Oneness/Trinity?

[peachetty]

More like the other way around, three entities exist in God. You can believe in oneness if you want to, but I'll stick to the definitive judgment of the Church.



Furthermore the Nicene Creed which was declared to be binding dogma by the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 in opposition to the Arians says thus:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The oneness movement is basically Arianism. It is just a old heresy with a new name. But, the following reasons are why i believe in the Trinity. The divine teaching authority of the Church has proclaimed it so and the scriptures testify to it. If i believed anything else i would be anathema.

i dont think he believes the way we do

 

[SantoSubito]

Sorry for the double post, but where i said Arianism i meant Sabellianism (modalism).

i dont think he believes the way we do

Which is a shame. All of us should be orthodox in belief.

 

[Dmurray]

The Bible clearly says that God is one. Not three in one, not two in one. But one. I would chose to believe what the Bible says about God than someones interpretation, of God being three in one. Which makes no sense. As God does not share his Glory with anyone. And it sounds like polytheism....

 

[Dmurray]

More like the other way around, three entities exist in God. You can believe in oneness if you want to, but I'll stick to the definitive judgment of the Church.



Furthermore the Nicene Creed which was declared to be binding dogma by the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 in opposition to the Arians says thus:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The oneness movement is basically Arianism. It is just a old heresy with a new name. But, the following reasons are why i believe in the Trinity. The divine teaching authority of the Church has proclaimed it so and the scriptures testify to it. If i believed anything else i would be anathema.

The Counsel of Nicea also changed the mode of baptism too. From what the Bible tells us to do. Baptism means to submerse completely in water. Not to pour or sprinkle. The Greek word for Baptize is Baptidzo search it in the Strongs Concordance (which is how they would have translated the Bible [with a Greek dictionary]) All other modes of baptism are hearsay along with infant baptism. If you look at how John the baptism baptized people they do not correlate; as with how the apostles did in the book of Acts.

 

[peachetty]

Sorry for the double post, but where i said Arianism i meant Sabellianism (modalism).


Which is a shame. All of us should be orthodox in belief.

yes! why cant God be 3 in 1

 

[Dmurray]

Why can't God be one? " Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

 

[SantoSubito]

The Counsel of Nicea also changed the mode of baptism too. From what the Bible tells us to do. Baptism means to submerse completely in water. Not to pour or sprinkle. The Greek word for Baptize is Baptidzo search it in the Strongs Concordance (which is how they would have translated the Bible [with a Greek dictionary]) All other modes of baptism are hearsay along with infant baptism. If you look at how John the baptism baptized people they do not correlate; as with how the apostles did in the book of Acts.

Now that is just dishonest historical speculation. The Council of Nicae didn't change the mode of baptism. Look at the quote from Justin Martyr it clearly says they baptized with the Trinitarian formula. The Didache which was a early Christian pastoral manual also has this to say:

CHAPTER 7
CONCERNING BAPTISM
1) And concerning baptism, baptize this way: After reviewing all of this teaching, baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in living (running) water. - Didache, Chapter 7, 100 A.D.

βαπτίζω: baptizō

to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

As you can see the word Baptizo carries more meaning than simply to immerse.

All other modes of baptism are hearsay along with infant baptism.

Not true Infant baptism was an accepted practice until the Protestant reformation. In fact multiple Councils have ruled that infant baptism is acceptable and indeed the preferred method

The Bible clearly says that God is one. Not three in one, not two in one. But one.

The Trinity does not comprise God's oneness it completes it.

I would chose to believe what the Bible says about God than someones interpretation, of God being three in one.

Thats a cop out argument. I will point you again to Polycarp who was a disciple of John the Apostle AKA the guy who wrote the Gospel according to John.

Polycarp (70-155/160 A.D.). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.

"O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Trinitarian belief has been passed down to us from the very beginning.

Which makes no sense. As God does not share his Glory with anyone.

He is not sharing his glory every "member" of the Trinity is fully God.

And it sounds like polytheism....

You should hang around Muslims. They've been saying that since 600 A.D. I'll say this again there is a reason why the Church declared modalism (which is exactly your belief) to be heresy in the early days of the Church

 

[Dmurray]

In the NAME What is that name? Jesus. Because by no other name under heaven are we saved. The Apostles must have baptized everyone wrong then in the book of acts because they baptized in Jesus' name. Not in Father, Son, Holy Ghost...

 

[SantoSubito]

In the NAME What is that name? Jesus. Because by no other name under heaven are we saved. The Apostles must have baptized everyone wrong then in the book of acts because they baptized in Jesus' name. Not in Father, Son, Holy Ghost...

Is semantics really all you have to offer? No response to the Early Church Fathers and the Didache? I will put it simply the name of the "Father, Son and the Holy Spirit" is simply God, not Jesus. Jesus is but one of the 3 in the Godhead.

I'm still waiting for a good response to the proof i gave you that Trinitarian belief has been around since the earliest days of the church. Otherwise I'll just count your semantical response as a victory for orthodoxy. Here is some more for you:

Aristides


"[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).

Irenaeus


"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

"That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

"There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Lactantius

"We, on the other hand, are [truly] religious, who make our supplications to the one true God. Someone may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only, we nevertheless assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Son—which assertion has driven many into the greatest error . . . [thinking] that we confess that there is another God, and that he is mortal. . . . [But w]hen we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father" (ibid., 4:28–29). A.D. 307

Theophilus of Antioch


"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word(Jesus), and his Wisdom(Holy Spirit)" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

Even if you don't believe in the Trinity history forces you to cede that it was at least the historic belief of the Church.

 

[Dmurray]

My answer is throughout the Bible. Paul Started the Church. He baptized in Jesus' name. It doesn't matter what others did. But how the Church was Started. Peter was given the keys to Heaven. He knew. I don't need to stay here and argue this situation, as it's not Christ like. I have give proof throughout this thread. But that isn't good enough anyways, it needs to be a revelation from God. Something I prayed about. I wasn't raised Christian, I asked God to lead me on his perfect path. I later asked him to show me who he is. And he has made it clear to me that He is one. Not three in one, not 2 in one. But three in one. I struggled with it for a little bit. But I see how it makes sense now.

Debating this will lead no wheres, and is not Christ like.

 

[SantoSubito]

My answer is throughout the Bible. Paul Started the Church. He baptized in Jesus' name. It doesn't matter what others did. But how the Church was Started. Peter was given the keys to Heaven. He knew. I don't need to stay here and argue this situation, as it's not Christ like. I have give proof throughout this thread. But that isn't good enough anyways, it needs to be a revelation from God. Something I prayed about. I wasn't raised Christian, I asked God to lead me on his perfect path. I later asked him to show me who he is. And he has made it clear to me that He is one. Not three in one, not 2 in one. But three in one. I struggled with it for a little bit. But I see how it makes sense now.

Debating this will lead no wheres, and is not Christ like.

I wasn't raised a Christian either, but in my prayer God revealed to me a very different and true reality in the Trinity. I have seen the evidence you have posted throughout the thread and it really isn't very convincing saying that the Trinity is false simply because someone baptized in Jesus name is hardly a good argument. Actually arguing about this is very Christ like we are ordered in one of Paul's letters (Paul didn't start the Church by the way) to "Correct our brethren" (paraphrasing).

 

[Dmurray]

There is a difference between correcting and debating. If one is willing to hear the opposing points and is curious about it then yes. But we both feel that we have had revelation from God and neither of us are willing to change our beliefs. Therefore it is pointless. God Bless. PS I have made more than the point of the Baptism. Youtube Oneness VS Trinity Debate with Dr. David Bernard.

 

[Dmurray]

Sorry Peter* I always get the names mixed up.

 

[FRANZO]

i believe in trinity....thnks

 

[Saved_by_grace]

I am sorry,but if you believe in a unitarian, or a God changes form, how can you be saved?


I am not trying to say this in a means of a 'works based' thing

Eph 4:1-6 is a listing of major doctrines, a believer cannot compromise on: Which shows the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Also, a believer has the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit does not teaching Unitarianism or that God changes form. If the Holy Spirit isn't instructing you, then how do you have the Him, and how can you really truly be a Christian.

The intertwining of the Holy Spirit, is so interwoven through Scripture, the only way I can understand that people can believe the Unitarian view or God changes form, is that they are deceived and blind.


If your a new believer, the Holy Spirit will teach you all things that Jesus Christ said. The Holy Spirit Glorifies the Father and the Son, to the believer, through the Bible

 

[Dmurray]

I'm not unitarian. And God has showed himself in many different forms. It is called transfiguration.

I believe that God is a Holy Spirit. Jesus is the image of the Invisible God. That Jesus is the one and only true God, as God was manifest in the Flesh.

That Father, and Son are not names of people but are roles that Jesus plays.

Jesus is the Everlasting Father, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Beginning and the Ending, all things were created by Him and for Him.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

I'm not unitarian. And God has showed himself in many different forms. It is called transfiguration.

I believe that God is a Holy Spirit. Jesus is the image of the Invisible God. That Jesus is the one and only true God, as God was manifest in the Flesh.

That Father, and Son are not names of people but are roles that Jesus plays.

Jesus is the Everlasting Father, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Beginning and the Ending, all things were created by Him and for Him.

DMurray, this is modalism. You asked me why I think you are a modalist. If this accurately portrays your belief, then you are a modalist.

 

[Dmurray]

DMurray, this is modalism. You asked me why I think you are a modalist. If this accurately portrays your belief, then you are a modalist.

From what I gather about modalism though is that once the role of the son comes into play the role of the father is done with. do not believe that.

You play the role of a son and a father at the exact same time. Why doens't God? They are just relationships. And when you have a different relationship with the person you act differently towards them.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

From what I gather about modalism though is that once the role of the son comes into play the role of the father is done with. do not believe that.

You play the role of a son and a father at the exact same time. Why doens't God? They are just relationships. And when you have a different relationship with the person you act differently towards them.

What can be done and what happened are two different things. Jesus spoke of the Father as a separate person. But what you are teaching is modalism, even if you think that the roles are being played at the same time.

 

[SantoSubito]

From what I gather about modalism though is that once the role of the son comes into play the role of the father is done with. do not believe that.

You play the role of a son and a father at the exact same time. Why doens't God? They are just relationships. And when you have a different relationship with the person you act differently towards them.

To be exact Modalistic Monarchianism matches your beliefs. I've never bothered to ask this before but, are you a Oneness Pentecostal by any chance?