ChristisGod
Well-Known Member
No as 1 John 5:20 calls the Son the True God and Eternal Life and Scripture calls the Son the One Lord/ Only Lord.
By your own reasoning that excludes the Father from being the One Lord in the OT.
next
Understanding the Trinity.
- Thread starter Lifelong_sinner
- Start date
-
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!
By your own reasoning that excludes the Father from being the One Lord in the OT.
next
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Contradicts Scripture. Jesus says at John 17:3 that only his Father is the true God.
Why must a person ratify co-substancail? Is man saved by their ability to to pass a theology test?
I’m not ask if theology is important- it’s very important.
ChristisGod
Well-Known Member
ChristisGod
Well-Known Member
Here's a thing that makes me scratch my head:
There are folks that proclaim that "it's essential that you believe in the Trinity!", but when I ask lifelong believing adults about that is, especially beyond just a surface answer, they don't have one. Does that mean that those folks aren't saved? I see them celebrate the faith of a little child-- but the kid can't answer these questions in depth either- are they not saved? I've never seen a group of believers require a new believer to write an essay about the Athanasian Creed before they acknowledge that person as a Christian. Are we saved by our ability to pass a theological test?
Yes, theology is super important and should indeed be prized & studied. But it's not what saves! A 4 year old whom loves Jesus is just saved as the most studied Biblical scholar.
To deny the divinity of Christ or the holy trinity is to reject and deny Christ and the Christian faith elimination of all possibility of salvation!
Matthew 12:30
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
2 Timothy 2:12
If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
Matthew 12:30
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
2 Timothy 2:12
If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
No, it most certainly does not call the Son the True God! You are confusing who is being referred to by the pronoun 'He.' Look at the verse in context. God. Son of God. Not equal.
18 We all know that everyone fathered by God will not make sin a way of life because God protects His children from the evil one, and the evil one can’t touch them. 19 Have confidence in the fact that we belong to God .... He is the True God and eternal life.
1 John 5:18 -20 (Voice)
ChristisGod
Well-Known Member
Jesus is eternal life, He is life. We see this over and over again in the Apostle Johns writings. In Him was LIFE and that LIFE was the light of man. Life of the world, the Bread of LIFE,My words are spirit and they are LIFE, I AM the way,the truth and the LIFE,The LIFE was manifested and we proclaim to you the ETERNAL Life which was with the Father, and was manifested to us- The Prologue of 1st John. So we see that when John uses the phrase True God and Eternal Life together in 1 John 5:20 that He is referring to Christ as the closest antecedent making Him the True God and Eternal Life.
Also we see that when we search the NT that Eternal Life is never used of the Father without the Son but we see that Eternal Life is used over and over with Jesus where the Father is never mentioned. This makes a solid case for Jesus in 1 John 5:20 as the True God and Eternal Life.
1 John 5:20
20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true — even in his Son Jesus Christ. He(Jesus) is the true God and eternal life.
On behalf of seeing χριστος as the antecedent are the following arguments: (1) Although it is true that αληθινος θεος is not elsewhere referred to Christ, αληθεια is, and is so in Johannine literature (John 14:6).
29 Winer-Moulton, 195.
Further, αληθινος θεος is not a "constant.. epithet" as Winer supposes, being found only in John 17:3 and 1 John 5:20! (2) Christ is also said to be ζωη in John's writings John 11:25; 14:6; 1 John 1:1-2), an epithet nowhere else used of the Father. (3) The demonstrative pronoun, ουτος, in the Gospel and Epistles of John seems to be used in a theologically rich manner.30 Specifically, of the approximately seventy instances in which ουτος has a personal referent, as many as forty- four of them (almost two-thirds of the instances) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.31 What is most significant is that never is the Father the referent.For what it is worth, this datum increases the probability that ιησου χριστω is the antecedent in 1 John 5:20. 32 The issue cannot be decided on grammar alone. But suffice it to say here that there are no grammatical reasons for denying that αληθινος θεος is descriptive of Jesus Christ.
1st- Jesus is called God in the writings of John(1:1,20:28,1 John 5:20)
2nd- Jesus is called Eternal Life over and over again in Johns writings
3rd- John opens up his epistle with the Eternal life(Jesus) that was with the Father in the beginning and was manifest to the disciples(1 John 1:1-5)
4th- John ends his epistle with Jesus who is eternal life and only is eternal life found in Him who is the true God.
5th- never is eternal life used of the Father alone. When the Father is included the Son is always mentioned together with the Father making them equal. Equality with the Father was not something Jesus needed to grasp at as He already possessed complete Deity as God.(Phil 2, Col 2:9)
6th- John would not leave his readers with any ambiguity warning them to guard themselves from idols(5:21) So this would be clear his reference was to those who reject Jesus as the true God. They are the idoloters and antichrists John writes of in his epistles.
7th- Jesus is also the True God and the True one in 1 John. Jesus is the true light which brings light to all men (John 1:9) Jesus is the truth (John 14:6)Jesus is the true vine (John 15:1). Jesus is the true witness of God (John 18:37) He who is true (Revelation 3:7) Jesus is the faithful and true witness (Revelation 3:14)Jesus is Lord God Almighty, Just and true are your ways(Revelation 15:3) Jesus is faithful and true(Revelation 19:11).
8th- [In John's writings] Of the approximately 70 instances in which ουτος has a personal referent, as many as 44 of them (almost 2/3 . . . ) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son.31 What is most significant is that NEVER is the Father the referent.FWIW, this datum increases the probability that ιησου χριστω IS the antecedent in 1 John 5:20. Wallace.
So the most logical conclusion is that it refers to Jesus as the true God. Not only is this Wallace's conclusion from Johns usage of outos but He is the closest antecedent (most times in the NT this principal holds true). Eternal Life is never used of the Father alone in John’s writings and only a couple of times does John include the Father with the Son regarding eternal life. John opens up his epistles describing the "eternal life" who was with the Father in the beginning and then ends his epistle with eternal life identifying Jesus as the true God and eternal life. John then says this in the last verse:
1 John 5:21-Guard yourselves from idols
Now why would he leave any ambiguity in verse 20 as to the identity of the true God and eternal life then turn around commanding them to protect themselves from idolatry ? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever unless John is identifying Jesus as the true God and refuting the Gnostics of his day who denied the Incarnation.
@Christophany The truth of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is so vitally present in Scripture and there is overwhelming evidence for it, indeed.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
The passion for the man-is-god thesis is noted. Observe, the abandonment of the Holy Spirit as Being. God is Spirit. His Spirit is Holy. This does not make God's Spirit a different being.
I agree that Jesus is eternal life. However, that does not make him God. Jesus is eternal life only because God chose to save us through his son. Notice Acts 3:26 God is identified in his unitarian nature and Jesus is identified as the unitarian God's servant. I trust your abuse of language is not so distorted that you suppose one is a servant of themselves?
When God raised up his servant, Jesus, he sent him first to you people of Israel, to bless you by turning each of you back from your sinful ways.”
Acts 3:26 (NLT)
tigger 2
Well-Known Member
......................................
1 Jn 5:20 (“We are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ.
This [outos] is the true God, and eternal life.” - KJV)
That is the trinitarian interpretation of that scripture. Remember, I specified "clear, undisputed scripture" for a description of the only true God? There are two ways 1 John 5:20 can be translated.
It is obvious that grammatically “this” (outos) could be referring to the Father or to Jesus (see footnote for 1 Jn 5:20 in the NIVSB, 1985 ed.). The fact that the true God has just been identified as the Father of Jesus (1 Jn 5:20, TEV and GNB and f.n. in NIVSB - also see John 17:1, 3) makes it highly probable that “this is the true God” refers to the Father, not Jesus. The highly trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris sums up his 13-page analysis of this scripture as follows:
“Although it is certainly possible that outos refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to ‘the true one,’ God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, outos = God [Father], is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and, significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter.” - p. 253, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.
Notice how this trinitarian scholar actually admits that the probability is that the Father (not Jesus) is being called the true God here. He even tells us (and cites many examples in his footnotes) that New Testament grammarians and commentators (most of them trinitarian) agree!
Last edited:
The last time I heard, the Christadelphians would not baptize a new member until the person was able to pass their test. It was very comprehensive and at that time very biased. Yet, they were one of the strongest Bible studying groups I have ever encountered.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
The Trinity is indeed easy to understand and explain...that is, unless you believe otherwise. In which case you will continue with the blinders of religious suppressionists.
The image of the Trinity is God-given and we see it everywhere, everyday: Me, myself, and I.
It's so easy, it's laughable! Let's take a good example for instance: Is the President the President to his father? Well, yes, but not in the same way as we wrongly are inclined to consider Jesus and his Father. And yet they are One, just as the President is one man even though he is also as son, perhaps a father, and also that man of title. Would the President's father call him President? Maybe, but more than likely...he would call him son. Are you laughing yet? You should be...or crying.
It's a crying shame. For millennia no one laughed. Indeed, Paul was correct, we are in need of the renewing of our minds.
The image of the Trinity is God-given and we see it everywhere, everyday: Me, myself, and I.
It's so easy, it's laughable! Let's take a good example for instance: Is the President the President to his father? Well, yes, but not in the same way as we wrongly are inclined to consider Jesus and his Father. And yet they are One, just as the President is one man even though he is also as son, perhaps a father, and also that man of title. Would the President's father call him President? Maybe, but more than likely...he would call him son. Are you laughing yet? You should be...or crying.
It's a crying shame. For millennia no one laughed. Indeed, Paul was correct, we are in need of the renewing of our minds.
From an academic theological point, what you are describing is Modulism, not Trinitarism.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Sometimes folks can over do things . The simple requirement for baptism , IS they must TRULY BELEIVE IN CHRIST JESUS .
THEN after that Load them up on THE BIBLE . that is how it should be done anyway .
YES indeed , after they Beleive and are baptised , LOAD THEM UP With all the bible you can .
But i keep it more simple . IF one truly believes is when they are to be baptized , THEN FILL them so full of good wholesome bible .
Long before I joined this forum in early 2008 but after my retirement from secular work in 2000 I joined a n online Christadelphian forum. I loved their knowledge of the Bible and many of them were very friendly folks. I copied and saved to my computer some of their very good Bible studies.
There were, however, a few who stood strong against me even being a member of that forum because there was more than one belief on which they could not move me... If they could have been more charitable about our differences I might be with them yet. Alas that could not happen. God was leading me elsewhere.
What a mighty God we serve!
Similar threads
