The Trinity definition

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Nevertheless, the Bible teaches that sin shall not have dominion over us because we are not under the law but under grace (Romans 6:14)...

Maybe crowley and his cohorts were attempting to utilize some reverse psychology in what they were preaching.
Crowley taught "Do as thou will shall be the entire law", but he made no pretense at being Christian. On the contrary, he engaged in activities of defiance to God, including rampant immorality and the drinking of blood. I have a great deal of respect for John MacArthur's scholarship, but on one episode of grace to you, while discussing this very topic I heard him say nearly the same thing as Crowley, but qualified the statement. I'm only paraphrasing because I don't typically remember exact quotes, but MacArthur said that if you've been born again of the Holy Spirit, you've renewed your mind through the word, and if your will is aligned with God, then you can do whatever you will. His assumption is that if you are one with Christ as Christ is one with the Father, what you do will not be sin, because the Lord does not sin. The problem with MacArthur's statement, though true, is that unstable, carnal minds, and with evil eyes, misunderstand and misinterpret grace and freedom as licentiousness, and are unequipped to comprehend the law of liberty.
I think MacArthur's statement, because it was so close to that of the apostate Crowley, was a disservice to the body of Christ in that it gave the self deceived and self righteous another excuse to justify their evil and judgmental behavior toward the saints.
 
Last edited:

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There has always been the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The 3 Divine Persons of the Godhead are Eternal and Immutable.

hope this helps !!!
Moses had an assistant named Hoshea (or Oshea) the son of Nun. That servant became a biblical "type" of Jesus and so Moses called him Joshua. "Nun" translates as perpetuity. So the English equivalent of Joshua, son of Nun, is Jesus, son of perpetuity (son for eternity).
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
i dont see how when you you teach makes so little sense. Jesus followed the law, you say not to do that, just like alister crowley.
what truth? truth and right and wrong are two different things. Luciferians teach Lucifer abolished the law, this is truth, does that mean we should follow it?

when you teach people terms like "faith only" "we are not under the law" or whatever else you want to call it, that is teaching against the law, that is teaching the law is ablished, that is following in the footsteps of crowley and all other dark occult.
"the law of Moses is NOT abolished!" "we are not under the law" this sounds like a corrupt politician telling the masses what ever they want to hear
When you teach that Christians are under the law, you are an enemy of the cross and do the works of the synagogue of satan.
 

jaybird

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
1,595
559
113
When you teach that Christians are under the law, you are an enemy of the cross and do the works of the synagogue of satan.

Jesus followed the law, why did Jesus follow this synagogue of Satan? do you think it was Satan that sent Jesus? did Jesus do works in the name of Satan?

good luck digging yourself out of this hole, its deep.
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus followed the law, why did Jesus follow this synagogue of Satan? do you think it was Satan that sent Jesus? did Jesus do works in the name of Satan?

good luck digging yourself out of this hole, its deep.
Not really its imbecillic. Jesus was born a Jew under the law of Moses, and He was never a member of His own church while ministering to the Jews. The church didn't even exist yet. He came to fulfill the law as He said, and to establish a new covenant which according to scripture replaces the older covenant of law. So, come on, you can come up with something less moronic, can't you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChristisGod

jaybird

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
1,595
559
113
Not really its imbecillic. Jesus was born a Jew under the law of Moses, and He was never a member of His own church while ministering to the Jews. The church didn't even exist yet. He came to fulfill the law as He said, and to establish a new covenant which according to scripture replaces the older covenant of law. So, come on, you can come up with something less moronic, can't you?

ohh goodness, so now we got a different church than Jesus. do you hear what you are saying, the church of Jesus is not the church we need to be going to? you really believe this?
so if i understand you correctly, Jesus followed the law, the law is synagogue of Satan, therefore Jesus followed Satan.
and if one wants to follow Jesus, they are a moron.
this is interesting.
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
ohh goodness, so now we got a different church than Jesus. do you hear what you are saying, the church of Jesus is not the church we need to be going to? you really believe this?
so if i understand you correctly, Jesus followed the law, the law is synagogue of Satan, therefore Jesus followed Satan.
and if one wants to follow Jesus, they are a moron.
this is interesting.
Actually you neither understand me or scripture. That's okay, it's not actually possible for you to understand. You must be born again. Nowhere in these posts, on this website, or any other, have I ever said that the law is synagogue of satan, so once again you blaspheme God and His word for the sake of your pride. Do you understand that there was no church before the 1st pentecost and that the first pentecost occurred after the resurrection of our Lord?
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus was born a Jew under the law of Moses, and He was never a member of His own church while ministering to the Jews.

Heb 2:11, For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
Heb 2:12, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
Heb 2:13, And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
 

ChristisGod

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2020
6,900
3,846
113
64
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
more misapplication of scripture you don't even know its meaning nor the previous point of the question that was asked jbf. so once again proving your misuse of the scriptures.
 

jaybird

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
1,595
559
113
Actually you neither understand me or scripture. That's okay, it's not actually possible for you to understand. You must be born again. Nowhere in these posts, on this website, or any other, have I ever said that the law is synagogue of satan, so once again you blaspheme God and His word for the sake of your pride. Do you understand that there was no church before the 1st pentecost and that the first pentecost occurred after the resurrection of our Lord?
I understand you just fine, you just refuse to see what your teaching, you can spin this nonsense however you like but the end result will always be the same, and what I am saying is in fact the end result.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
more misapplication of scripture you don't even know its meaning nor the previous point of the question that was asked jbf. so once again proving your misuse of the scriptures.

Maybe the Lord healed me of my mental illness; because I appear to have a new thorn in my flesh....namely you...
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Heb 2:11, For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
Heb 2:12, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
Heb 2:13, And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
You do know that the letter to the Hebrews was written a long time after the resurrection and pentecost, right?
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I understand you just fine, you just refuse to see what your teaching, you can spin this nonsense however you like but the end result will always be the same, and what I am saying is in fact the end result.
Your argument is with scripture and its author, not with me.
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
now you think your words are scripture?
Your omniscience is amazing or your blasphemy is without limit. My words aren't scripture, they just paraphrase them. I could simply write everything I've said as quotes from scripture, but you've already denied the scriptures repeatedly. What would be the point? I can't make you less ignorant. Only you can do that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ChristisGod

ChristisGod

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2020
6,900
3,846
113
64
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your omniscience is amazing or your blasphemy is without limit. My words aren't scripture, they just paraphrase them. I could simply write everything I've said as quotes from scripture, but you've already denied the scriptures repeatedly. What would be the point? I can't make you less ignorant. Only you can do that.
agreed !
 
  • Like
Reactions: michaelvpardo

jaybird

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
1,595
559
113
Your omniscience is amazing or your blasphemy is without limit. My words aren't scripture, they just paraphrase them. I could simply write everything I've said as quotes from scripture, but you've already denied the scriptures repeatedly. What would be the point? I can't make you less ignorant. Only you can do that.

but you just said they are scripture.

Your argument is with scripture and its author, not with me.

i was actually replying to you, not a bible verse. what bible verse did i say was wrong?
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I never even heard of modalism until I read here in one of your posts. I looked up the definition and it's peculiar, but though I believe in the doctrine of 3 distinct persons my brain doesn't distinguish between them. I don't commonly pray to the Holy Spirit, but generally to the Father, yet I think of my fellowship with the Holy Spirit in the word as fellowship with Jesus. I'm not able to separate them at all in my mind, so perhaps I'm a modalist more than a trinitarian. To be honest, I believe that such classifications were created by men in disagreement with each other so that they could toss a brothers opinion into a bin with a label to justify disregarding them. I recall someone once labeling me a calvinist though I knew absolutely nothing about John Calvin beyond his name. It's nice to have these handy categories. I'll bet that the Lord gets a good laugh about it, but given my experience with people in the church and in the world, I can't say that I've met two people on the planet that believe all the same things or are in complete agreement about anything.

Michael,

Let’s admit up front that the doctrine of the Trinity “is difficult and perplexing to us” (Sproul 1995, p. 35). Another has said that “no man can fully explain the Trinity. . . the Trinity is still largely incomprehensible to the mind of man” (Martin 1980, p. 25).

The word, Trinity, does not appear in the Bible.

It comes from the Latin word trinitas, which means ‘threeness.’ But even though the word is not in the Bible, the trinitarian idea is there, and it is most important… In the minds of some, the difficulty of understanding how God can be both one and three is reason enough to reject the doctrine outright (Boice 1986, p. 109).​

Christianity does not teach the absurd notion about God that 1+1+1=1, which an unbeliever described as “celestial mathematics.” That is a false equation because the term, Trinity, describes a relationship, NOT of three Gods, but of one God in three persons. It is NOT tritheism (three beings who are God). Trinity is an effort to define God in all his fullness, in terms of his unity and diversity.

Historically, it has been described as one in essence and three in person. “Though the formula is mysterious and even paradoxical, it is in no way contradictory” (Sproul 1986, p. 35). Essence is used to describe God’s being, while the diversity is to express the Godhead in terms of person.

God’s unity is affirmed in Deut. 6:4, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” God’s diversity is declared in Gen. 1:26, “Then God said, ‘let us make man in our image, in our likeness…” After the sin of Adam, “The Lord God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us…” (Gen. 3:22). Concerning the tower of Babel, God said, “Come, let us go down and confuse their language…” (Gen. 11:7, emphasis added).

The OT prophets later confirmed this mysterious relationship within the Deity. In telling of his call to the office of a prophet, Isaiah tells of how God asked, “. . . And who will go for us?” (Isa. 6:8, emphasis added). The use of the plural, “us” and “our,” must be noted. It is a significant issue.

God could have been talking to himself (even Jewish commentators reject that interpretation), to the angels, or to other Persons who are not identified. He was not talking to angels because the next verse (Gen. 1:27) gives the context. While referring to the creation of human beings, the Bible declares, “So God created man in his own image.” Human beings were not created in the image of angels, but in God’s image. So the Father, in Gen. 1:26 is addressing His Son and the Holy Spirit.

This diversity in the Godhead is clearly identified in Matt. 28:19, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”

Historically, the heresy of modalism has attempted to deny the distinction of persons in the Godhead, claiming that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just different ways in which God expresses himself. On the other hand, tritheism, another heresy, has tried to affirm that there are three beings that together make up God.

All persons in the Godhead have all the attributes of deity.

There is also a distinction in the work done by each member of the Trinity. The work of salvation is in one sense common to all three persons of the Trinity. Yet in the manner of activity, there are differing operations assumed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father initiates creation and redemption; the Son redeems the creation; and the Holy Spirit regenerates and sanctifies, applying redemption to believers (Sproul 1986, pp. 35-36).

The Trinity does not refer to parts of God. It cannot be associated with the roles of God. All analogies break down. We can speak of water as being liquid, steam and ice, but all being water. To speak of one man as father, son and husband does not capture the full mystery of the nature of God. R.C. Sproul has rightly summarised:

The doctrine of the Trinity does not fully explain the mysterious character of God. Rather, it sets the boundaries outside of which we must not step. It defines the limits of our finite reflection. It demands that we be faithful to the biblical revelation that in one sense God is one and in a different sense He is three (1986, p. 36).​

God tells us why we cannot adequately express or explain certain dimensions of His nature: “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts'” (Isa. 55:8-9).

Oz
 
  • Like
Reactions: michaelvpardo

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
GINOLJC, to all.
the Bible is clear about God's plurality of "ONE". and Deuteronomy 6:4 is the First key in understanding God diversity. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
One here is the Hebrew term H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

as said before most scholars look at definition #1. and think Three person in a unity of one. NO, definition #2 give us the clear answer to God's plurality of ONE, he's the ordinal "ONE" of himself, (without flesh, without bone, and without blood), he is "Spirit"... or as the bible states.... "THE FIRST", the ordinal "First". all by himself, and no one beside him. this fact is clearly stated in Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." here the LORD all caps, the H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') is saying that he is the FIRST and he is the LAST. and beside him there is no God. me is a single designation. and "BESIDE" means, in addition to; apart from. Well is there is "NO" God beside him, and him is a single designation, meaning there is no separate and distinct person with him at all. for this is bared out again in Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."
Here "WITH" is describing only one person as in John 1:1. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." here the Word is God, which is correct, but it's a plurality of "ONE". what do I mean. here in John the Word is "WITH" God, who is a Spirit, as in Isaiah 41:4, the "First" is WITH the "Last, the same terminology used of WITH in both verses, correct. now the revelation which shows without a doubt it's the same one "PERSON. Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." BINGO, one need to read that verse again.

I am "ALSO?", yes the same one person is the First and the Last, as in John 1:1 the Word is the "Spirit", who is God. SAME ONE PERSON, two idenification, because he, God, who is Spirit, Diversified, or shared himself in flesh as the "ANOTHER" of himself, just as the Greek word G243 Allos is describing this process of "EQUALLY" sharing of oneself as Philippians 2:6 states, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" BINGO..... Equal ... "WITH" God, not equal "TO", which would indicate a separate and distinct person. not not equal "to", but equal "With". BUT "GOD" HAS NO EQUAL, scripture is clear, Isaiah 40:25 "To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One." or, Isaiah 46:5 "To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?" so this is the same one Person.

God's plurality is complete in being the ordinal of himself. if one can understand, the difference between "ordinal" numbers, and "cardinal" numbers then one could start to understand God's plurality of "ONE".

God himself by his chosen apostle said, Romans 1:19 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them."
Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" so when someone say the three person Godhead cannot be explain, true, because it's no three person Godhead, only ONE person Godhead... "diversified".

when God said that he is the First and the Last, he just showed his plurality of "ONE", now listen to God, Revelation 22:13 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." who is this? lets see.
Revelation 2:8 "And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;" case closed.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"