Non-trinitarians=Nonbelievers?

[Sothenes]

Yes, I am repeating this because mainstream churches are calling other non-trinitarian non-believers. Why do you want to avoid making this clear? What I am focusing on is MAIN STREAM CHURCHES ARE CALLING NON-TRINITARIANS NON-BELIEVERS. I am saying it is un-Christian.

No one can change it and that is the way it will always be.

 

[Sothenes]

I’m not voting on this poll or answering the question.

I didn't vote either.

 

[gingercat]

..maybe they are the ones being cultish...it's all in the eye of the beholder anyway...



Geo.

Yes, georges, I believe people who call me non-believer are the ones who are fighting aginst God and anti-Christ.

 

[mutzrein]

Ginger - you certainly know how to push buttons so I will stay away from anything too contentious - I hope :wink:

As a non-trinitarian I know I am born again. And I know trinitarians who are also born again. I know because the Spirit of God dwells within them as it does me, because we bring forth fruit of the Spirit.

So I don't believe it is the acceptance OR non-acceptance of this particular doctrine that determines whether one is a believer or not. It is God alone who can make that determination because it is His Spirit that knows the heart of man.

 

[destiny]

I believe the supremacy of God is in the embodiment Of Jesus, Jesus is Deity. Yet I believe that Jesus is still the Son, seperate in person than God the Father.
This doesn't in any way take away the supremacy of Jesus Christ, because God the Father has given power and glory over to the Son.
If you see the Son you see the Father because they are one in purpose and supremacy. The Son is the essence of His Father.

I know i'm saved, and thats what I believe.

 

[Novum]

What is the possibility of someone listening to truth if they don't want to?

Probably close to zero. The real question is, of course, whether we can use the word "truth" to describe your bible. That is, and always will be, a matter of subjective opinion.

If God uses irony in Psalm 82:6 to say that 'ye are gods' and non-Christians don't really want to understand the context but take it literally

Enormous over-generalization noted, and rejected.

instead of understanding that God used it in a form of sarcasm then the difficulty level already goes up for people who feel strongly against us.

So all non-christians feel strongly against you? Enormous over-generalization #2 noted, and rejected.

 

[mutzrein]

I believe the supremacy of God is in the embodiment Of Jesus, Jesus is Deity. Yet I believe that Jesus is still the Son, seperate in person than God the Father.
This doesn't in any way take away the supremacy of Jesus Christ, because God the Father has given power and glory over to the Son.
If you see the Son you see the Father because they are one in purpose and supremacy. The Son is the essence of His Father.

I know i'm saved, and thats what I believe.

Yes and I will not dispute your salvation. I also believe in the supremacy of God, and that He has put everything under Christ's feet except Himself as it says in scripture. So, while the father is God, Jesus has been given all authority under heaven and earth by God and for His glory.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Yes, I am repeating this because mainstream churches are calling other non-trinitarian non-believers. Why do you want to avoid making this clear? What I am focusing on is MAIN STREAM CHURCHES ARE CALLING NON-TRINITARIANS NON-BELIEVERS. I am saying it is un-Christian.

Ok. If us Trinitarians come in here and tell you what we believe on the matter will that change anythingâ€â€no!

As far as making the point clear, I think the point has already been addressed. And due to that reason it is rather pointless to go over it again.

As far as:

MAIN STREAM CHURCHES ARE CALLING NON-TRINITARIANS NON-BELIEVERS. I am saying it is un-Christian.

Well, so you really think a discussion on what Trinitarians believe about non-Trinitarians is really going to do anything about that. If what Trinitarians believe is correct then your statement about them pointing that out as being un-Christian is of course wrong.

In any event, search the Scriptures to find what you MUST believe. I of course believe one thing and you believe another. In the end it is between you and God.

 

[thessalonian]

Assuming he believes them to be "brethern in Christ". My guess is he does not. So is it okay to call groups who are not brethern in Christ and have doctrines that are false a cult? There is a lot more to the JW's than just their stand on Christ's divinity. They take over the lives of their members who have to go door to door selling the Watchtower magazine.

From what I have been witnessing, you are making a serious accusation about them.

They are the most obedient Christian organization I have ever witnessed.

Someone is lying or exaggerating. Either me or you, thess.

From what I have seen on this board your research on matters is not very deep and so I wouldn't call you a liar. You don't think their people go out selling the watchtower magazine? You don't think there is alot more about them than there stand on the trinity? Even your accusations are not thought out well.

 

[thessalonian]

I have to tell you ginger. The hypocrisy of this thread is quite overwhelming. I don't know how long you've been here but you've spent most of your posts badmouthing people who go to Church in a broadbrush type manner. Yet when you are given solid theological, Biblical reasons why non-trinitarians cannot be said to be Christians you complain. George had a good point (for once :-D ). If you are secure in what you believe why should you care? If JW's are secure in what they believe they don't need you to defend them and shouldn't care what we think. I have to tell you that I doudt they think I as a Catholic am a Christian. JW's are not at all congenial toward Catholicism from my experiences with them. I doudt I am among their 144,000 they say are saved. That kinda leaves me out. Anihilated, I believe is what they say I would be. They do not believe in eternal hellfire.

Blessings

 

[Georges]

George had a good point (for once :-D ).
Blessings

I about had a heart attack this morning...... :-D With this good fortune, I should go out and buy a lottery ticket.... :bday:

 

[Georges]

Yet another thread dedicated to the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. And to think that some Christians don't understand it when non-christians call Christianity confusing - there is no agreement in Christianity even on these core issues.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."- 1 Corinthians 2:14

Ah...The mystery knowledge that only the enlightened recieve......stoic gnosticism at it's best....I could be wrong....maybe.

 

[thessalonian]

George had a good point (for once :-D ).
Blessings

I about had a heart attack this morning...... :-D With this good fortune, I should go out and buy a lottery ticket.... :bday:

I used to work at a place that made implantable defibrilators. I think I still have an old spent one in a drawer somewhere. I could cut it open and put a new battery in and do a little surgery so if you have another one of these episodes in the next 20 years you won't have to worry. It's my software inside. ;-)

 

[Drew]

Yet another thread dedicated to the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. And to think that some Christians don't understand it when non-christians call Christianity confusing - there is no agreement in Christianity even on these core issues.

Hi Novum:

We have talked about this fallacy before. I think it may not apply in this kind of context. It is my understanding that the "no true Scotsman" fallacy applies to situations where the subject at issue is purely a definitional one. For example, who qualifies as "a true Scotsman" is purely a matter of definition.

I think the situation here is fundamentally different (although the difference is somewhat subtle). There is an objective "matter of fact" about whether one can be a "believer" and and be a non-trinitarian as well.

To be fair to you, there is indeed some ambiguity of a definitional nature re what it actually means to be a believer. But lets say the question was posed as follows: Can a non-trinitarian meet both the following criteria (1) have an interactive relationship with God and (2) "qualify" for eternal life. I think this is what most Christians mean when they refer to someone as a believer.

As long as the meaning of "believer" is clarified, this no longer becomes a "no true Scotsman" issue, precisely because whether one is a "believer" is not a matter of definition, it is a matter of objective fact. Why? Because, unlike with the definition of a Scotsman, there is a fact of the matter, an objective truth, about the whether non-trinitarians are believers.

Consider the following:

If the factual truth is that there is no God, then non-trinitarians are not believers (and neither is anyone else);

If the factual truth is that there is a God and that God chooses to both interact with and grant heaven to a non-trinitarian, then non-trinitarians are believers;

If the factual truth is that there is a God and that God chooses to not both interact with and grant heaven to a non-trinitarian, then non-trinitarians are notbelievers;

The point is that the fact that some definitions are a little fuzzy, does not mean that "who is a believer" has the same status as who is a Scotsman. It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that you are not "allowing" the Christian to claim at least the possibility that there is an objective truth about the existence of God and his attributes. Being a Scotsman is a purely a definition, but being a Christian is not if the possibility is granted that God exists and He has specific "criteria" for people to be "believers" as per God's definition.

Of course people will disagree about definitions and who meets which criteria. But behind it all, there could loom some factual truth. This is not the case with the Scotsman, because no one can (properly) argue that being a Scotsman is anything over and above a matter of definition.

 

[thessalonian]

Ginger - you certainly know how to push buttons so I will stay away from anything too contentious - I hope :wink:

As a non-trinitarian I know I am born again. And I know trinitarians who are also born again. I know because the Spirit of God dwells within them as it does me, because we bring forth fruit of the Spirit.

So I don't believe it is the acceptance OR non-acceptance of this particular doctrine that determines whether one is a believer or not. It is God alone who can make that determination because it is His Spirit that knows the heart of man.

You have a desire and hunger for God placed there by him that draws you to him. This he implanted in your heart and that of all other men. It does not make you a Christian however. Neither do the works that you do. You believe in a God. Yet divine revelation and a correct understanding of it is required to know who he is and thus be a true follower of him. I do not judge your heart or eternal destiny. But you cannot know God if you do not have a correct understanding of his nature. Feelings about "truth" you "feel" you have discovered, often confused with the Holy Spirit do not make you a Christian either. You are not a Christian. Sorry.

 

[gingercat]

You are not a Christian. Sorry.

You call me non-believer and I call you phoney Christian. Sorry.

 

[thessalonian]

You are not a Christian. Sorry.

You call me non-believer and I call you phoney Christian. Sorry.

In other words I am not a Christian according to you. :-? Oh well. Let me repeat this post:

I have to tell you ginger. The hypocrisy of this thread is quite overwhelming. I don't know how long you've been here but you've spent most of your posts badmouthing people who go to Church in a broadbrush type manner. Yet when you are given solid theological, Biblical reasons why non-trinitarians cannot be said to be Christians you complain. George had a good point (for once ). If you are secure in what you believe why should you care? If JW's are secure in what they believe they don't need you to defend them and shouldn't care what we think. I have to tell you that I doudt they think I as a Catholic am a Christian. JW's are not at all congenial toward Catholicism from my experiences with them. I doudt I am among their 144,000 they say are saved. That kinda leaves me out. Anihilated, I believe is what they say I would be. They do not believe in eternal hellfire.

God bless you ginger.
_________________

 

[gingercat]

You are not a Christian. Sorry.

You call me non-believer and I call you phoney Christian. Sorry.

In other words I am not a Christian according to you. :-? Oh well. Let me repeat this post:

I have to tell you ginger. The hypocrisy of this thread is quite overwhelming. I don't know how long you've been here but you've spent most of your posts badmouthing people who go to Church in a broadbrush type manner. Yet when you are given solid theological, Biblical reasons why non-trinitarians cannot be said to be Christians you complain. George had a good point (for once ). If you are secure in what you believe why should you care? If JW's are secure in what they believe they don't need you to defend them and shouldn't care what we think. I have to tell you that I doudt they think I as a Catholic am a Christian. JW's are not at all congenial toward Catholicism from my experiences with them. I doudt I am among their 144,000 they say are saved. That kinda leaves me out. Anihilated, I believe is what they say I would be. They do not believe in eternal hellfire.

God bless you ginger.
_________________

You can make up all kinds of excuses for your ostracism. That's what main stream churches are good at to keep their members to thier own denominations. How sad and so small-minded of you. It is not of God, dear.

 

[thessalonian]

I think I've been ostracized.

God bless you ginger.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

You believe in a man named Jesus who is not God.Somehow we who know him to be fully God and fully man are supposed to say it is okay if you do not believe him to be God

If it were possible for you to alienate yourself from your indoctrination for a microsecond you would realize how ridiculous your position is. You believe that man can be God and God can be man, a myth which has roots in just about every ancient religion EXCEPT Judaism. Not only that, but it is an absolute absurdity :bday: on any level (and,no, it's not a "mystery", it's an absurdity) You accuse Non-Trins of believing in a "man named Jesus who is not God". Scripturally and philosophically, wouldn't you agree that man and God are mutually exclusive entities? A man who is God would not be a man, and vice-versa. Whatever it is that makes a human being a human being would disqualify him from being God. Not only that, but we are supposed to believe that he was FULLY man and FULLY God. How stupid. All you're doing is inventing an absolute contradiction (although you didn't invent it, you submitted to it in obedience to a tradition which historically has drawn it's power from the fact that it's followers rarely think matters through) and believing that it actually means something. What would it mean if I postulated that you, Thessalonian, were "fully you" and yet "fully someone else"? I could say that meant something but what would it mean? One supposition eliminates the other. Saying that Jesus is fully God and fully man is no different from saying he is NOT fully God and NOT fully man. Both sides of the equation hold equal validity, and therefore the whole thing is proved absurd because all it's doing is stating a contradiction. Whatever would make Jesus truely man prevents him from being truely God, and the reverse.