Understanding the Trinity as a doctrine.
- Thread starter justbyfaith
- 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.
Why would we be concerned with what you think? Why would we not simply read the Bible and learn the truth?
The absence of a Scripture verse refuting an idea does not make the idea true.
If it did, I could claim that God is actually the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and because there isn't a verse stating that He isn't, I could rightly claim that it is the truth.
In reality, we know about God by what the Bible does say about Him, not by what it doesn't.
I encourage everyone to be a Berean (Acts 17:10-11) concerning what I preach and to do so.
There are certainly passages in the Bible, such as Isaiah 9:6, John 4:23-24 w/ John 14:7-11, that state that Jesus is, in fact, the Father.
Also consider what I have said in previous posts about the fact that there is one Lord in holy scripture (Ephesians 4:5); even the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21). And that no one can say that Jesus is the Lord (in light of this) except by the power of the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 12:3 (kjv)). And, Jesus is the one Lord of holy scripture (1 Corinthians 8:6).
Conclusion: Jesus and the Father are the same Lord (1 Corinthians 12:5, 2 Corinthians 8:19).
Can you say that Jesus is the Lord in light of the information given to you above?
If not, then you don't have the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 12:3 (kjv)); and therefore are not saved (Romans 8:9).
It appears that you have built your beliefs by seizing on an idea, searching out all the verses that support your idea, and completely ignoring anything that might contradict it. There are plenty of passages that demonstrate the separateness of Jesus from the Father.
By the way, you are seriously wrong regarding your criteria regarding whether others have the Holy Spirit.
Your conclusion does not follow at all from your premise. I would encourage you to learn what a non sequitur is, and to stop employing them in your interpretations of Scripture.
And the difference between them is... ?
Separate (adjective): forming or viewed as a unit apart or by itself.
Distinct (adjective): (1) recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type; (2) readily distinguishable by the senses.
(source: Google.com)
I don't see enough of a distinction or separation in the definitions to use one but not the other when describing Jesus and the Father.
With respect, I would have to disagree, at least on the evidence I have seen. You frequently employ non sequiturs and often use circular reasoning, either of which renders your points invalid. Instead of assessing your own "logic" by your own understanding, invite someone who really does understand logic and fallacies to assess it.
That the Father and Son are distinct means that they can be the same Person / Spirit and yet be distinct individuals within the Trinity.
Human dictionaries can be flawed.
When discerning biblical doctrines, sometimes it takes teaching outside of what can be found in a dictionary to explain certain doctrines.
Especially concerning doctrines that are not easily understood, like the Trinity.
A re-definition of words may be in order, so that people can understand what is being spoken of in light of the words being used.
Normally, that would be a cult-like mentality; but when the re-definition of words is given over the fact that the words as they were originally defined don't give the real meaning, it becomes necessary to re-define the words so that people who understand the definition can understand what is being spoken by the words in question.
Like I said, while I may not give airtight arguments for my case, they are nevertheless valid arguments that apply as evidentiary substantiation.
@justbyfaith
normal can often equal wrong in spiritual matters. God's thoughts not being our own, unless/ until our thoughts are becoming much more like God's -- then they can be partial, obscured, wrong, mistaken, "in part".
normal can often equal wrong in spiritual matters. God's thoughts not being our own, unless/ until our thoughts are becoming much more like God's -- then they can be partial, obscured, wrong, mistaken, "in part".
While I agree that human words may at times be inadequate, we understand concepts primarily through words. So, if you're going to use words to explain your understanding of the Trinity, you must use them as they are generally understood so that your explanation is understood by others. Redefining key terms is a surefire way to obfuscate, complicate, or simply confuse the issues, which is what the cults do.
Maybe I was not adequately clear; logical fallacies render your assertions NOT valid. Insisting that they are still valid is either ignorance or obstinacy.
I agree that the cults do often change the meanings of words in order to give their members a different message thatn what would be interpreted by those on the outside in hearing the same words.
But when a certain word, according to the dictionary, does not adequately speak of what is intended, the only option is to either make up a new word or else to re-define the word.
At any rate, I have not re-defined the word "distinct" when I speak of the fact that it has a different connotation than the word "separate" and therefore has a "distinct" meaning that is not exactly the same definition as we have for "separate".
Again, while my arguments may not be airtight in that they may utilize what you would term to be "logical fallacies", there is reason behind them that is valid reasoning. You would do well to understand that reasoning rather than to disregard it over the fact that it is not given with the pure logical form that you require.
I don't require "pure logical form", but in order for an assertion to be considered reasonable, it must pass the test of sound logic. There is no amount of "valid reasoning behind" a logical fallacy that can make valid the assertion employing the fallacy.
It's a bit like a speeding ticket: all the times you drive "under" the speed limit don't matter a bit when the police officer clocks you going "over" the limit.
Not "not airtight"; INVALID. Empty. Worthless. Bankrupt. Void.
So, I would ask you wheat you think I have said that is based on a logical fallacy?
I think that I might even be able to show that there is valid reasoning behind it.
I think that I might even be able to show that there is valid reasoning behind it.