Trinity Belief and Born Again?

[Matthias]

I was very specific in my post . Maybe reread it .

Your story is a common one on Internet forums. You have the knowledge to help him but not the courage.

I tried to help him - by linking articles written by Catholic and Protestant authors, as well as by reasoning with him - and you’ve done nothing to help him.

 

[Matthias]

If I'm not misunderstanding you, you are saying that God is a "being" and therefore is not "a" person. Assuming I have it right, wouldn't that make God a "thing" made up of three persons?

I was just speaking with @theefaith about his belief concerning the Trinity. He says he believes the Trinity is three beings. (The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Trinity is one being, as @Christophany correctly pointed out in his post to me.) He won’t listen to me and I doubt that he read the links I provided. He might listen to a trinitarian - particularly if the trinitarian were a Roman Catholic - but none have attempted to speak with him about it.

To your point, trinitarians often speak of their deity as “one what and three whos”.

Thinking About the Trinity: One What and Three Whos

If He is a real person, then that's what He is, a real person, singular, which is the normal definition of the word. But if He is three persons, then there must be three Gods. The third option would be that God is a thing and not a person at all.

My God is one being, one person, the Father.

“Three beings” is approaching tritheism, not trinitarianism.

 

[JunChosen]

Not saying you're wrong, but how does this fit into your doctrine:

1 Tim 2:4,
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
It looks like God would certainly like all to be saved, so why aren't all saved? Or are all saved?

It certainly looks like God would want to save all, doesn't He? But NEVER!
Romans 9:13-15 reads:
13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.
14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

I'm sorry that it is I that has to tell you that you read the Bible like it is an ordinary instead of it as a spiritual book. It is because you are NOT spiritual but, rather a natural man [2 Corinthians 3:16-17].
Just as this OP was written! The key verses to your dilemma for misinterpreting Scripture Mark 4:33-34; 12-13 which reads:
33) And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it.
34) But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
12) That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
13) And he said unto them, know ye not this parable? and how then will you know all parables?
BTW, a parable is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning..

If you desire for me to expound on the scriptures I've quoted above I'll be glad to, because these scriptures must be understood spiritually.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Rich R]

I was just speaking with @theefaith about his belief concerning the Trinity. He says he believes the Trinity is three beings. (The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Trinity is one being, as @Christophany correctly pointed out in his post to me.) He won’t listen to me and I doubt that he read the links I provided. He might listen to a trinitarian - particularly if the trinitarian were a Roman Catholic - but none have attempted to speak with him about it.

To your point, trinitarians often speak of their deity as “one what and three whos”.

Thinking About the Trinity: One What and Three Whos

My God is one being, one person, the Father.

“Three beings” is approaching tritheism, not trinitarianism.

Good point about three beings approaching polytheism. The Athenasian Creed solves it by first listing three Gods (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) and then blithely going on to say they are not three Gods but one God. Someone can call a pig a lap dog, but it's still a pig.

I've seen that about God being a "what." I would think most people would be highly insulted if called a "what." My Father, and I'm sure yours also, is most certainly not a "what." He's a real loving person, albeit a spirit person. Good enough for me! :)

 

[Matthias]

Good point about three beings approaching polytheism. The Athenasian Creed solves it by first listing three Gods (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) and then blithely going on to say they are not three Gods but one God. Someone can call a pig a lap dog, but it's still a pig.

I've seen that about God being a "what." I would think most people would be highly insulted if called a "what." My Father, and I'm sure yours also, is most certainly not a "what." He's a real loving person, albeit a spirit person. Good enough for me! :)

“...it’s own conception of the Trinity was looked upon by the Fathers themselves as a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism, except that to them this combination was a good combination; in fact, it was to them an ideal combination of what is best in Jewish monotheism and of what is best in pagan polytheism, and consequently they gloried in it and pointed to it as evidence of the truth of their belief. We have on this the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa - one of the great figures in the history of the philosophic formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity - and his words are repeated by John of Damascus - the last of the Church Fathers.

The Christian conception of God, argues Gregory of Nyssa, is neither the polytheism of the Greeks nor the monotheism of the Jews and consequently it must be true, for ’the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.’”

(Henry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 362-363, Second Edition, Revised)

What Gregory of Nyssa calls “the Christian conception of God” (i.e. the Trinity) is a hybrid.

The true Christian conception of God, I would respond to Gregory of Nyssa, is the Messiah’s Jewish monotheism.

Once the Church departed from the unitary monotheism of the Jews it departed from the unitary monotheism of Jesus Christ.

 

[Rich R]

It certainly looks like God would want to save all, doesn't He? But NEVER!
Romans 9:13-15 reads:
13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.
14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

You are building a doctrine by yanking a few verses out of context!

I don't think God unilaterally decides who He will have compassion on. By considering other parts of the scriptures you can see exactly who He decides to have mercy on, namely all who confess Jesus as Lord and Believes He raised him from the dead (Rom 10:9-10). Any individual who wants to do that has the free will to do it. Nobody is forced to do it, nor is anybody prevented from doing it. That is part of the context of the verses you quoted and very relevant to the subject. The subject is actually covered all the way through chapter 11. If you read the whole thing, it ought to give you some insight.

Now if I wanted to ignore the immediate context, the remote context (including 1 Tim 2:4), as well as the overall scripture message, I could say that it certainly looks like God has decided who gets saved and who doesn't. But NEVER.

​

That's not an argument in any sense of the word. It's just me deciding which verses I like and which I don't without making any effort to make the two "seemingly" contradictory ideas agree.

I'm sorry that it is I that has to tell you that you read the Bible like it is an ordinary instead of it as a spiritual book. It is because you are NOT spiritual but, rather a natural man [2 Corinthians 3:16-17].
Just as this OP was written!

The key verses to your dilemma for misunderstanding Scripture Mark 4:33-34; 12-13:
33) And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it.
34) But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
12) That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
13) And he said unto them, know ye not this parable? and how then will you know all parables?
BTW, a parable is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning..

If you desire for me to expound on the scriptures I've quoted above I'll be glad to, because these scriptures must be understood spiritually.

To God Be The Glory

So now we have to be initiated into a secret society to understand the Bible? No thanks. I'm not into Gnosticism. I think it my be more expedient for you to have someone teach you than for you to teach others. In any case, as you alluded, you'd be wasting your time and mine since you've already concluded I don't read the Bible as a spiritual book. Gee, I just read it using the normal meaning of words, grammar, and concepts. Decidedly not Gnosticism.

 

[JunChosen]

Good point about three beings approaching polytheism. The Athenasian Creed solves it by first listing three Gods (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) and then blithely going on to say they are not three Gods but one God. Someone can call a pig a lap dog, but it's still a pig.

I've seen that about God being a "what." I would think most people would be highly insulted if called a "what." My Father, and I'm sure yours also, is most certainly not a "what." He's a real loving person, albeit a spirit person. Good enough for me! :)

The word you're looking for is "uni-plural" it means three separate persons subsisting as one!

To God Be The Glory

 

[ChristisGod]

Your story is a common one on Internet forums. You have the knowledge to help him but not the courage.

I tried to help him - by linking articles written by Catholic and Protestant authors, as well as by reasoning with him - and you’ve done nothing to help him.

I can answer any questions on the Trinity you can think of without contradiction.

 

[Matthias]

I can answer any questions on the Trinity you can think of without contradiction.

Thank you. The only question I have for you at this time is why aren’t you trying to help the trinitarian who believes and teaches that the Trinity is three beings?

 

[Rich R]

The word you're looking for is "uni-plural" it means three separate persons subsisting as one!

To God Be The Glory

Which is an oxymoron! :)

 

[ChristisGod]

Thank you. The only question I have for you at this time is why aren’t you trying to help the trinitarian who believes and teaches that the Trinity is three beings?

There is nothing I can do that is between him and God.

 

[JunChosen]

Which is an oxymoron! :)

Oxymoron? That's how people react when they do not have an answer! [being polite] Lol
OK, let's get back on track. So can you expound on Genesis 1:1 and Deuteronomy 6:4? If you don't know the context you can recruit anyone to help you.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Matthias]

There is nothing I can do that is between him and God.

Thanks for sharing your perspective with me.

Forget for a moment that I’m an ex-trinitarian. You know I’m a Jewish monotheist. Forget that too. You know nothing whatsoever about me. We’ve never met or spoken to one another before. The slate is blank.

I show up here one day, announce that I’m a trinitarian and begin teaching that the Trinity is three beings.

You know the Trinity isn’t three beings. Just for a moment, think of me as a trinitarian who sincerely believes that the Trinity is three beings.

Would you say nothing to me about it? Would you still say that there is nothing you can do, that it is between me and God?

Would you have any concern at all that I - a trinitarian - might be misleading fellow trinitarians with sincere but nevertheless false teaching about the doctrine of the Trinity?

How sensitive are you about false teaching concerning the doctrine of the Trinity? Does it matter if that false teaching is done by a trinitarian?

Would you have any concern at all that I might not be what I think I am? That I think I’m a trinitarian when my doctrine screams that I’m not?

Is it enough that I say I’m a trinitarian? That it matters not what I believe, say and teach about the Trinity - as long as I say I’m a trinitarian?

How important is the doctrine of the Trinity in this scenario?

***

The moment I asked for is over.

I’m an ex-trinitarian. I’m a Jewish monotheist. You know all of that.

If I teach something about the doctrine of the Trinity which you know is incorrect, will you say nothing to me? Will you remain silent, think there is nothing you can do about it, and justify your action by saying that it is between me and God?

Will you treat false teaching about the doctrine of the Trinity as false teaching about the the doctrine of the Trinity, no matter who the false teacher is, with the same attitude?

I don’t know what you will say, but I will tell you that, when I was in your place, when I was still a trinitarian, my attitude toward those who misrepresented the doctrine of the Trinity - intentionally or unintentionally - wasn’t that there was nothing I could do about it, that it was between those persons and God.

 

[Rich R]

Oxymoron? That's how people react when they do not have an answer! [being polite] Lol
OK, let's get back on track. So can you expound on Genesis 1:1 and Deuteronomy 6:4? If you don't know the context you can recruit anyone to help you.

To God Be The Glory

Calling "uni-plural" an oxymoron is not something someone says when they have no answer. It is a perfectly valid answer.

Let's look at the meaning of a few simple words:

oxymoron
n 1: conjoining contradictory terms (as in `deafening silence')

Uni- U"ni- [L. unus one. See One.]
A prefix signifying one, once; as in uniaxial, unicellular.

Plural Plu"ral, n. (Gram.)
The plural number; that form of a word which expresses or
denotes more than one; a word in the plural form.​

Now I know that the word Elohim in Gen 1:1 is called a "uni-plural" but that's man's invention and doesn't make it any less of an oxymoron so long as we stick to the accepted meaning of simple words. I trust you noticed the verb in Gen 1:1 is singular. In fact, all the verbs connected with Elohim in Gen 1 are singular. Baal is called an Elohim, despite being one entity. Does that have any bearing on the matter?

Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but I'm trying. :)

 

[JunChosen]

Thank you. The only question I have for you at this time is why aren’t you trying to help the trinitarian who believes and teaches that the Trinity is three beings?

I don't know any Trinitarian that teaches that the Trinity [not found in the Bible, BTW], is three beings.

Three distinct persons subsisting in the Godhead, yes.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Matthias]

I don't know any Trinitarian that teaches that the Trinity [not found in the Bible, BTW], is three beings.

I need to introduce you to @theefaith; then you will know one who does.

Does it matter? If so, is there anything you can (should?) do to help?

Three distinct persons subsisting in the Godhead, yes.

To God Be The Glory

 

[JunChosen]

oxymoron
n 1: conjoining contradictory terms (as in `deafening silence')

Uni- U"ni- [L. unus one. See One.]
A prefix signifying one, once; as in uniaxial, unicellular.

Plural Plu"ral, n. (Gram.)
The plural number; that form of a word which expresses or
denotes more than one; a word in the plural form.
I think telling someone they have no answer is actually a way to argue when they themselves have no answer.

Although English is my second language, and mind you, I will not make an excuse, I do know what oxymoron means!

And the word "uni-plural" you have defined is the same definition I gave in post #227. Go figure!

Are you going to deliberately ignore the question I posted in post #232???
Perhaps you're not ready?

To God Be The Glory

 

[Triumph1300]

WOW, from the theology I'm getting from you, seems like Satan is hard at work

Well....good luck to you.
I just leave it at that, no use going further.

 

[JunChosen]

So now we have to be initiated into a secret society to understand the Bible? No thanks. I'm not into Gnosticism. I think it my be more expedient for you to have someone teach you than for you to teach others. In any case, as you alluded, you'd be wasting your time and mine since you've already concluded I don't read the Bible as a spiritual book. Gee, I just read it using the normal meaning of words, grammar, and concepts. Decidedly not Gnosticism.

You are NOT far from the truth. The secret society is called the "true disciples" or the true believers. They are the ONLY ONES who were given to understand the Bible. Mark 4:34

To God Be The Glory

 

[JunChosen]

I need to introduce you to @theefaith; then you will know one who does.

I have had many dialogues with @theefaith in the past awhile back and he still have the same attitude towards Scripture, unless of course God changes his stony heart to a heart of flesh.

To God Be The Glory