Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine

[Wgw]

I don't think we are on the same page when it comes to the classical Christian model of God as he is in his own nature. So let me clarify a bit.




To provide some relevant background, most Christians assume there is only one model of God, one official picture of what God is like in his own nature. At present, that is definitely not true. There are at least two, classical theism and neo-classical theism, also termed process theology. Most Christians the traditional Christian model of God (classical theism) came directly out to the pages of Scripture. Absolutely not true. Let's go way back in history for a moment. The Greeks had a real appetite for metaphysics, for inquiring into what is the basic structure of reality. Is it all mind? Matter? It it changeable? In contrast, metaphysics was of little or no interest to the ancient Hebrews. The Bible, for example, tells us very little of how God is actually built. Is God all immaterial? Material? What? As the church worked its way up into the educated classes of the Greco-Roman world, it had to provide some kind of metaphysical system and level of discussion in order to survive. So the church fathers freely incorporated Hellenic concepts into their description of God. Although there were many different schools of Hellenic philosophy, the Greeks as a whole had real trouble wit the physical world of time, change,relativity, and matter. More than one major school argued that change in any form, most especially movement, was a logical impossibility and therefore dos not exist. Plato was a dominant force here, arguing that the world of time and change is just a big illusion and the major source of all suffering and evil. The truly divine, “the really real,” was a wholly immaterial world of static perfection, totally immutable, wholly simple, wholly detached form the evil world of time and change.



Once these Hellenic notions were incorporated into Christianity, God was defined as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, omnipotent, without even the shadow of motion, the supreme cause, never the effect. I am listing almost verbatum here the description form the major creeds,s such as the Westminster Confession, and the writings of the major church fathers, such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, etc. Granted, they spoke of God's love, but it was a totally cold, unemotional love. Both Anselm and Aquinas insisted that although God might seem to us to be compassionate, he defiantly is not, in his own nature. Since God has no passion (emotion), then he could have no compassion, either. Unlike human love, God's love was totally minus any sympathy or empathy. God could have no emotion, because emotions are changes in bodily state, and God does not have a body and God does not change. Not to suffer is better than to suffer, hence, God as the most perfect being was wholly incapable of suffering, or experiencing any other negative emotion. Suggesting in any way the the Father suffered was ruled out as a major heresy.



In the 20-century, this model began to be seriously questioned. It really didn't seem at all compatible with a God of love at all. At best, it seems to present a picture of God as a Ruthless Moralist, Ruling Caesar, and Unmoved Mover. Also, it seemed incompatible with out modern understanding of realty, the really real,as in a constant state of flux and also relativistic,where entities are not ever solitary, but emerge out of their relationships with others. The Greeks enshrined the values of the immune and the immutable,and this also was in question. Why should it be seen as a weakness that we have needs? Why should God be seen as weak of it or she also has needs? What's wrong with God experiencing genuine pain and suffering? How can anyone other than a suffering God help? If God can't change in any way whatsoever, then saint or sinner, it's all the same to God,who remains blissfully indifferent to the world. But who can put any real faith in an indifferent Deity? If God could be just as happy,whole, and complete without a universe as with one,then why did he bother to create one and how is it to have any real significance I the life of God, when it contributes absolutely nothing to him?



The result was a new model of God in which God and the universe are mutually interrelated. God grows as the world goes. God is the supreme effect as well as cause. My favorite metaphor here is that the universe is the body of God. I can't find any other that does justice to God's radical sensitivity to all things. There is a direct, immediate flow of all creaturely feelings into God, and a direct immediate flow of God's feelings into creatures. Hence, God radically transcends us, as we are total strangers to the empathic responsiveness exhibited by God. Now, there is much more to say here, but I feel I should stop for now. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Most Christians are thoroughly untroubled by what you decry as "classical theism," and are justifiably reticent to embrace a new model which is contrary to sacred scripture, contrary to the apostolic faith. As you have presented it, I cannot see how Process Theology can avoid running afoul of Galatians 1:8.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, for your information, many Christians are inclined toward process. That's why it is standard fare in the theological curriculums of many church-related colleges and also in seminaries. Just where do you think I first heard about process? When my college, Muskingum, had a manor seminar with Charles Hartshorne and Schubert Ogden, two of the granddaddies of process. Why do you think I did most of my graduate work at Pittsburgh theological Seminary, with a dissertation committee of largely seminary faculty? Why do you think The Center for Process Studies is at the Claremont School of Theology, a prestige Methodist seminary? See, you are way, way off here. Also, you couldn't have possible read everything I said before you quickly reposed here. You should stop jumping the gun and read more carefully what I said.

 

[nomadictheist]

Perhaps others have already mentioned this, but you seem to be omitting some major sources when it comes to the trinity doctrine:

1. We see all three of the persons of the triune God present at the baptism of Jesus:
And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17)
This account can also be found in Mark chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3, with the same wording for the Holy Spirit descending on Jesus and the voice from heaven declaring Jesus to be the Son.

2. Jesus claims equality with God:
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:8-9 emphasis my own)
So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:57-58) (Note that when Jesus says "I am," He is specifically using the Jewish word that we translate "Yahweh," or the name given to Moses by God)

3. The Holy Spirit is a He, and was bestowed in the early church by the laying on of hands by the apostles:
Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8: 14-17)

4. The Holy Spirit is singular, is a person, and is not Jesus:
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17, emphasis my own)

 

[Goatee]

Perhaps others have already mentioned this, but you seem to be omitting some major sources when it comes to the trinity doctrine:

1. We see all three of the persons of the triune God present at the baptism of Jesus:
And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17)
This account can also be found in Mark chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3, with the same wording for the Holy Spirit descending on Jesus and the voice from heaven declaring Jesus to be the Son.

2. Jesus claims equality with God:
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:8-9 emphasis my own)
So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:57-58) (Note that when Jesus says "I am," He is specifically using the Jewish word that we translate "Yahweh," or the name given to Moses by God)

3. The Holy Spirit is a He, and was bestowed in the early church by the laying on of hands by the apostles:
Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8: 14-17)

4. The Holy Spirit is singular, is a person, and is not Jesus:
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17, emphasis my own)

Superb post!!

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm not sure you are clear on what I am talking about when I refer to classical theism. I'm wondering if you read in detail the account I previously emailed on this matter. Just in case, I will again include it here, so that you can get a clearer perspective what I am talking about.






To provide some relevant background, most Christians assume there is only one model of God, one official picture of what God is like in his own nature. At present, that is definitely not true. There are at least two, classical theism and neo-classical theism, also termed process theology. Most Christians the traditional Christian model of God (classical theism) came directly out to the pages of Scripture. Absolutely not true. Let's go way back in history for a moment. The Greeks had a real appetite for metaphysics, for inquiring into what is the basic structure of reality. Is it all mind? Matter? It it changeable? In contrast, metaphysics was of little or no interest to the ancient Hebrews. The Bible, for example, tells us very little of how God is actually built. Is God all immaterial? Material? What? As the church worked its way up into the educated classes of the Greco-Roman world, it had to provide some kind of metaphysical system and level of discussion in order to survive. So the church fathers freely incorporated Hellenic concepts into their description of God. Although there were many different schools of Hellenic philosophy, the Greeks as a whole had real trouble wit the physical world of time, change,relativity, and matter. More than one major school argued that change in any form, most especially movement, was a logical impossibility and therefore dos not exist. Plato was a dominant force here, arguing that the world of time and change is just a big illusion and the major source of all suffering and evil. The truly divine, “the really real,” was a wholly immaterial world of static perfection, totally immutable, wholly simple, wholly detached form the evil world of time and change.



Once these Hellenic notions were incorporated into Christianity, God was defined as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, omnipotent, without even the shadow of motion, the supreme cause, never the effect. I am listing almost verbatum here the description form the major creeds,s such as the Westminster Confession, and the writings of the major church fathers, such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, etc. Granted, they spoke of God's love, but it was a totally cold, unemotional love. Both Anselm and Aquinas insisted that although God might seem to us to be compassionate, he defiantly is not, in his own nature. Since God has no passion (emotion), then he could have no compassion, either. Unlike human love, God's love was totally minus any sympathy or empathy. God could have no emotion, because emotions are changes in bodily state, and God does not have a body and God does not change. Not to suffer is better than to suffer, hence, God as the most perfect being was wholly incapable of suffering, or experiencing any other negative emotion. Suggesting in any way the the Father suffered was ruled out as a major heresy.



In the 20-century, this model began to be seriously questioned. It really didn't seem at all compatible with a God of love at all. At best, it seems to present a picture of God as a Ruthless Moralist, Ruling Caesar, and Unmoved Mover. Also, it seemed incompatible with out modern understanding of realty, the really real,as in a constant state of flux and also relativistic,where entities are not ever solitary, but emerge out of their relationships with others. The Greeks enshrined the values of the immune and the immutable,and this also was in question. Why should it be seen as a weakness that we have needs? Why should God be seen as weak of it or she also has needs? What's wrong with God experiencing genuine pain and suffering? How can anyone other than a suffering God help? If God can't change in any way whatsoever, then saint or sinner, it's all the same to God,who remains blissfully indifferent to the world. But who can put any real faith in an indifferent Deity? If God could be just as happy,whole, and complete without a universe as with one,then why did he bother to create one and how is it to have any real significance I the life of God, when it contributes absolutely nothing to him?



The result was a new model of God in which God and the universe are mutually interrelated. God grows as the world goes. God is the supreme effect as well as cause. My favorite metaphor here is that the universe is the body of God. I can't find any other that does justice to God's radical sensitivity to all things. There is a direct, immediate flow of all creaturely feelings into God, and a direct immediate flow of God's feelings into creatures. Hence, God radically transcends us, as we are total strangers to the empathic responsiveness exhibited by God. Now, there is much more to say here, but I feel I should stop for now. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

 

[7xlightray]

It appears that everyone here is wrestling with the problem of the Trinity. My view is that we need to rethink this whole doctrine, as it has been a total disaster since day one. The Arians argued that Christ cannot be God, as God cannot suffer, change, etc., whereas Christ did. The "orthodox" simply acerbated this situation by adopting the same image of God and then arguing Christ was split into two conflicting natures, a human nature, which could suffer, and a divine nature, which could not. The Council of Nicaea did not define what it meant to be of one essence with the Father. Did this mean the Father also suffered? Well, that was ruled out as a major heresy. The creed says nothing about the Deity of the Spirit. A social theory of the trinity often predominated. God was seen as a cosmic society of three distinct personalities who all agreed with one another. If so, asked Gregory of Nyssa, what aren't there three Gods like there would be three men? His answer is that they work together in a unity far grater than anything we could attain. However, to many, including myself, that is still polytheism. The early church based its doctrine of God, its concept or picture of what Go dis like in his own nature, largely on certain major schools of Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. Hence, Good was defined as wholly simple, immutable, nonrelational. The problem, then, was how to introduce the highly complicated relational machinery of the Trinity into a wholly simple and nonrelational being. My view, then, is that we need to go back and rethink our concepts of God's nature and attributes.

Hi Hoghead1,

Truly, there really is nothing to rethink, Paul already cleared it up for us in Acts 17. When Paul preach Jesus came back from the dead to the philosophers in Athens (think of all the Greek gods they had), they wanted to know about these strange gods. They thought Jesus may have been some kind of strange god that came back from the dead, that there was one god that raised another god, and they wanted this cleared up. And, that is exactly what Paul does, Paul explains the God of the Bible, and what Jesus is. I'll point out some key verses...

18 ...He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods [notice the plurality]: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection [this is the reason why they thought of plural gods, easy to understand in that place, day and age, that they wondered, a man came back from the dead, is he some kind of God].

19 ...May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
23 ...To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you [they did not understand about these gods, Paul is now going to clear things up as to these gods. This is what this passage is about].

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; [he's telling them God can't dwell on earth. Jesus, who many say, "is God," did he not go into the temple, but they may say, “ya, but in His human form.” Ya, but they also say, “He was God at the same time.” God dwells in heaven 1 Kings 8:30, but by His Spirit which He can send, can be everywhere, as when He breathed in man, and when we die that spirit returns to God (Ecclesiastes 12:7 - 7307 – ruach.) This is the same Spirit (7307 – ruach.) as in Genesis 1:2. The spirit is not another person, it's His power, His Word. Not unless we now want to teach we are also God, because God is in us, as they teach Jesus is God, because God was in flesh.]

29 ...we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device [G1761 – enthymēsis - thinking, thought, pondering, imagination, consideration [in other words what man thinks up]].
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: [to repent of false gods, what man thinks up, this is important to grasp, because I know many teach it's not that important, because they believe in a incomplete Gospel]

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man [notice Paul points out there is a God, and there is a man. He does not teach Jesus is the same God, or any God] whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. [we know exactly who raised Jesus from the dead Romans 6:4; Galatians 1:1, so the “he” which refers to God, must be the Father, and the man must refer to Jesus.]

32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked [Seems some had a hard time with mere mortals coming back from the dead. Seems their thinking was men went to the afterlife, no man came back from the dead, a god maybe, but not men]: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.​

Paul makes it very clear, there is one God who made the world and all things in it, and this God is going to send a man back, that He raised from the dead, to judge.

There are many of these kinds of proofs in scripture, and some just blunt plain. It comes down to belief.

 

[Wgw]

I'm not sure you are clear on what I am talking about when I refer to classical theism. I'm wondering if you read in detail the account I previously emailed on this matter. Just in case, I will again include it here, so that you can get a clearer perspective what I am talking about.






To provide some relevant background, most Christians assume there is only one model of God, one official picture of what God is like in his own nature. At present, that is definitely not true. There are at least two, classical theism and neo-classical theism, also termed process theology. Most Christians the traditional Christian model of God (classical theism) came directly out to the pages of Scripture. Absolutely not true. Let's go way back in history for a moment. The Greeks had a real appetite for metaphysics, for inquiring into what is the basic structure of reality. Is it all mind? Matter? It it changeable? In contrast, metaphysics was of little or no interest to the ancient Hebrews. The Bible, for example, tells us very little of how God is actually built. Is God all immaterial? Material? What? As the church worked its way up into the educated classes of the Greco-Roman world, it had to provide some kind of metaphysical system and level of discussion in order to survive. So the church fathers freely incorporated Hellenic concepts into their description of God. Although there were many different schools of Hellenic philosophy, the Greeks as a whole had real trouble wit the physical world of time, change,relativity, and matter. More than one major school argued that change in any form, most especially movement, was a logical impossibility and therefore dos not exist. Plato was a dominant force here, arguing that the world of time and change is just a big illusion and the major source of all suffering and evil. The truly divine, “the really real,” was a wholly immaterial world of static perfection, totally immutable, wholly simple, wholly detached form the evil world of time and change.



Once these Hellenic notions were incorporated into Christianity, God was defined as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, omnipotent, without even the shadow of motion, the supreme cause, never the effect. I am listing almost verbatum here the description form the major creeds,s such as the Westminster Confession, and the writings of the major church fathers, such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, etc. Granted, they spoke of God's love, but it was a totally cold, unemotional love. Both Anselm and Aquinas insisted that although God might seem to us to be compassionate, he defiantly is not, in his own nature. Since God has no passion (emotion), then he could have no compassion, either. Unlike human love, God's love was totally minus any sympathy or empathy. God could have no emotion, because emotions are changes in bodily state, and God does not have a body and God does not change. Not to suffer is better than to suffer, hence, God as the most perfect being was wholly incapable of suffering, or experiencing any other negative emotion. Suggesting in any way the the Father suffered was ruled out as a major heresy.



In the 20-century, this model began to be seriously questioned. It really didn't seem at all compatible with a God of love at all. At best, it seems to present a picture of God as a Ruthless Moralist, Ruling Caesar, and Unmoved Mover. Also, it seemed incompatible with out modern understanding of realty, the really real,as in a constant state of flux and also relativistic,where entities are not ever solitary, but emerge out of their relationships with others. The Greeks enshrined the values of the immune and the immutable,and this also was in question. Why should it be seen as a weakness that we have needs? Why should God be seen as weak of it or she also has needs? What's wrong with God experiencing genuine pain and suffering? How can anyone other than a suffering God help? If God can't change in any way whatsoever, then saint or sinner, it's all the same to God,who remains blissfully indifferent to the world. But who can put any real faith in an indifferent Deity? If God could be just as happy,whole, and complete without a universe as with one,then why did he bother to create one and how is it to have any real significance I the life of God, when it contributes absolutely nothing to him?



The result was a new model of God in which God and the universe are mutually interrelated. God grows as the world goes. God is the supreme effect as well as cause. My favorite metaphor here is that the universe is the body of God. I can't find any other that does justice to God's radical sensitivity to all things. There is a direct, immediate flow of all creaturely feelings into God, and a direct immediate flow of God's feelings into creatures. Hence, God radically transcends us, as we are total strangers to the empathic responsiveness exhibited by God. Now, there is much more to say here, but I feel I should stop for now. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

You previously posted all of these paragraphs; we did read what you wrote the first time 'round.

 

[Hoghead1]

Your comments have absolutely nothing to do with my claim that the classical Christian picture of God in his own nature came from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. I am not sure that you have read my complete post on this matter. Just in case, I am sending it again.






To provide some relevant background, most Christians assume there is only one model of God, one official picture of what God is like in his own nature. At present, that is definitely not true. There are at least two, classical theism and neo-classical theism, also termed process theology. Most Christians the traditional Christian model of God (classical theism) came directly out to the pages of Scripture. Absolutely not true. Let's go way back in history for a moment. The Greeks had a real appetite for metaphysics, for inquiring into what is the basic structure of reality. Is it all mind? Matter? It it changeable? In contrast, metaphysics was of little or no interest to the ancient Hebrews. The Bible, for example, tells us very little of how God is actually built. Is God all immaterial? Material? What? As the church worked its way up into the educated classes of the Greco-Roman world, it had to provide some kind of metaphysical system and level of discussion in order to survive. So the church fathers freely incorporated Hellenic concepts into their description of God. Although there were many different schools of Hellenic philosophy, the Greeks as a whole had real trouble wit the physical world of time, change,relativity, and matter. More than one major school argued that change in any form, most especially movement, was a logical impossibility and therefore dos not exist. Plato was a dominant force here, arguing that the world of time and change is just a big illusion and the major source of all suffering and evil. The truly divine, “the really real,” was a wholly immaterial world of static perfection, totally immutable, wholly simple, wholly detached form the evil world of time and change.



Once these Hellenic notions were incorporated into Christianity, God was defined as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, omnipotent, without even the shadow of motion, the supreme cause, never the effect. I am listing almost verbatum here the description form the major creeds,s such as the Westminster Confession, and the writings of the major church fathers, such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, etc. Granted, they spoke of God's love, but it was a totally cold, unemotional love. Both Anselm and Aquinas insisted that although God might seem to us to be compassionate, he defiantly is not, in his own nature. Since God has no passion (emotion), then he could have no compassion, either. Unlike human love, God's love was totally minus any sympathy or empathy. God could have no emotion, because emotions are changes in bodily state, and God does not have a body and God does not change. Not to suffer is better than to suffer, hence, God as the most perfect being was wholly incapable of suffering, or experiencing any other negative emotion. Suggesting in any way the the Father suffered was ruled out as a major heresy.



In the 20-century, this model began to be seriously questioned. It really didn't seem at all compatible with a God of love at all. At best, it seems to present a picture of God as a Ruthless Moralist, Ruling Caesar, and Unmoved Mover. Also, it seemed incompatible with out modern understanding of realty, the really real,as in a constant state of flux and also relativistic,where entities are not ever solitary, but emerge out of their relationships with others. The Greeks enshrined the values of the immune and the immutable,and this also was in question. Why should it be seen as a weakness that we have needs? Why should God be seen as weak of it or she also has needs? What's wrong with God experiencing genuine pain and suffering? How can anyone other than a suffering God help? If God can't change in any way whatsoever, then saint or sinner, it's all the same to God,who remains blissfully indifferent to the world. But who can put any real faith in an indifferent Deity? If God could be just as happy,whole, and complete without a universe as with one,then why did he bother to create one and how is it to have any real significance I the life of God, when it contributes absolutely nothing to him?



The result was a new model of God in which God and the universe are mutually interrelated. God grows as the world goes. God is the supreme effect as well as cause. My favorite metaphor here is that the universe is the body of God. I can't find any other that does justice to God's radical sensitivity to all things. There is a direct, immediate flow of all creaturely feelings into God, and a direct immediate flow of God's feelings into creatures. Hence, God radically transcends us, as we are total strangers to the empathic responsiveness exhibited by God. Now, there is much more to say here, but I feel I should stop for now. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

 

[7xlightray]

He is talking about revelation 12:9. However he is wrong about the time frame of where Jesus is. Revelation 12:9 is during the tribulation not before he was born or his resurrection. So understanding that Jesus would be in heaven when this battle takes place it is no clincher at all.

Hi ImAllLikeOkWaitWhat,

Ya, the passages I could think of did not show a preexistence either, and Revelation 12:9 was one of them. That's why I asked him, if he could elaborate a little more.

 

[ScottA]

Perhaps others have already mentioned this, but you seem to be omitting some major sources when it comes to the trinity doctrine:

1. We see all three of the persons of the triune God present at the baptism of Jesus:
And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17)
This account can also be found in Mark chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3, with the same wording for the Holy Spirit descending on Jesus and the voice from heaven declaring Jesus to be the Son.

2. Jesus claims equality with God:
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?" (John 14:8-9 emphasis my own)
So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:57-58) (Note that when Jesus says "I am," He is specifically using the Jewish word that we translate "Yahweh," or the name given to Moses by God)

3. The Holy Spirit is a He, and was bestowed in the early church by the laying on of hands by the apostles:
Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8: 14-17)

4. The Holy Spirit is singular, is a person, and is not Jesus:
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17, emphasis my own)

Nonetheless, the Oneness of God cannot be broken into Three separate Entities or Beings.

A son who himself is a father, can act in different roles and places, but cannot be separated into two beings...etc.

 

[nomadictheist]

Nonetheless, the Oneness of God cannot be broken into Three separate Entities or Beings.

A son who himself is a father, can act in different roles and places, but cannot be separated into two beings...etc.

I'm not sure that you understand the doctrine of the Trinity. The trinity doctrine doesn't claim that God's oneness is separable, but that the One God exists as three persons.

And yet, the three Persons as which the One God exists can have separate wills/desires:

“Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.” (Luke 22:42, also found in Matthew 26:39, with the variation "if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me, nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will.")

I never said the triune God is easy to understand, but He is in the Bible.

 

[redleghunter]

Matthew 28:19 isn't a forgery. I don't think any scholar has ever argued that it was. There are variations in 1 John 5:7-8 which differ from other ancient manuscripts. While the Johannine Comma was most probably not in the original of 1 John it does appear known to some in the early Church, there is some evidence that Origen of Alexandria has alluded to the verse in his Scholium on Psalm 123. If your approach to the Bible is to simply disregard the parts that don't fit Arianism then that's your lens through which you see the text.

Add Cyprian and Athanasius alluding to it as well.

 

[rjs330]

How about this for speculation:

Is it possible that 'divinity' is about as impossible to adequately define as Godhead? Is it possible that there are different 'levels' of divinity?

Or are we to suppose that the 'church fathers' had it 'all figured out' and that there was nothing that they did that could have possibly been mistakes?

I have never once denied the 'divinity' of Christ. I have simply offered that it is my understanding that the Son if more like a Son than The Father. If one must call it polytheism to believe that the Son can possess as much divinity as the Father chooses to place upon Him, then so be it. I am not one to allow the ignorance of others have any significant effect upon my beliefs.

I believe in and worship 'only one God'. And that 'God' is the Father of Jesus Christ.

And I believe in and worship only one 'Begotten Son of God'. But I do not worship the Son of God as God. I worship Him as The Son of God. I pray to God in the 'name' of Christ. I pray exactly as Christ offered as an example: Our Father............... For The Father is 'our' Father. He is our heavenly Father and THE Father of Christ. He is God.

From my perspective, I am as Monotheistic as anyone ever has been. For it is my perspective that it is 'trinity' that is polytheistic. Regardless of how those that follow it try to talk around the issue, three person equals three persons. The idea that there are three persons that make up one God makes absolutely no sense. And it's irrelevant how one tries to 'talk' around the issue, the Jews, the Muslims and quite a few others view 'three persons' as polytheistic. I offer again, I worship 'only' one God as God. God'head', get it: God is the 'head'. Everything else is something 'different' than God Himself.

The Bible 'states' that the 'head of Christ is God. And the 'head' of man is Christ. And the 'head' of woman is man. Not my words. Straight out of the Bible. This in and of itself shows that God is 'the head'. Christ is secondary. Thirdly is man and last is woman. All indications are this is the 'order of creation'. Not of 'my' design, but of God's.

So you cannot accuse me of polytheism. For i do 'not' worship Christ 'as God' or 'another god'. I worship Christ as the Son of God. I worship 'only God' as God.

Blessings,

MEC

Why are you worshipping Christ at all? If Jesus is not God then he is a egomaniac with a God complex who is just as much a sinner as you and I and not worthy to be praised or worshipped. Please read my previous posts. There is no other option here. We cannot say Jesus was the son of God and worthy of sacrificing himself for our sins if he himself was and did commit sin. By allowing himself to accept worship and accept being called God he is a sinner. If he indeed has the mindset of thinking it not robbery to be equal with God then he is literally no better than Satan who wanted to be equal with God. No, Jesus is either God or he should be removed as being one to follow or admire for he is either God incarnate or he is a sinner of highest order.

 

[Strong in Him]

Maybe one of the non-Trinitarians could answer a question

Sorry this appeared in another post; I started to write it, went off and answered another question and it quoted my unfinished post in the reply.

Anyhows, what I was going to ask was; if people reject the Trinity - One God, three persons; one in 3 and 3 in one - what's the alternative?
The only alternatives I can see are:
1) Scripture is wrong and there are 3 Gods
2) There is one God, called Father; the Son and Spirit are not divine.

If Scripture is wrong, how can we trust it?
If there is only one God, then how were the Son and the Spirit are not divine, how were they with God before the creation of the universe, (Genesis 1:1-2; John 1:1-3). How is it that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Lord, and the Son spoke the words that the Father gave him, said he was one with the Father, had seen the Father and used the name of God, (as well as forgiving sins, doing miracles and raising the dead), and they tried to kill him for blasphemy?
If Jesus wasn't God, then it was only a man who died for our sins, not God who laid down his life for us.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Maybe one of the non-Trinitarians could answer a question


Yet in Luke 10:18 Jesus tells his disciples, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

The like tells us that what Jesus is saying is not literal. If you read the whole chapter of luke 10 you see that Jesus just gave his disciples the ability to cast out demons and this was never done before so he is saying Satan fell like lightning from heaven, which is a way of saying satan was disheartened by his demons getting destroyed. Sort of imagine Satan in heaven and getting the news that his demons were getting their butts whipped and you can imagine the shock and satan almost fainting from the news. Thats what Jesus means.

Also rev 12:9 and luke 10:18 aren't the same events.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Sorry this appeared in another post; I started to write it, went off and answered another question and it quoted my unfinished post in the reply.

Anyhows, what I was going to ask was; if people reject the Trinity - One God, three persons; one in 3 and 3 in one - what's the alternative?
The only alternatives I can see are:
1) Scripture is wrong and there are 3 Gods
2) There is one God, called Father; the Son and Spirit are not divine.

If Scripture is wrong, how can we trust it?
If there is only one God, then how were the Son and the Spirit are not divine, how were they with God before the creation of the universe, (Genesis 1:1-2; John 1:1-3). How is it that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Lord, and the Son spoke the words that the Father gave him, said he was one with the Father, had seen the Father and used the name of God, (as well as forgiving sins, doing miracles and raising the dead), and they tried to kill him for blasphemy?
If Jesus wasn't God, then it was only a man who died for our sins, not God who laid down his life for us.

Scripture is never wrong. Only our limited understanding. Scripture never says there is a trinity and the alternatives you laid out aren't the only ones. God's spirit is the holy spirit and that makes the holy spirit God. The problem is when you try and make jesus equal to god and the holy spirit. I have no idea why trinitarians think that Jesus was with god before the creation of the universe. It never says that. Jesus was able to forgive sins, do miracles and raise the dead through the power given to him from his father. If there was no father Jesus could not do it on his own. He did nothing on his own but everything he did was through the father. If a man brought sin into the world through disobedience then why couldn't another man of equal standing remove our sin through perfect obedience?

 

[Strong in Him]

The like tells us that what Jesus is saying is not literal.

No, Jesus is using a simile to describe Satan's fall from heaven - like lightning; it was very quick.
That doesn't mean that Satan falling from heaven didn't happen and is only a poetic way of saying that demons were cast out.
Lucifer was an angel of light, a created being, who tried to rebel against God and overthrow him. He failed and was thrown out of heaven, along with the angels who rebelled with him. They were thrown down to the earth - and this happened before the Garden of Eden.

How do you know that Jesus isn't telling his disciples that, as he was there when Satan was thrown out of heaven, he knows that demons have to submit to God and that God will always be greater than they are?

If Jesus had just meant, "I saw the demons leaving people after you cast them out", he would have said so.

Also rev 12:9 and luke 10:18 aren't the same events.

I didn't say that they were. I was quoting Jesus' words that he saw Satan falling from heaven. This tells me that he was there at the time - I suppose if your starting point is that Jesus is not eternal and only began to exist at birth, you won't see it that way.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

No, Jesus is using a simile to describe Satan's fall from heaven - like lightning; it was very quick.
That doesn't mean that Satan falling from heaven didn't happen and is only a poetic way of saying that demons were cast out.
Lucifer was an angel of light, a created being, who tried to rebel against God and overthrow him. He failed and was thrown out of heaven, along with the angels who rebelled with him. They were thrown down to the earth - and this happened before the Garden of Eden.

How do you know that Jesus isn't telling his disciples that, as he was there when Satan was thrown out of heaven, he knows that demons have to submit to God and that God will always be greater than they are?

If Jesus had just meant, "I saw the demons leaving people after you cast them out", he would have said so.



I didn't say that they were. I was quoting Jesus' words that he saw Satan falling from heaven. This tells me that he was there at the time - I suppose if your starting point is that Jesus is not eternal and only began to exist at birth, you won't see it that way.

Either way I don't think Jesus is talking about the fall of satan. He says he saw satan fall like lightning present tense. Which was after he was born not before. You can't read that verse and assume he is talking about satans fall before the world. If you just read the verse "I saw satan fall like lightning from heaven" with no context then you might be able to assume he means the beginning of satans fall. But if you read the whole chapter he isn't talking about that. It makes no sense for jesus to randomly say I saw satan's fall from heaven. It makes more sense to read that verse as he saw satan come down from heaven after he saw his demons getting destroyed. Not the original fall of satan.

 

[Strong in Him]

Scripture is never wrong. Only our limited understanding.

I know. And sometimes, because we can't understand, we reject the fact that something is so.

Scripture never says there is a trinity

It says that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are all divine, yet there is only one God. What other alternative is there?

and the alternatives you laid out aren't the only ones. God's spirit is the holy spirit and that makes the holy spirit God. The problem is when you try and make jesus equal to god and the holy spirit. I have no idea why trinitarians think that Jesus was with god before the creation of the universe. It never says that.

John 17:5 says exactly that; "Father, glorify me now with the glory I had with you before the world began."

Colossians 1:16-17:
"For in him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth ....... He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

John 1:1-2
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

So Scripture says that all things were created through, by and for, Jesus, see also Hebrews 1:1-2. How could that be if Jesus was not already present?
And Jesus said that he had shared God's glory before the world began - also that he had seen the Father and been sent by the Father.

It is not we who are "making Jesus equal to God"; Scripture says that.

Jesus was able to forgive sins, do miracles and raise the dead through the power given to him from his father.

Yes, and the Jews knew, and said, that only God can forgive sins. They also twice tried to stone him for blasphemy - they knew that he was claiming to be God.

If a man brought sin into the world through disobedience then why couldn't another man of equal standing remove our sin through perfect obedience?

Jesus was not of equal standing to Adam; he was perfect. Peter says this, 1 Peter 1:19-20. If Jesus had been only a man, he would have been a sinner, like everyone else who has ever lived - and he could not have died for our sins.

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and was the only person who has ever lived, or who ever will live, who was perfect. Scripture says this at least twice.
Coincidence?

If he wasn't perfect then he was dying for his sins, not ours, we are not, and cannot, be saved and there is no Gospel, Christianity is a lie, and the church and all the martyrs, missionaries, clergy and ordinary Christians are all deluded.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

As you have presented it, I cannot see how Process Theology can avoid running afoul of Galatians 1:8.

Process thought is very interesting. I read Alfred North Whitehead's Process and Reality a few years ago now and have started reading bits of it again. One of the most interesting things about Process theology proper has been its attempt to retell Christianity in terms of narrative theology, or to be more "biblical" in its telling of God. I don't think it's been ultimately successful in that regards given that many of its hermeneutic assumptions tend to rely on some outdated exegesis. Ultimately there are bits of process thought I like and the majority of it I don't find convincing.