Trinity vs. Tritheism: Understanding the Trinity.

[Dave L]

Roe v. Wade had the decision that it did because of, and even for this reason: all the facts were not presented when they made the decision to allow abortions. If the decision had been made today, with the information available that we have concerning how the person in the womb is a living person, any Supreme Court Justice in their right minds would have ruled that that unborn baby has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and 61 million babies would have never been murdered.

My point being, that sometimes decisions can be made that have lasting effects on how things operate for decades (even centuries) to come; but that this does not mean that those decisions were made with all the facts on the table; and (especially) neither does it mean that those decisions were the right ones.

The true church of the living Christ is an invisible entity; it consists of all those who truly believe in Jesus Christ.

Was Martin Luther excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and the Protestant Reformation began because of this? What makes that any different from the breaking off of Oneness adherents from the Trinitarian believers in the time that they did so?

It seems to me that it was the Trinitarians who broke off from the Oneness adherents; the Oneness adherents did not leave the church; but were excommunicated as was Martin Luther and his Protestant friends. Did he leave the church and therefore was not of it? No; in all reality he was standing up for the purity of the church and those who were left behind (in the Catholic Church) were in the wrong.

Therefore the Trinitarians left the true church and saved face by excommunicating those whom they left; because they had the power to do so. Yes, sometimes the devil has the upper hand when it comes to this kind of power (even most often).

But I will say that the "Trinitarians" that I am speaking of were not Trinitarians at all; but rather were Tritheists, if I am not mistaken. They gave lip service to the idea that God is one but in all reality believed in three Gods: and therefore they were never in the true church in the first place. Thus in leaving them the Oneness adherents proved that they were not of them to the praise of those Oneness adherents: it shows that the Oneness adherents were, in fact, faithful to the truth.



Also, to deny the Father and the Son is to deny that Jesus is the Christ (that is, to deny Jesus); and this would indicate to me, that Jesus is the Father and the Son. Even as you, @Dave L, have admitted that Jesus Christ is the name of the Father, even of the Son, even of the Holy Ghost.

You and any oneness person redefine biblical terms and then deny your error. If you define the terms by scripture, you exhibit the spirit of Antichrist in all of your claims. Especially in making the Son created. This denies that Jesus is God.

 

[brakelite]

Oneness = the Spirit of Antichrist. “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22) (KJV 1900)

You do this by redefining the Son making him created. John says the Son is the eternal God in John 1:1ff

Is this directed at me as a confirmation of your beliefe that 'oneness'...a created Jesus...is what I am advocating? I believe I said begotten...there is no common ground whatsoever between being begotten and being created.

 

[Dave L]

Is this directed at me as a confirmation of your beliefe that 'oneness'...a created Jesus...is what I am advocating? I believe I said begotten...there is no common ground whatsoever between being begotten and being created.

You redefine the terms and try to skirt John's accusations about having the Spirit of Antichrist. But you and oneness advocates make the Son a creation and therefore not God.

 

[brakelite]

You redefine the terms and try to skirt John's accusations about having the Spirit of Antichrist. But you and oneness advocates make the Son a creation and therefore not God.

You need to do a study on the meaning of the word μονογενής monogenes and seriously consider that when used by John several times, it can only pertain to Christ's preincarnation. Monogenes does not mean created. And if you are denying the real literal relationship of Father and Son, it is you who are vying for the title you accuse me of owning. The Father and Son are distinct separate personalities. However, the holy Spirit is revealed as belonging to them both.

If you wish, I can happily send you privately a comprehensive PDF study (not done by me) on the meaning and application of monogenes, and why it applies uniquely to the Son of God, and why such a truth is confirmation of Christ's divinity.

A denial of His literal Sonship offers no other reason to consider Him God, except as a 'oneness' which I do not advocate. Christ is one with His Father in ways He doesn't explain...but because we know He is a distinct personality, as John 17 powerfully exemplifies, we may know that whatever way in which their unity consists, they are not the one and the same person. Nor can we understand how or when exactly the Son was begotten...but because the testimony declares the Son created ALL things, upholds all things by the word of His power, that by His power all things consist, and that He, the Son, is before all things, then He cannot therefore be a created being.
Please do not attribute to me beliefs which I have never ever espoused to. Particularly when it comes to the Godhead, which subject I am very careful in handling, knowing it is holy ground...thus I take great care in expressing what I believe, that I do not go beyond what scripture reveals. I do not make assumptions with regard my own understanding of the Godhead, I would appreciate you do the same.

 

[Dave L]

You need to do a study on the meaning of the word μονογενής monogenes and seriously consider that when used by John several times, it can only pertain to Christ's preincarnation. Monogenes does not mean created. And if you are denying the real literal relationship of Father and Son, it is you who are vying for the title you accuse me of owning. The Father and Son are distinct separate personalities. However, the holy Spirit is revealed as belonging to them both.

If you wish, I can happily send you privately a comprehensive PDF study (not done by me) on the meaning and application of monogenes, and why it applies uniquely to the Son of God, and why such a truth is confirmation of Christ's divinity.

A denial of His literal Sonship offers no other reason to consider Him God, except as a 'oneness' which I do not advocate. Christ is one with His Father in ways He doesn't explain...but because we know He is a distinct personality, as John 17 powerfully exemplifies, we may know that whatever way in which their unity consists, they are not the one and the same person. Nor can we understand how or when exactly the Son was begotten...but because the testimony declares the Son created ALL things, upholds all things by the word of His power, that by His power all things consist, and that He, the Son, is before all things, then He cannot therefore be a created being.
Please do not attribute to me beliefs which I have never ever espoused to. Particularly when it comes to the Godhead, which subject I am very careful in handling, knowing it is holy ground...thus I take great care in expressing what I believe, that I do not go beyond what scripture reveals. I do not make assumptions with regard my own understanding of the Godhead, I would appreciate you do the same.

You still deny Christ is God when you say the Son did not exist eternally.

 

[brakelite]

You still deny Christ is God when you say the Son did not exist eternally.

How can Christ not be God? He is His Father's Son. God begat God...what do you think was begotten...a rough carbon copy? No, but a Son who inherited His Father's name...God. A Son Who is the visible image of the invisible God.
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
¶ Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Heb. 1:4-9

How can the Son not be God? But note well, even the Son confesses the Father as His God...the only true God...having rank over His Son, but equal in all other respects. See John 20:17 and John 17:3.

 

[Dave L]

How can Christ not be God? He is His Father's Son. God begat God...what do you think was begotten...a rough carbon copy? No, but a Son who inherited His Father's name...God. A Son Who is the visible image of the invisible God.
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
¶ Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Heb. 1:4-9

How can the Son not be God? But note well, even the Son confesses the Father as His God...the only true God...having rank over His Son, but equal in all other respects. See John 20:17 and John 17:3.

God is not created. You make the Son created in time at the incarnation = not God.

 

[justbyfaith]

I think I will resolve to give @Dave L the last word here, without conceding that he is right in any way.

Otherwise we are just going to argue in circles.

I have answered his most recent statements previously within this thread.

 

[Dave L]

I think I will resolve to give @Dave L the last word here, without conceding that he is right in any way.

Otherwise we are just going to argue in circles.

I have answered his most recent statements previously within this thread.

Like Jesus said, the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.

 

[justbyfaith]

justbyfaith believes in oneness...quote: there is one God (James 2:19, Deuteronomy 6:4). Since the shema of Judaism is foundational to our Christian faith, we must begin there. Jesus said, I and my Father are one. He did not mean one in purpose; He meant that they are the same Spirit, the same Lord, the same God (1 Corinthians 12:4-6).

To conclude that I believe in oneness from this is to jump to conclusions. I do believe in a distinction between the members of the Godhead; however I emphasize their Oneness for the most part in order to fight against the heresy of Tritheism (which, I think, is secretly believed in by @Dave L).

I would suggest to you that a man's whole system of belief cannot be determined by a single statement made by him.

 

[Dave L]

To conclude that I believe in oneness from this is to jump to conclusions. I do believe in a distinction between the members of the Godhead; however I emphasize their Oneness for the most part in order to fight against the heresy of Tritheism (which, I think, is secretly believed in by @Dave L).

I would suggest to you that a man's whole system of belief cannot be determined by a single statement made by him.

Modalistic Monarchianism. A slight variation of »monarchianism that held that God manifested himself in three different modes throughout history. According to this view, since God is a single entity not three persons, as traditional Christianity teaches, he manifested himself first as being the Father, or Creator. At the »incarnation, he became the Son (see »patripassianism). And as the Holy Spirit, God is the sanctifier, teacher, and comforter of the church. Monarchianism was condemned as being heretical because it failed to distinguish between the single essence of the Godhead and the three persons of the »Trinity.

Nichols, L. A., Mather, G. A., & Schmidt, A. J. (2006). In Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions (p. 423). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

 

[justbyfaith]

Like Jesus said, the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.

I suppose you think this means that if you are in the church, you will win every argument and will have the last word in every argument.

While the first may actually be true (and you have not won any arguments here) the fact that I am giving you the last word in all reality means that I am the wiser of the two of us, according to

Pro 20:3, It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling.

 

[Dave L]

I suppose you think this means that if you are in the church, you will win every argument and will have the last word in every argument.

While the first may actually be true (and you have not won any arguments here) the fact that I am giving you the last word in all reality means that I am the wiser of the two of us, according to

Pro 20:3, It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling.

I am in line with historic Christendom. You attack us and claim we have been in the dark since the days of the Apostles. You are historically known as a heretic because of your views about God. I on the other hand remain fast with the truth of scripture, encapsulated in the ecumenical creeds that never changes.

 

[justbyfaith]

Modalistic Monarchianism. A slight variation of »monarchianism that held that God manifested himself in three different modes throughout history. According to this view, since God is a single entity not three persons, as traditional Christianity teaches, he manifested himself first as being the Father, or Creator. At the »incarnation, he became the Son (see »patripassianism). And as the Holy Spirit, God is the sanctifier, teacher, and comforter of the church. Monarchianism was condemned as being heretical because it failed to distinguish between the single essence of the Godhead and the three persons of the »Trinity.

Nichols, L. A., Mather, G. A., & Schmidt, A. J. (2006). In Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions (p. 423). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

I do not know what label is attachable to the biblical study of the doctrine of the Trinity that was done in posts #1-#4 of this thread; but I stand by that teaching because I know that it is biblical.

shortcut:

Trinity II

 

[justbyfaith]

I am in line with historic Christendom. You attack us and claim we have been in the dark since the days of the Apostles. You are historically known as a heretic because of your views about God. I on the other hand remain fast with the truth of scripture, encapsulated in the ecumenical creeds that never changes.

Act 24:14, But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

I know at the very center of my heart that I believe in what the Bible teaches, which doctrine is the true Trinity.

If someone who wants to believe in three Gods does not concur with the real and faithful understanding that God has given me on the subject, then all that I can do is consider that I have set my pearls forth to the world, and that they have been trampled upon.

Therefore I suppose that the understanding of this subject is reserved for only a select few, just as eternal life is reserved only for a select few according to scripture.

The devil is a liar and one of his primary weapons is fear.

 

[Dave L]

Act 24:14, But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Did Paul and the others believe the Father is God? Did They believe the Son is God? Did they believe the Holy Spirit is God? Of course they all did.
1.) The eternal Father-Son relationship (John 17:5, 1:1)

2.) More than one divine person in the same context (John 1:18, 1 Cor. 8:6, Heb. 1:8)

3.) The Son, as the Son, being the Creator of all things (Heb 1:2, 10-12, 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:15-17)

4.) The Son divine and active before His incarnation (Php. 2:5-8)

 

[Dave L]

I do not know what label is attachable to the biblical study of the doctrine of the Trinity that was done in posts #1-#4 of this thread; but i stand by that teaching because I know that it is biblical.

shortcut:

Trinity II

State your point please. So we don't dance around the bush.

 

[brakelite]

God is not created. You make the Son created in time at the incarnation = not God.

For goodness sake Dave, read my posts...pleeeease!

 

[Dave L]

For goodness sake Dave, read my posts...pleeeease!

If you deny the historic doctrine of the trinity, it means the Son was created during the incarnation. = Jesus is not God.

 

[brakelite]

If you deny the historic doctrine of the trinity, it means the Son was created during the incarnation. = Jesus is not God.

Nonsense. Why do we need a trinity to establish the full divinity of the Son of God, begotten before time began? Oh, sorry, of course. YOu believe in the trinity, how silly of me...you don't believe God had a Son. You just believe God had a co-equal co-eval co-eternal being He just pretended was a son. Right?