I simply disagree with you; and, if believing that Jesus is the Father come in flesh be an essential for salvation, then I am sorry about your ultimate fate. I tried.
(going out on a limb here. I don't think that it will break).
Coexistent modalism...the true Trinity.
- Thread starter justbyfaith
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
- Status
(going out on a limb here. I don't think that it will break).
Since you addressed it in a different thread, perhaps you can re-address it in this thread; because I think that I did address the finer points in the other.
With all due respect, you certainly do not. You have created your own doctrine of the Trinity, completely redefining it from how it has historically been defined. That you think the historical doctrine teaches three separate persons--"Such a statement divides God into three separate Persons". . . and as such it makes God divisible--shows that you do not understand the historical doctrine of the Trinity.
I should highlight the significant part of that statement: "(rather than distinct as my doctrine will tell you)." It truly is your doctrine, not the historic, orthodox, correct doctrine of the Trinity.
No. I'm not going to go reposting something I posted numerous times in the other thread. It's there for you to read.
I don't think that the historical doctrine defines God as "three separate Persons"...
For when people write that "the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost", they are not espousing the historical doctrine.
We are forbidden by Catholic doctrine to say that there are three Lords.
Last edited:
Just copy and paste it.
I addressed it in the other thread. The only way you are going to prove that I didn't, is if you re-post it here and I fail to address it here.
Otherwise, for other people it will be like looking for a needle in a haystack in order to prove whether you are right or wrong here.
I do understand it...however I know that you will simply disagree since you disagree with my understanding.
Jesus uses similar terminology, in John 7:16; and so does Paul, in 2 Timothy 3:10.
Was their doctrine not the historic, orthodox, correct doctrine of the Bible?
You sure do, as your statement clearly shows: "Such a statement divides God into three separate Persons". . . and as such it makes God divisible." What I have stated is in perfect agreement with the historical definition, so to say my definition divides God and makes him divisible, is to say the historical doctrine does.
It certainly is. I've proven this before. Probably again went unaddressed by you.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html
That supports everything I have stated.
And you're not either of them. We have the doctrine as given in the Bible, we cannot go around making up our own.
However, what I am saying, is that if someone owns their doctrine, that does not necessarily make their doctrine unbiblical.
Last edited:
I agree with the statements in bold and yet I do not agree with the thesis of the diagram, that "the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost". That is unbiblical; for they are the same Spirit (John 4:24, Ephesians 4:4).
Do you look up my verses or do you simply react to my raw statements as if they were unsupported by scripture?
I do not disagree with the statements below.
What I have said is that one of those statements (that God is of one indivisible substance) contradicts the thesis of the heretical diagram, that:
"the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost."
And while you are forbidden to say it, it is nevertheless true that many who call themselves Trinitarian believe it.
You did not include the word NOT in what you wrote.
You cannot say God is NOT Father, is NOT Son, is NOT the Holy Spirit.
To do so is to deny the Mighty God.
.
A: the Father
B: without flesh
C: the Son
Major Premise: All A is B
Minor Premise: All C is A
Conclusion: All C is B
Your Major Premise: the Father is without flesh,
Your Minor Premise: the Son is the Father,
Your Conclusion: the Son is without flesh.
When you say both that the Father is without flesh and that the Son is the Father, you (whether or not you like to admit this) are saying that the Son is without flesh.
Remember, you're not Jesus.
I understand--but reject as false and antiChrist--what you are saying to me: viz., that the Son is without flesh.
While all of A is B, not everything that is B is necessarily A. C is A; and A is B inasmuch as A (a Spirit without flesh) is not C (the same Spirit in flesh). A is not always B; for A is only B inasmuch as A (a Spirit without flesh) is not C (the same Spirit in flesh). For all of A is also D: in the flesh, inasmuch as A is C. Because A is in fact C inasmuch as A is not B.
But C is still A in that A is a Spirit and C is the same Spirit come in flesh.
In other words, there are two distinct Persons in the Trinity who are the same Spirit; the Father, without flesh; and the Son, who is "the Father-in-flesh".
They are the same Person but they are distinct from each other.
Now I understand the Trinity but apparently there are certain stumbling-blocks in your thinking so that you cannot understand it.
Last edited:
I am certainly NOT declaring that Jesus isn't come in the flesh.
The problem is solved, very simply, by the understanding that the Father and the Son are distinct Persons within the Triune nature of God; both of them being the same Spirit (John 4:24, Ephesians 4:4).
- Status