not even address the names Jesus and YHWH.

Until you can answer that verse you have just another false unscriptural, unorthodox, man-made, doctrine with a handful of out-of-context proof texts.

_________________________
Acknowledge that All True Christians will be Arminian in Glory​

!​

​

​

​

 

[Der Alte]

You insist on getting it backwards. The Holy spirit is not a third God.

You are absolutely correct, the Holy Spirit is NOT a third God because there is ONLY one (1) God. Trinitarians do not believe in three Gods. So you are just attacking a straw man. Is this an example of your own research?

God (Father) is the Holy Spirit.

Wrong! Have any scriptures? I posted about 30 or so which shows the H.S. acting independently. One of those clearly shows that the H.S. can be blasphemed distinct from the Son.

It seems strange that trinitarians argue that the Spirit is not an influence, but a separate entity. Even if this were the case - which it isn't - the effect on humans would still be that of an influence.

Another strawman. Of course, the H.S. has and exerts influence. But the H.S. does NOT consist of an influence.

I would be highly suspect of the trinitarian concept by just looking at the wretched history of the traditional trinitarian churches from Nicea forward.

I am highly suspicious of anyone who continually attacks Christianity without any evidence to back them up. I have posted documentary evidence, from the ECF, of the Trinity as early 70 AD.

You evidently have not read that history you are referring to because the Nicaean council did NOT discuss the Trinity, only the relationship of Jesus with the Father. And before you even go there, Constantine did NOT govern the council and did NOT dictate its rulings. Further, Constantine was not even a Trinitarian but an Arian, the 1st century equivalent of a J.W.

They have certainly never exhibited the fruits of the Spirit of the Father spoken of in Galatians 5. By their fruits you shall know them (Matthew 7:15-16). Something to think about.

Oh and you have credible historical evidence that there were absolutely no Christians living, any where, in any generation, practicing what you consider Biblical Christianity? Please do post it.

You make several references to Romans 8, as proof of the Holy Spirit being a third person. All one needs do is land on verse 10 and 11 to know that the Spirit is God the Father indwelling Christians through Christ - NO THIRD PERSON. We do not have the mind of a trinity, we have the mind of Christ in us (1 Corinthians 2:16).

Let us then look at 1 Peter 1:2, where each persona of the Triune God performs a different part in the salvation of the believer. I wonder why Peter, who actually knew Jesus, makes a distinction between God and the H.S., if they are one and the same, as you claim?

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.​

No matter how you slice it, trinitarianism is either polytheism, or modalism.

The doctrine of the Trinity is certainly NOT polytheism and you evidently have no clue what modalism is.

_________________________
Acknowledge that All True Christians will be Arminian in Glory​

!​

​

​

​

 

[Der Alte]

Before 300AD there were no strictly Trinitarians of the “co-equal” formulation. That is zero Christians who didn’t subordinate Christ to Heavenly Father!

Pre-Nicea there were many men who were Arian. Post-Nicea it took quite a while before the world started to line up behind a Trinitarian structure denying semi-Arian positions.

Both assertions are nonsense! Post your evidence and I will refute it. Pre-Nicea there was one bishop who taught Arianism, the one from which it gets it name, Arius, and his few followers.

If there were so many Arians and Arianism was the correct doctrine. Why, at the end of the Nicaean council, were there only two dissenters who refused to sign the accords? Arius was one of them.

As I said in one post, above. Constantine did not rule at the council and did NOT force the council to do or accept anything. Constantine was NOT a Trinitarian, but an Arian. If Constantine wanted to force the church to do anything, it would have been Arianism.

Another fallacy of the argument that Constantine forced the church to accept the Trinity doctrine, or anything else. Constantine had ended the persecution of Christians. Until his reign Chrstians were arrested, tortured and killed, on a massive scale, because they would not deny Jesus and worship the emperor and their pagan idols. Many of the bishops who attended the Nicean council had been victims of that persecution.

It is absurd to assume that over 300 Christian leaders would meekly stand by and, without any objection, permit pagan practices to be incorporated into the church, when only a short time before they had resisted, at the peril of their own lives, that very thing.

_________________________
Acknowledge that All True Christians will be Arminian in Glory​

!​

​

​

​

 

[xsimmsx]

Terrible post is it? Why? All I did was post scripture and summarize in one paragraph what the scriptures state. The one proof text you posted does not refute anything I posted and that verse does NOT say that "they are One and the Same Spirit."

"By the way his name is Jesus." By the way God's name is NOT Jesus! I have proved it several times and you do not have any answer to my posts. Ex 3:15, God told Moses that His name was YHWH and that would be His name forever and a memorial to all generations. You evidently do not understand the words "forever" or "all generations," because you keep saying that God's name is Jesus. The name Jesus is NOT YHWH, and YHWH is NOT the name Jesus!

If your false un-Biblical view, that Jesus is the name of the Father, were true you would be able to post a reasoned, coherent, answer to this. But since it is not true, you have no answer for Ex 3:15. You posted one vague reference to "I Am" in Ex 3:14 and John 8:58, which did not even address the names Jesus and YHWH.

Until you can answer that verse you have just another false unscriptural, unorthodox, man-made, doctrine with a handful of out-of-context proof texts.

_________________________
Acknowledge that All True Christians will be Arminian in Glory​

!​

​

​

​

Edited by a moderator

 

[xsimmsx]

Here is another reference for you since you claim that I don't back up what I say with scriptural evidence.


John 5:43:
I am come in my Father's name, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.


Now will you try to disprove this simple statement that Jesus made about coming in his Father's Name. What Translation will you find? I am quite sure you will try to manipulate the Greek to say what you want it to say, you always do. But here in the simple land of the english God has preserved his Word just fine for us common folk. Jesus said he came in his Father's name any one who dispute's this verse calls Jesus a liar.

I believe Jesus not you,
Joshua

 

[Peterson]

Hey Der Alter, I love your modesty. Keep it up.

The Godhead in Scripture:
1 Corinthians 8:6; But to us there is but one God, the Father. of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

This is a complete statement of the Godhead. Nothing added, nothing taken away. Verse 7 says; Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge.

1 Timothy 2:5; For there is one God, and one mediator between God (Father) and men, the man Jesus Christ.

Clossians 2:9; For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

1 Thessalonians 3:11; Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.

Ephesians 4:6; One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Ephesians 1:17; That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit (Father's) of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him.

1 John 1:3; That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

1 John 2:22; Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23; Whosoevr denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also.
24; Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

If Paul and the apostles taught an idea of a trinity, they certainly seemed to ignore the coequal third person of the triad. In all the salutations of Paul's epistles, he acknowledges the Father and Son as his authority and no one else. Had Paul or any of the other apostles taught a triune God, there would have certainly been a heated discussion about it in Jerusalem in Acts 15, and don't tell me that it was because they were already trinitarians

Holy Spirit
Philippians 2:5; Let this mind (Father's) be in you which was also in Jesus Christ:
Philippeans 1:19; For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Christ.
2 Cor. 13:3 Examine yourselves, whether you be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
Ephesians 3:17; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith...
Galatians 2:20; I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Romans 8:14; For as many as are led by the Spirit of God (Father) they are the sons of God (Father).

 

[Der Alte]

Here is another reference for you since you claim that I don't back up what I say with scriptural evidence.

John 5:43:
I am come in my Father's name, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.

Now will you try to disprove this simple statement that Jesus made about coming in his Father's Name. What Translation will you find? I am quite sure you will try to manipulate the Greek to say what you want it to say, you always do. But here in the simple land of the english God has preserved his Word just fine for us common folk. Jesus said he came in his Father's name any one who dispute's this verse calls Jesus a liar.

I believe Jesus not you,
Joshua

You should believe the Bible, instead of ignoring scripture which does not support your man-made, proof-text, doctrine. God's word cannot contradict itself.

Exodus 3:14-15 was spoken by God, over 1400 years before Jesus was born, whatever meaning you think John 5:43 has, it cannot contradict any other scripture. God said to Moses YHWH, NOT Jesus, is my name forever and a memorial to all generations. Do you understand that, "forever" and "all generations?" Nothing in the N.T., Jn 5:43, or any other passage, can change those words.

So just posting that verse without dealing with the O.T. is dishonesty. I have responded to that verse several times, with scriptures, in English, and every time I have you ignored it.

1 Sa 17:45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.​

I don't have to even mention the Greek or the Hebrew. Here is a verse in "simple English", David uses the same expression "I come in the name of  יהוה." If, according to you, John 5:43 means God's name is Jesus or Yeshua, then 1 Sam 17:45 means that God's name is David or David's name is YHWH. Since that is not true then Jn 5:43 CANNOT mean that God's name is Jesus.

Here are some more verses in which men act, "in the name of the LORD." Again, none of these verses mean that God's name was the name of the person speaking. But what the verses prove is that Jesus was not saying that God's name was Jesus but that He came in the authority of God's name. Once more, God said His name was YHWH and that would be His name "forever" and a memorial to "all generations." And there is not one single verse in the entire Bible that changes this, nor could there be.

Unless you believe Exodus 3:15 then you are contradicting the Bible. YOu need to read and base your doctrine on the entire Bible not just the handful of "proof texts," you use.

Deu 18:5 For the LORD thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons for ever.

Deu 18:7 Then he shall minister in the name of the LORD his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, which stand there before the LORD.

2 Sa 6:18 And as soon as David had made an end of offering burnt offerings and peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts.​

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm before:

Before 300AD there were no strictly Trinitarians of the “co-equal” formulation. That is zero Christians who didn’t subordinate Christ to Heavenly Father!

Pre-Nicea there were many men who were Arian. Post-Nicea it took quite a while before the world started to line up behind a Trinitarian structure denying semi-Arian positions.



Der Alter:

Both assertions are nonsense! Post your evidence and I will refute it. Pre-Nicea there was one bishop who taught Arianism, the one from which it gets it name, Arius, and his few followers.



TOm:

In a previous interaction, you posted that Theophilus was the first to mention the Trinity. I commented that Theophilus did not embrace the Trinity, he used a word that is translated “Trias,” and his writing points to the fact that he didn’t strictly accept the divinity of Christ. And actually clearly made Him distinct from God (Newman, Arians of the 4th Century). Unless I missed your response, you didn’t respond. I thought we agreed.



Concerning subordinationism, here are a few scholar comments.



Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, p.330:

"'subordinationism'... was pre-Nicene orthodoxy."



The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, p. 153 (a quote of Richard Hanson):

"Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology."



R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church, pp.244,245:

"Finally, what is Christian midrash(i.e. tradition)? What are its contents? Is it the Gnostic formulae of Ignatius? The angel-Christology of Hermas? ...or the economic Trinity of Irenaeus and Tertullian? The modalistic monarchianism of Callistus and Zephyrinus? The graded Trinity of Origen?"



John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,(6th edition 1989) p. 17:

If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes, and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian... Tertullian is heterodox on the Lord's divinity... Origen is, at the very least suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian.



TOm:

So Newman calls St. Justin an arian. He points to Theophilus as a seed for the arian beliefs.

The most critical thing that I wish to show is that pre-Nicea there was a subordinationism that did not exist after the 4th Century defined this view out of Christianity. This is well accepted by scholars.



Der Alter:
If there were so many Arians and Arianism was the correct doctrine. Why, at the end of the Nicaean council, were there only two dissenters who refused to sign the accords? Arius was one of them.



As I said in one post, above. Constantine did not rule at the council and did NOT force the council to do or accept anything. Constantine was NOT a Trinitarian, but an Arian. If Constantine wanted to force the church to do anything, it would have been Arianism.

Another fallacy of the argument that Constantine forced the church to accept the Trinity doctrine, or anything else. Constantine had ended the persecution of Christians. Until his reign Chrstians were arrested, tortured and killed, on a massive scale, because they would not deny Jesus and worship the emperor and their pagan idols. Many of the bishops who attended the Nicean council had been victims of that persecution.

It is absurd to assume that over 300 Christian leaders would meekly stand by and, without any objection, permit pagan practices to be incorporated into the church, when only a short time before they had resisted, at the peril of their own lives, that very thing.



TOm:

Constantine was not a Christian until close to the end of his life. I actually do not think he really cared who won the conflict. According to Boulenger, Constantine used Christianity to unify his empire. One thing is clear he called the council of Nicea and he financed it.

Here is one historian’s breakup of the council attendees.

Albers-Hedde, Manual d’Histoire Eclesiatique, vol 1 p.153 (translated Barker):

“The opinions (of the members of the Council) followed three directions: The Egyptians and the Occidentals defended the orthodox doctrine (Athanasian) – Athanasius was the spokesman for Bishop Alexander of Alexandria; the majority of the Orientals (the moderate group) held for the divinity of Christ, but hesitated to recognize his perfet equality with the Father; about twenty adherents of Arius declared the Verb (Jesus) a simple creature.”

Also, according to Mourret, both Eusibuis (there were two with the same name) had to intervene with Constantine to prevent him from taking measures again Arius. So I would be interested to see what your source say about Constantine being an Arian.



Der Alter said:

If there were so many Arians and Arianism was the correct doctrine.



TOm:

Actually it was the semi-Arians that were the majority. And I have never suggested that Arianism is a correct doctrine. I actually believe that this whole conflict resulted from the embracing of creation ex nihilo and the subsequent view that everything is either God or Creature. Without this error there would have been much less to quibble about.



Der Alter:

Constantine did not rule at the council and did NOT force the council to do or accept anything



TOm:

He called the Council.

According to Battifol in La Paix Constantinienne p. 319 “This letter of Eusibuis throws a little light on the debate: the Council discussed the definition of faith in the presence of the Emperor, who asked the bishops to accept the omoousios, speaking first: after which, all bishops, after explaining themselves signed.”

Battifol also says that the Eusebians (semi-Arian) signed under fear of exile (which can only be carried out by the Emperor.

I would be interested in seeing your evidence that Constantine was not a major player in this council. Remember the historian I have sited Battifol who is a Catholic so he would have no reason to see in history what he has put forth.



Der Alter:

Constantine was NOT a Trinitarian, but an Arian. If Constantine wanted to force the church to do anything, it would have been Arianism.



TOm:

Actually, Constantine was not even a Baptized Christian during Nicea. Also, my evidence suggested he actually was opposed to the Arians, but in truth I doubt he cared. Constantine was interested in a unifying force for his empire. Arian or non-Arian Christianity would be no different.

Please show your evidence that Constantine was Arian, and remember Mourret is Catholic so again he is not presenting a pro-Catholic position.



Der Alter:

Another fallacy of the argument that Constantine forced the church to accept the Trinity doctrine, or anything else. Constantine had ended the persecution of Christians. Until his reign Chrstians were arrested, tortured and killed, on a massive scale, because they would not deny Jesus and worship the emperor and their pagan idols. Many of the bishops who attended the Nicean council had been victims of that persecution.



TOm:

I do not follow your logic. I agree Constantine made Christianity acceptable, but what does this have to do with his support of Athanatius or Arius. Before Nicea both men were Christians, just not your type of Christian. Both sides and the more popular semi-Arian position were anti-pagan Christians. I am sure the persecution was felt on both sides of the fence. In fact, those persecuted Bishops would be unlikely to not sign something that Constantine spoke first to embrace. It seems that you have actually provided evidence that the Emperor would likely have the ability to coerce not that he didn’t?



Der Alter:

It is absurd to assume that over 300 Christian leaders would meekly stand by and, without any objection, permit pagan practices to be incorporated into the church, when only a short time before they had resisted, at the peril of their own lives, that very thing.



TOm:

I have neither suggested that the Trinity is pagan (although I could if you would like only I do not believe this) nor that there were not objections. I have not even suggested that Athanasius’ position was inferior to Arius’. The fact of the matter is that this was a dividing argument and Constantine didn’t want division. He called a council. Bishops discussed and a position was put out, signed by almost all, likely under the overseeing gaze of the Emperor.



My point in favor of our non-Trinitarian friends is that history is not near so simple as many seem to think it was. If the Catholic Church had authority and the seal of the Holy Ghost, then all is well. But for those who deny this authority, scripture does not make the issue clear, and there was quite a bit of conflict.

BTW, the canon was decided by the victors after this historic decision so while all the books of the Bible existed by this time, the Bible as it is today didn’t.



Again for clarity, I embrace the term Trinitarian. But I do not believe it proper to march out Theophilus and say he was the first Trinitarian (to use the term) because he was not. Also, the Catholic Church does not dogmatically use the term “co-equal” and when Protestants do this, they are following Athanasius in ways the Catholic Church doesn’t. I believe the Social Trinitarian structure that I embrace with a clear subordinationism is much closer to the Ante-Nicene fathers than the Augustinian Trinitarian formula so common today.



Charity, TOm