What does the Father being the only true God imply then?
You believe in a mystery and implications. Ironic you think I will be the one dying on a hill.
Mary, the mother of the Lord
- Thread starter Runningman
- 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
Love refers to a nature. People are said to be good, evil, etc. It doesn't mean that they become a thing and cease being a person. Why do you have a completely different standard for God?
I dont think your equivocation of the Trinity with polythiesm will ever get out of your head. Bible 1 unitatiranism 0.
monothiesm not unitaism.
I don't know if you are holding God to a different standard, but i do know that you belittle Jesus.
You make God down to our level by asserting and assuming that He is 1-Person.
No one except Jesus had a fully man, fully God nature.
It is so ironic, unitarianism commits the same problem that it claims the Biblical position has.
John says this:
"The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love."
People are not said to BE love.
if God is love then Jesus is love too.
----------
Jesus is God, but not the Father.
given you assume unitarianism and look at everything thru those blinders, that statement will seem non-understandable to you.
I noticed you keep avoiding my evidences that God is triune instead of like us (1-person) time and again.
0.3333... is 1/3rd. 0.66... is 2/3 two thirds. but 3/3 is ONE. not 0.99999 but ONE. how do you explain this thru a Unit. lens??
goodbye unitarianism. math backs the Trinity, not your new belief. seems like God's Creation was partly intended to debunk unitatirsm.
Then it isn't Trinitarianism.
No you don't know that. Maybe you feel that, but that isn't true.
The Bible says God is a person.
Hebrews 1
3Who 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;
Not according to scripture.
Unitarianism is the Biblical position. Trinitarianism is heresy.
Correct, if you love then you know God's nature. God isn't an emotion or action like love.
Creating a math equation out of thin air to support the Trinity is not Scripture. Unitarianism is that God is the Father. That's it. It's monotheism. The reason I use Unitarianism is because you will misunderstand monotheism and think that involves a Trinity God.
That is fallaciously begging the question. Monotheism does not necessitate Unitarianism and vice versa. Monotheism says absolutely nothing about the nature of God, how he exists in and of himself.
Again, fallacious. You're conflating monotheism with Unitarianism, but they are two different concepts.
Claiming something is fallacious for what seems to be no other reason than "I said so" is fallacious. Here's the issue, you say Trinitarianism is monotheism, I say Unitarianism is monotheism.
Yes monotheism does necessitate Unitarianism. A compound god is not precedented in Scripture, but is rather a pagan idea. Christianity is based upon fulfillments of promises made in Judaism where God is a singular being.
I am not saying Trinitarianism is monotheism; but it is monotheistic. Do not equate the terms, nor equate unitarianism with monotheism. Monotheism and the nature of God as he exists in and of himself are two distinct ideas.
No, it absolutely does not. Again, you're erroneously conflating two distinct terms.
That is begging the question. Whether a compound God is pagan or not is not relevant.
Of course he's a single being, that is what Trinitarianism teaches.
Technically, according to the Athanasian Creed, Trinitarianism qualifies as monotheism. The actual God in Trinitarianism is the essence inside the three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; not a God divided into three parts, but one God in three persons. God isn't an essence though. Most Trinitarians don't recognize this, but Trinitarianism is a form of Unitarianism. My biggest complaint is that the Bible doesn't describe God like the Athanasian Creed does.
Yes and if you aren't engaging the doctrine of the Trinity on it's own ground, using its own logic, its language, and terms then it's impossible to talk about it.
For example, speaking about it in conventional terms will result in many misunderstandings. For example, "Son of God" means Jesus is God. Then when others in the Bible are called a son of God it means they aren't God.
The angel of the LORD is the LORD even when the angel and the LORD are speaking to one another or when the angel leaves and the LORD stays. Logically, that means the LORD is an angel and angel worship is forbidden. No wait, deny everything and change the subject.
A begotten son was never begotten, a father isn't really a father, etc. It's mind numbing temporarily assuming this mindset, but I patiently do it if it reaches at least one person a little bit.
And they can’t seem to figure out who died. The RCC says God died. Other “orthodox” Trinitarians claim only the body of the son died.
And one should think if Mary is the mother of God then God was born. That God began as a developing fetus and was given birth at the end of the term.
Then they speak of a relationship between the three, but can’t seem to make the distinction of who does what.
And they don’t seem to be able to explain how 100% God needs to have everything belonging to him either given, committed or appointed to him.
Why is the second person given the full measure of the third person if the second person already has what belongs to the third person?
Why does the second person have as his God the first person?
And what does “son of man” mean. Can’t figure that out either.
Last edited:
Well they say a mere man can't atone for sins and then the Bible says a man atoned for sins. So they said God atoned for the sins, but then it says Jesus died. So God died? They will say no. So a man died? They will say yes and typically ignore that contradiction. After that, who is the sacrifice under the rules of Trinitarianism then? The answer will be God again, but then the Bible says God is immortal. Wait. God sacrificed Himself to appease Himself, but He didn't really die because He can't? (note: not talking about anyone in particular, but this is just my general experience in these kind of discussions)
There are several other supporting doctrines they have built up to support the belief of Jesus being God even when it doesn't make sense. I may eventually open more threads about those.
Yes I am in agreement that the Trinity is a philosophical doctrine and not a Biblical one.
Animal sacrifices atoned for sins. The only thing they couldn’t do was give the people whom they atoned for eternal life. That’s why they had to continue always to offer the sacrifices.
All that’s needed is for the sacrifice to be accepted by God as a once for all time sacrifice whereby the sacrifice continues himself to live and can act as a mediator between God and man.
So, there was a man who was without fault or blame who offered himself as that sacrifice. God accepted his sacrifice and raised him from the dead to be a once for all time sacrifice.
And the reason this was done is so that death could be conquered. The death that Adam’s sin brought upon all man.
That’s just how simple it is.
Last edited:
How is it that you're still not understanding what I stated? Yes, Trinitarianism is monotheistic--there is only one God--as I stated, but it is not the same as monotheism. Trinitarianism, as Unitarianism, are concepts about the nature of God as he exists in and of himself. But, neither are equivalent to the concept of monotheism, that there is only one God as opposed to multiple gods.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...n-and-essence-in-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/
It absolutely is not. Again, you're erroneously equating monotheism with Unitarianism. The doctrine of the Trinity is that the one God is tri-personal; Unitarianism teaches that the one God is uni-personal.
It certainly does; that is precisely the reason the Athanasian Creed states what it does.
It's called context. You seem to think that words have only one meaning, but many words have multiple meanings, which depend on context. I take it you have never looked up each instance of "Son of God" to look at the context, correct? I highly recommend doing so. You'll see things such as:
Mat 14:32 And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (ESV)
Mat 27:54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!” (ESV)
Or, even just "Son":
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (ESV)
It really goes without saying that "Son of God" applied to Christ has a different and more significant meaning than when applied to anyone else.
It’s interesting that your link refers to Ligonier Ministries.
I studied under the teaching of the late Dr. R.C. Sproul for many years. Read most of his books and most of the ones he recommended to me. I actually accumulated and read about 300 books while studying under him.
He was an orthodox Trinitarian and Calvinist.
He was the one who got me interested in philosophy, the church fathers and the reformation.
He also held a high regard for logic.
I must say, the most important thing I gained while studying under him was the ability to think logically.
Perhaps that’s why I get a bit annoyed when Trinitarians claim that reason and logic aren’t required to believe something as true.
IOW, they say the Trinity is true in spite of reason, Logic or comprehension.
The Bible was a closed book to me until I opened my mind to what others outside of the mainstream had to say.
I say it was a closed book because you don’t know it’s a closed book until it becomes an open book.
- Status