Are you a Trinitarian, and if so, can you defend the doctrine?
- Thread starter UnitedWithChrist
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The trinity is not the Word of God because Jesus is the Word of God.[/QUOTE]
Nope. The Word of God is the Word of God not Jesus. This is another manipulation of Jn 1:1-3. Please see Isa 55:11, Ps 33:6-9 and particularly 2 Sam 7:12. John has not come up with something out of the blue but referred to the Prophets. You can also see it in Jn 20:17, Re 1:1 and so on.
[/QUOTE]Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity, or the nature of the triune God, is first described in the book of Genesis chapters 1 and 2.[/QUOTE]
Nope. It is the story tellers product.
[/QUOTE]I don't know about the Athanasian Creed and will have to read this later, but yes like you say, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit are God, and this is in a boiled down sense the doctrine of the Trinity as the Bible details.[/QUOTE]
Nope. I didn't say that. I said that one of the Old Catholic Church Fathers said that the Father is God, the Son is God and that the HS is God.[/QUOTE]
Well it's not just a matter of translation. The narrative of the Bible and the nature of reality points to a triune God. That is to say there is the Father who is God, the Word of God which became flesh and is Jesus, and the Holy Spirit of God, the divine breath of God. This is shown in Genesis 1 and 2 and paralleled in the conception of Jesus. In Genesis God speaks creation into existence by his Word and his Spirit moves across the face of the deep. Compare this to the conception of Jesus in the Gospels where God's Spirit overshadows Mary and the Word of God, Jesus, is made flesh in the matrix of the virgin. The conception of Jesus is a parallel of the creation in Genesis.
The Gospel of John's first chapter also retells the creation account specifying that Jesus is the Word, by the Word all of creation made by God, and that the Word became flesh. This is not a manipulation of the scripture, but is what it actually says.
I like the scriptures you cite. They seem to me to simply confirm what I have written. I especially liked Psalm 33:6
Psalm 33:6
6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
Right there underlined is the trinity, or the triune nature of God; The Father, the Word, the Spirit - one God.
I see, my apologies, I did not grow up in a catholic family nor do I attend any catholic institution, so I did not understand at first you were referring to their teachings and thought you were merely making a statement.
Rev 5
Your deal is impossible and against scripure.
Separate persons
3 separate persons
1 God
YOUR ANSWER;
"If you don't know what the Ecumenical Creeds say about the trinity, you do not understand the doctrine."
You deflect
Your stand must be hidden huh?
You invoke the creeds of the ancients but refuse to tell us which one.
You are disengenuous and are hiding
The word "doctrine" means teaching, in essence.
Anyone who claims that doctrine is bad doesn't know what he's talking about. Bad doctrine is bad, but good doctrine is good.
Often degrading doctrine is an activity of non-denominational groups or lone ranger Christians. Usually you will find out their message is "don't listen to doctrine and theologians but listen to what I have to say". In other words, they are hypocrites because often, implicit in their claim is an appeal to listen to THEM and THEIR TEACHINGS.
There is a strong resentment against sound teaching within the Church. Certain ignorant men of the 19th century, which include Charles Finney, catered to emotionalism in his teachings in the frontier because the population there tended to be illiterate. Additionally, frontier life was hard, and the settlers wanted to have a "good time" when they attended revivals.
Men like Finney encouraged ignorance in the Church, through focusing on such things and discrediting older, more sound teachers. I believe we see this today evidenced in the charismatic/Pentecostal movement, and especially the shallow megachurch environment represented by guys like Steven Furtick.
I wouldn't isolate this phenomena to charismatics or Pentecostals, but they are susceptible to it due to the substitution of emotionalism for sound teaching. While I believe good doctrine leads to an emotional response, an absence of good doctrine creates irrational emotionalism. That is why we see people barking like dogs, laughing in the Spirit, holy toking or drunkenness, getting slain in the Spirit, etcetera. Vapid emotionalism.
Anyone who claims that doctrine is bad doesn't know what he's talking about. Bad doctrine is bad, but good doctrine is good.
Often degrading doctrine is an activity of non-denominational groups or lone ranger Christians. Usually you will find out their message is "don't listen to doctrine and theologians but listen to what I have to say". In other words, they are hypocrites because often, implicit in their claim is an appeal to listen to THEM and THEIR TEACHINGS.
There is a strong resentment against sound teaching within the Church. Certain ignorant men of the 19th century, which include Charles Finney, catered to emotionalism in his teachings in the frontier because the population there tended to be illiterate. Additionally, frontier life was hard, and the settlers wanted to have a "good time" when they attended revivals.
Men like Finney encouraged ignorance in the Church, through focusing on such things and discrediting older, more sound teachers. I believe we see this today evidenced in the charismatic/Pentecostal movement, and especially the shallow megachurch environment represented by guys like Steven Furtick.
I wouldn't isolate this phenomena to charismatics or Pentecostals, but they are susceptible to it due to the substitution of emotionalism for sound teaching. While I believe good doctrine leads to an emotional response, an absence of good doctrine creates irrational emotionalism. That is why we see people barking like dogs, laughing in the Spirit, holy toking or drunkenness, getting slain in the Spirit, etcetera. Vapid emotionalism.
How many people actually understand when "word" or "the word" is used, what do they understand? The research I have done on this, can actually come down to three concepts:
1. Order/command
2. keeping a promise
3. in the context of a message or news being sent.
Now in the context of John 1:1 when it starts of "in the beginning...." question is, what had a beginning? I ask this question because the only thing that has a beginning is creation itself.
Take into account the following examples:
Example 1: The King says to his people that his word is to be obeyed? What is the context here? People are to obey his command/s
Example 2: Person A gives his word to person B that he will agree to do something. This is the context of keeping a promise.
Example 3: Word reached The King that one of his generals was killed in battle. THis context would relate to news reaching the king about the death of a general.
1. Order/command
2. keeping a promise
3. in the context of a message or news being sent.
Now in the context of John 1:1 when it starts of "in the beginning...." question is, what had a beginning? I ask this question because the only thing that has a beginning is creation itself.
Take into account the following examples:
Example 1: The King says to his people that his word is to be obeyed? What is the context here? People are to obey his command/s
Example 2: Person A gives his word to person B that he will agree to do something. This is the context of keeping a promise.
Example 3: Word reached The King that one of his generals was killed in battle. THis context would relate to news reaching the king about the death of a general.
Yet, they are one Being. That’s the classical teaching of the Trinity. Three Persons, one Being.
"Word", in the context of John 1:1-3, likely relates to the Greek concept of the Logos, the divine, impersonal force that ordered the universe.
It could also apply to the concept of "mem'ra" which relates to the word of God, which formed the creation in Genesis 1.
Here, John is revealing that the Word is, in fact, personal. He is one of the three Persons of the Triune God.
However, John 1:1-3 gives no room for Oneness theology, as it says that the Word was with God. The "with" in Greek (pros) implies a face-to-face relationship.
Oneness theology is incoherent anyways. As I have described, their view can be related to two sock-puppets on the same person talking to each other. It is plain from the Gospels that the Father and Son were relational, having relationships with one another and the Son prayed to the Father.
Perhaps I don't understand your point though..maybe you can elaborate.
Any other view than the Trinity is incoherent. That is why the Church was forced to acknowledge it as biblical. All the statements of Scripture cannot be reconciled without it.
In fact, if someone is anti-Trinitarian, they are not able to understand Scripture coherently. Entire concepts in Scripture depend on it, such as how the believer is united with Christ through the mediation of the Holy Spirit.
As an anti-Trinitarian I could not understand much of the Bible, and the same is true with other anti-Trinitarians.
A husband abd wife are 1 according to scripture.
Not one person or being.
Yet 1 nonetheless.
Same with God.
One God because THEY are one
Not one being
I'm not sure if I understand your response, but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one Being or Essence yet three Persons.
Actually, if one claims they are two separate beings, they are polytheists and this is forbidden by all of Scripture, both New and Old Testament.
Oneness of purpose is a view that some Semi-Arians have taught..in other words, they are polytheists but claim that the Father and Son are united in terms of outlook, but not in terms of the divine essence.
Nicene creed
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen
Rev 5 refutes that
Both beings are in heaven. 2 separate beings not 1.
One being ,Jesus,takes the scroll from the other being ,the father.
No way are they one being.
Ok number 2 is where you stumble.
"Reveals himself"
Jesus is not a manifestation or revelation of the Father.
Infact,in hebrews it states that the Son is exalted above the Father.
To that end the Father states of the son "thy throne o God is forrver and ever"
What happens is since they are three ,man tries to define it.
Hence
Personas
Escence
Revealed
Etc.
We know for a fact God is 3 persons.
So any definition to Him being one has to incorporate that.
One creed says "..... The father who created all things"
Well thats wrong because we know jesus was the creator.
Hence
Personas
Escence
Revealed
Etc.
We know for a fact God is 3 persons.
So any definition to Him being one has to incorporate that.
One creed says "..... The father who created all things"
Well thats wrong because we know jesus was the creator.
Or..
perhaps you don't understand what I am saying.
My point is that God reveals Himself in Scripture that there is one God, and this one God is three in terms of Personhood.
We can know nothing about God unless it is revealed. And, it is the responsibility of the believer to accept what Scripture teaches..not what we think is logical.
If Scripture says there is only one God, and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, then the Trinity is taught in Scripture.
Reducing God's nature down to the material realm, where there is only one person related to each being, doesn't apply to God.
Doing that is actually idolatrous in my opinion, because the person's definition of God is false.
OK..
So you deny monotheism and the Trinity.
Be forewarned, folks.
Scripture clearly teaches that there is only one God. And he uses personal pronouns like "I" to speak of himself.
Therefore, there can only be one God in this sense.
Start with Genesis 1:26-27 and work from there.
Notice that God created man, and the pronoun "us" was used in regards to the proposal, then the pronoun "he" is used to describe himself in the creation.
So, there is a simplicity of God, and there is also a complexity of God.
This isn't an isolated incident, either. I would suggest reading Isaiah 40-55 for several passages where God says he is the only one like himself.
Isaiah 46:9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,
Notice that YHVH says he is the only God, there is none like him.
The plot thickens in Isaiah 53 as the Father is clearly YHVH there, and it thickens even further when Jesus identifies himself as YHVH.
I used to be a polytheist like you, though..and I pretty much thought the same things.
I am wondering, do you deny the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, too? Or do you believe he is a separate god?
I affirm that.
You don't seem to understand that "of one essence" means there is only one God.
The word "essence" is the same thing as "being". The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same essence, yet are distinct Persons.
The oneness of God's essence, and the oneness of His Being is built into the creed.
And, the Creed basically restates 1 Corinthians in terms of one God and one Lord...however this statement doesn't imply that Jesus is not God, and that the Father is not Lord...it is true that both the Father and Jesus are both Lord and God.
But where does the scripture say these are three persons in one God?
It is inconceivable what you are proposing, we know that Jesus is one person and one being by Himself, yet the Father and the Holy spirit are in Him (Jesus).