The Baptism of Jesus - Trinity or Tritheism?

[Ormly]

Are the lips on your face the same as the heart in your chest? A yes or no will suffice for an answer.

They are 2 parts of the same person.

Now your turn to answer mine.

So it can be rightly said they are both you, correct?

[quote:5552e]No, not "rightly" said - the right perspective is that these are PARTS of me. Me, the whole one person. Only I am fully "me". If I were more than one person, the other person or persons wouldn't be me, and if you're talking about parts of a person, these parts are not persons themselves, because a person is a self-conscious, autonomous entity and not a part of a self-conscious, autonomous entity.

Absolutely. Parts of the whole to be sure and I'd like to hear your response if someone said "I'll cut your heart out". I can just hear you cry "Hey! That's me your talking about, whose heart you'd like to cut out!"
The same you'd say of the lips. They are part of the whole of you but with different functions. Care to deny that?? Your lips express your heart. Care to deny that and prove yourself the fool your mouth will declare you to be??? The "word" from your mouth is the expression of your heart. The lips only say whats in the heart and the heart dictates to the lips that which desires to be spoken.

Besides, where you're going with this analogy is not in keeping with Trinitarian definitions anyway, which deny that the Father/Son/Spirit are "parts" of God.

[/quote:5552e]

Indeed??!! You don't know your Bible nor understand trinitarian belief. Learn before speaking as a fool.

 

[Ormly]

all three persons have the same mind, will, energy, nature, and essence.

There is supposed to be mutual love between the persons of the Trinity I think.

If they have the same mind and will, does it make sense that there is mutual love between the persons?

I don't know what verse you are using to establish a concept of mutual love, which restricts responding to what you may be getting at. However, just as human beings have self-love (love you neighbor as yourself), I think we can assume that God has self-love.

Regards,

Paul

Lets make it more narrow, Paul. God IS love. All personality of Him IS love. Love is the only thing that can create. With that in mind and at this stage of our existance we can only marvel and stand in awl at what love IS and how it can have personality. Partaking of that love is the chief reason why Christ came to earth --- to reveal the personality of it and lead us into it.


Your also wrote: "C. Salvation occurs only by accepting the blood of Christ as a sacrificial substitute for our own sin.

Question: Is a "blameless man" who never hears the gospel before he dies, damned?


Orm

 

[MPaul]

Your also wrote: "C. Salvation occurs only by accepting the blood of Christ as a sacrificial substitute for our own sin.

Question: Is a "blameless man" who never hears the gospel before he dies, damned?

According to Scripture, there is no such thing as a "blameless" man, Romans 3:23--see also Romans 3:10-18. Adam represented all humankind, Romans 5:12-19. See also, Romans 7:21-23.

An interesting question is whether someone who has never heard the gospel preached can be saved. However, that is the subject for a new thread. The question doesn't change the fact that only the blood of Christ saves.

There are different views--some hold that God knows how they would have responded if they had heard the Gospel; some hold that if they didn't hear the Gospel, they weren't predestined. I review the different views of predestination at--

http://www.loveofchrist.info/theology/predestination.html

My view is that only God really knows. I think that Acts 17:29-30 and its implications are interesting on this issue. Note Section IV of my outline for other interesting speculation.

Regards,

Paul

 

[Ormly]

Your also wrote: "C. Salvation occurs only by accepting the blood of Christ as a sacrificial substitute for our own sin.

Question: Is a "blameless man" who never hears the gospel before he dies, damned?

According to Scripture, there is no such thing as a "blameless" man, Romans 3:23--see also Romans 3:10-18. Adam represented all humankind, Romans 5:12-19. See also, Romans 7:21-23.

An interesting question is whether someone who has never heard the gospel preached can be saved. However, that is the subject for a new thread. The question doesn't change the fact that only the blood of Christ saves.

There are different views--some hold that God knows how they would have responded if they had heard the Gospel; some hold that if they didn't hear the Gospel, they weren't predestined. I review the different views of predestination at--

http://www.loveofchrist.info/theology/predestination.html

My view is that only God really knows. I think that Acts 17:29-30 and its implications are interesting on this issue. Note Section IV of my outline for other interesting speculation.

Regards,

Paul

Would you care to examine your position on this? Here's the complete list of references that point up the fact one can be blameless/righteous. Compare with the NASB translation. I know it is a long list but it is well worth the searching out in the context written. You might also want to consider Enoch in this in Gen. 5:

Genesis 6:9 (KJV)
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Genesis 17:1 (KJV)
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Genesis 20:4 (KJV)
But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?

Genesis 44:10 (KJV)
And he said, Now also let it be according unto your words; he with whom it is found shall be my servant; and ye shall be blameless.

Exodus 28:43 (KJV)
And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

Deut. 18:13 (KJV)
Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God.

Joshua 2:17 (KJV)
And the men said unto her, We will be blameless of this thine oath which thou hast made us swear.

Judges 15:3 (KJV)
And Samson said concerning them, Now shall I be more blameless than the Philistines, though I do them a displeasure.

2 Samuel 22:24 (KJV)
I was also upright before him, and have kept myself from mine iniquity.

2 Samuel 22:26 (KJV)
With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful, and with the upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright.

2 Samuel 22:31 (KJV)
As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.

2 Samuel 22:33 (KJV)
God is my strength and power: and he maketh my way perfect.

2 Chron. 15:17 (KJV)
But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days.

Job 1:1 (KJV)
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Job 1:8 (KJV)
And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Job 2:3 (KJV)
And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Job 12:4 (KJV)
I am as one mocked of his neighbour, who calleth upon God, and he answereth him: the just upright man is laughed to scorn.

Psalm 18:23 (KJV)
I was also upright before him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity.

Psalm 18:25 (KJV)
With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright;

Psalm 18:30 (KJV)
As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.

Psalm 18:32 (KJV)
It is God that girdeth me with strength, and maketh my way perfect.

Psalm 19:13 (KJV)
Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

Psalm 24:4 (KJV)
He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.

Psalm 37:18 (KJV)
The Lord knoweth the days of the upright: and their inheritance shall be for ever.

Psalm 37:37 (KJV)
Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace.

Psalm 51:4 (KJV)
Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

Psalm 64:4 (KJV)
That they may shoot in secret at the perfect: suddenly do they shoot at him, and fear not.

Psalm 101:2 (KJV)
I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way. O when wilt thou come unto me? I will walk within my house with a perfect heart.

Psalm 101:6 (KJV)
Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me.

Psalm 119:1 (KJV)
Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord.

Psalm 119:80 (KJV)
Let my heart be sound in thy statutes; that I be not ashamed.

Proverbs 2:21 (KJV)
For the upright shall dwell in the land, and the perfect shall remain in it.

Proverbs 11:5 (KJV)
The righteousness of the perfect shall direct his way: but the wicked shall fall by his own wickedness.

Proverbs 11:20 (KJV)
They that are of a froward heart are abomination to the Lord: but such as are upright in their way are his delight.

Proverbs 13:6 (KJV)
Righteousness keepeth him that is upright in the way: but wickedness overthroweth the sinner.

Proverbs 28:10 (KJV)
Whoso causeth the righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall fall himself into his own pit: but the upright shall have good things in possession.

Proverbs 29:10 (KJV)
The bloodthirsty hate the upright: but the just seek his soul.

Ezekiel 28:15 (KJV)
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Matthew 12:5 (KJV)
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Matthew 12:7 (KJV)
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Luke 1:6 (KJV)
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Acts 24:16 (KJV)
And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.

1 Cor. 1:8 (KJV)
Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Ephes. 1:4 (KJV)
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Ephes. 5:27 (KJV)
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Philip. 1:10 (KJV)
That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ;

Philip. 2:15 (KJV)
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

Philip. 3:6 (KJV)
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Col. 1:22 (KJV)
In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

1 Thes. 2:10 (KJV)
Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe:

1 Thes. 3:13 (KJV)
To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

1 Thes. 5:23 (KJV)
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Tim. 3:2 (KJV)
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Tim. 3:10 (KJV)
And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

1 Tim. 5:7 (KJV)
And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.

Titus 1:6-7 (KJV)
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. [7] For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

2 Peter 3:14 (KJV)
Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

Jude 1:24 (KJV)
Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

The blood of Jesus Christ alone is what saves. It makes peace with God for those [any] who are justified by faith in God. God knows who they are that order up their life because they believe there is a God and place their faith in that revelation.[Rom. 5.1] Hearing the gospel isn't necessary for that. It is necessary to make disciples to Jesus Christ.
One must be born again but not for salvation but to enter the Kingdom of God. [Jn.3.3,5] We've lived too long with the false notion/teaching that one has to be born again for initial salvation.. In that I DON"T mean one can hear and then wilfully reject and still be saved. To do that is to call God a liar.

Orm

 

[BradtheImpaler]

And, a question regarding your question is -- how can the representations in Scripture be interpreted consistently regarding the nature of God?? Without the Trinity, they cannot. At Isaiah 9:6, the Messiah is called "the everlasting Father." Jesus is both the Son and the Father. Thus, Zecahriah 12:10 says, they shall look on me whom they pierced and mourn for him.

I don't think you understand the nature of my challenge. I am not trying to disprove the Trinity at this juncture, I am saying, in another form of my question, what is the difference, CONCEPTUALLY, for us, between 3 divine persons who are 3 Gods, and 3 divine persons which Christian theology insists is one God? I'll tell what the difference is - one uses an "s" on the end of "God" and one doesn't. If 3 divine persons can be one God, then the line netween monotheism and polytheism is blurred, indeed, rendered meaningless.

Can you quote something from pagan mythology, where a pagan god is both father and son, both me and him

You're actually arguing that pagan mythology isn't logically self-contradictory and Christian theology is?

True, if you just take one passage of scripture, and apply a preferred meaning to it, theologically you can prove just about anything you want. However, if all of Scriptue is given to us by God, the interpretation of one passage must have a meaning that fits in with the rest of it.

The concept of the Trinity is necessary to the salvation of mankind. Let me quote further from my outline.

"IV. B. However, to distort the concept of the Trinity changes the truth of who is Jesus Christ and of how a person finds salvation through God.
1. If God exists as three modes, then by our own efforts we come to truly know him by passing through three stages of spirituality. Salvation becomes an entirely subjective, mystical experience.
2. If Christ is a lesser deity, having existed as a human being with an inner divine spark brought to maturity through obedience, then he became the Son of God by his own actions. And then, our salvation is accomplished by imitating him in our efforts to be God-like.
3. If Christ is a lesser deity, an intermediary path to God, but not fully human, he is not a true sacrifice for human sin.

"C. Salvation occurs only by accepting the blood of Christ as a sacrificial substitute for our own sin.
4. However, the only means of salvation is the blood of Christ, that of both a sinless man and God. We do not know exactly how Christ was completely human and fully God in one person, but only the sacrifice of his blood overcomes the evil of humankind. (See 'Who Is Jesus Christ?').

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Pagan gods can at times be listed in groups of three, but never does this grouping form an essential theology for the redemption of humankind

So what? We're talking about what the nature of 3 divine persons would be, (one God or 3) not what they supposedly do or don't accomplish in their respective theologies.

Never are the gods represented as being three in one

"The hindu trinity is Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. They are respectively the creator, preserver and destroyer of the universe. They are also aligned as the transcendant Godhead - Shiva, the cosmic Lord, Vishnu, and the cosmic mind, Brahma. In this regard they are called SAT-TAT-AUM, the Being, the Thatness or immanence and the Word or Holy Spirit. THIS IS MUCH LIKE THE CHRISTIAN TRINITY OF GOD AS FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST. THE TRINITY REPRESENTS THE DIVINE IN IT'S THREEFOLD NATURE AND FUNCTION. EACH ASPECT OF THE TRINITY CONTAINS AND INCLUDES THE OTHERS" (http://www.hindunet.org/god/trinity/)

The three persons of God may function as a group

A "group" of divine persons, however, is more than one God. If a group of divine persons can be called "one God", then there is no tangible difference between monotheism or polytheism at that point, since the many Gods of the pagan world were groups of divine persons.

but they still have one Spirit, one personal essence, and according to their scriptural representation and a supernatural logic, the three are one

Then that voids out the distinction between the 3 persons. What you don't understand is that one proposition cancels out, or subtracts from, the other. Put another way, God cannot be just as much a "They" as a "Him", because what makes the deity a "They" would prohibit the deity from being a "Him" and vice-versa.

What you are doing is inventing your own test for determining if the Trinity is true. However, that test is no different than saying because it's three, it can't be one

What I am saying is that three cannot be one in the same sense that one is one...and one cannot be three in the same sense that three is three. Underneath it all, it's either one POSING as 3, or 3 POSING as one.

True, in the natural world three cannot be both three and one. But, the supernatural world does not have to be governed by the laws of the natural world. Thus, God can be both separate and united.

But MANY GODS could also be "seperate and united". What's the theoretical difference between one God who is somehow also "seperate", and many Gods who are somehow also "united"?

 

[Ormly]

But MANY GODS could also be "seperate and united". What's the theoretical difference between one God who is somehow also "seperate", and many Gods who are somehow also "united"?

This one resurrected from the grave --- in human skin.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Absolutely. Parts of the whole to be sure and I'd like to hear your response if someone said "I'll cut your heart out". I can just hear you cry "Hey! That's me your talking about, whose heart you'd like to cut out!"
The same you'd say of the lips. They are part of the whole of you but with different functions. Care to deny that?? Your lips express your heart. Care to deny that and prove yourself the fool your mouth will declare you to be??? The "word" from your mouth is the expression of your heart. The lips only say whats in the heart and the heart dictates to the lips that which desires to be spoken

And are these parts "persons" or are they parts of ONE person? Your analogy is self-defeating.

]Besides, where you're going with this analogy is not in keeping with Trinitarian definitions anyway, which deny that the Father/Son/Spirit are "parts" of God.

Indeed??!! You don't know your Bible nor understand trinitarian belief. Learn before speaking as a fool.

I may not understand your version of Trinitarian belief but I assure you it is only a VERSION and at odds with the majority held definition of the dogma - if you believe the F/S/HS are "parts" of God.

Would you care to ask some other Trinitarians here whether the F/S/HS are parts of God? No? I didn't think so :

 

[BradtheImpaler]

The Incarnation is of no consequence in this regard. Mainstream Trinitarianism teaches that the degree of distinction seen between the persons in, for example, the baptism of Jesus scenario, accurately reflects the degree of distinction between these persons IN THE GODHEAD, from all eternity.

I will take your word for it.

In all honesty, the subject of the Trinity is only of interest to me in connection with the writings of the mystics. What the Bible says... what does it matter?

DN, do you find it interesting that whenever Christians respond on these forums to what is presumably a heretical position by a poster such as myself, they INEVIDABLY wind up arguing with ONE ANOTHER over something related or unrelated within the space of several posts? And I'm not talking about believers who attend what mainstream Christianity would classify as cultic fellowships, but believers who fall within the "pale of orthodoxy" in general.

What does this tell us?

 

[Ormly]

[quote:f76c9]Absolutely. Parts of the whole to be sure and I'd like to hear your response if someone said "I'll cut your heart out". I can just hear you cry "Hey! That's me your talking about, whose heart you'd like to cut out!"
The same you'd say of the lips. They are part of the whole of you but with different functions. Care to deny that?? Your lips express your heart. Care to deny that and prove yourself the fool your mouth will declare you to be??? The "word" from your mouth is the expression of your heart. The lips only say whats in the heart and the heart dictates to the lips that which desires to be spoken

[quote:f76c9]And are these parts "persons" or are they parts of ONE person? Your analogy is self-defeating

.[/quote:f76c9]

Are they persons of you or parts of you. I already agreed they were as you already stated, parts, but parts of ONE person. Does not your mouth speak your heart?? Are they not one in the same when expressing who you are?? The only thing self-defeating in this is your willful unbelief and irrationality. I don't believe you know who you are.

]Besides, where you're going with this analogy is not in keeping with Trinitarian definitions anyway, which deny that the Father/Son/Spirit are "parts" of God.

So what??

[quote:f76c9]Indeed??!! You don't know your Bible nor understand trinitarian belief. Learn before speaking as a fool.

I may not understand your version of Trinitarian belief but I assure you it is only a VERSION and at odds with the majority held definition of the dogma - if you believe the F/S/HS are "parts" of God. [/quote:f76c9]

And?? Your point? What is that to you??

Would you care to ask some other Trinitarians here whether the F/S/HS are parts of God? No? I didn't think so :

[/quote:f76c9]

That's right, no. What's wrong -- running out of wiggle room?

 

[MPaul]

Would you care to examine your position on this? Here's the complete list of references that point up the fact one can be blameless/righteous

Would I care to examine my position?? Is your manner of expression merely overly confident?? It actually seems arrogant.

Let's look at a key OT verse on the meaning of blood atonement.
Leviticus 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul, cf. Exodus 12:21–27; 24;5–8; 30:10; Leviticus 4:4–8; 5:9; 7:2.

The Old Testament Law is based on the blood sacrifice of animals to atone for sin, as a substitute for the blood of Christ, until its time. Note--that's animal sacrifice for all the people. It is from a covenant based on faith.

When the Bible notes that all have fallen short of the glory of God, but some can be blameless, that righteousness is based on blood sacrifice. None of the people cited would be blameless without confessing their sin and accepting a blood sacrifice by faith.

The blood of Jesus Christ alone is what saves. It makes peace with God for those [any] who are justified by faith in God. God knows who they are that order up their life because they believe there is a God and place their faith in that revelation.[Rom. 5.1] Hearing the gospel isn't necessary for that. It is necessary to make disciples to Jesus Christ. One must be born again but not for salvation but to enter the Kingdom of God. [Jn.3.3,5]

Well, as I said this is a new issue. You have your own interpretation of it. It's not consistent with verses such as Romans 10:9-15.

We've lived too long with the false notion/teaching that one has to be born again for initial salvation.. In that I DON"T mean one can hear and then wilfully reject and still be saved. To do that is to call God a liar.

Again, are you being merely overly confident in the expression of your position?? However, it actually seems arrogant. You are placing your own special interpretive ability above others. Thus, you can announce, "we've lived too long...is to call God a liar." So presumptuous. Then, one has to wonder, is there a motive on your part for finding in Bible interpretation, what the church for 2,000 years has not found?? Do you lift yourself up??


Regard,

Paul

 

[MPaul]

I am not trying to disprove the Trinity at this juncture,...If 3 divine persons can be one God, then the line netween monotheism and polytheism is blurred, indeed, rendered meaningless.

You contradict yourself. You don't want to disprove the Trinity, but you just want to note it represents itself in a manner the same as paganism, which doesn't have a theological Trinity, which is evidence to disprove the Trinity.

You're actually arguing that pagan mythology isn't logically self-contradictory and Christian theology is?

This is a straw man argument. I'm arguing that paganism doesn't compare to Christianity, because you can't present from pagan writings a theology wherein a Trinity is essential to the religion's belief system and its outright validity. For an example of how your response is mixing premises, you overlook that I stated that in my posts that in a supernatural realm the laws of existence are different than in the natural world. In the supernatural realm, God is represented as being in all places, as having no beginning but being eternal. That contradicts how life exists in the natural world--but it is not a contradiction to say the supernatural world supercedes the natural--that is its definition. What you are trying to say is, that because some principles of existence between the supernatural and the natural are similar, those are the only ones that have to be considered, and as paganism has similarities with natural principles, theistic ideas about God come from paganism. This is a contrived argument to establish an objective, but it has nothing to do with proper Scripture interpretation.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

No. You are trying to represent that the Trinity is the same thing as paganism. Showing that the concept of the Trinity is totally more complex and essential to the Christian belief system than anything in paganism is completely relevant.

"The hindu trinity is Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. They are respectively the creator, preserver and destroyer of the universe. They are also aligned as the transcendant Godhead - Shiva, the cosmic Lord, Vishnu, and the cosmic mind, Brahma. In this regard they are called SAT-TAT-AUM, the Being, the Thatness or immanence and the Word or Holy Spirit. THIS IS MUCH LIKE THE CHRISTIAN TRINITY OF GOD AS FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST. THE TRINITY REPRESENTS THE DIVINE IN IT'S THREEFOLD NATURE AND FUNCTION. EACH ASPECT OF THE TRINITY CONTAINS AND INCLUDES THE OTHERS"

Placing pagan gods in lists of three is not a Trinity. Where are the documents from pagan writings setting out the Trinity as essential to the redemption of humankind. This list you provide IS NOTHING LIKE THE CHRISTIAN TRINITY.

A "group" of divine persons, however, is more than one God. If a group of divine persons can be called "one God", then there is no tangible difference between monotheism or polytheism at that point, since the many Gods of the pagan world were groups of divine persons.

Ridiculous. The Trinity is not a group of three--it is a three in one. Each of the persons of the Trinity has the same one spirit. Jesus is both the Son and the Father. This is not how paganism represents God.

Then that voids out the distinction between the 3 persons. What you don't understand is that one proposition cancels out, or subtracts from, the other. Put another way, God cannot be just as much a "They" as a "Him", because what makes the deity a "They" would prohibit the deity from being a "Him" and vice-versa.

NO, what you do not understand is, that God is a supernatural being, and he is not limited by the laws of the natural world. If you want to say that there is no Trinity, because there is no God, because the spiritual world does not exist--that would be one line of reasoning. That would raise a new issue, on what is the evidence of the existence of the supernatural world. But, you can't say that there is no Trinity, because you happen to know that the supernatural world cannot contradict the natural world in its laws of existence. Otherwise, maybe, you should also tell us why Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are contradictory.

What I am saying is that three cannot be one in the same sense that one is one...and one cannot be three in the same sense that three is three. Underneath it all, it's either one POSING as 3, or 3 POSING as one.

Yes, what you are saying over and over again is, because the natural world exists in one way, the spiritual world is prohibited from existing any other way. Yet, as I explained, people who believe in God believe he exists in a manner differently from the natural world, being all knowing, all present, eternal. The Trinity is just one more aspect of the supernatural being different than the natural.

But MANY GODS could also be "seperate and united". What's the theoretical difference between one God who is somehow also "seperate", and many Gods who are somehow also "united"?

The question is not well stated. However, the difference between the one God of Christianity and paganism is, that Scripture presents the nature of his existence. Do you have any prophecies from paganism on something like Israel becoming a nation in a single day about 2,500 years after its fall??

Regards,

Paul

 

[Ormly]

Would you care to examine your position on this? Here's the complete list of references that point up the fact one can be blameless/righteous

[quote:ce97d]Would I care to examine my position?

Because you are wrong.

Is your manner of expression merely overly confident?? It actually seems arrogant.

If being sure is arrogant, then consider me so.

Let's look at a key OT verse on the meaning of blood atonement.
Leviticus 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul, cf. Exodus 12:21–27; 24;5–8; 30:10; Leviticus 4:4–8; 5:9; 7:2.

The Old Testament Law is based on the blood sacrifice of animals to atone for sin, as a substitute for the blood of Christ, until its time. Note--that's animal sacrifice for all the people. It is from a covenant based on faith.

When the Bible notes that all have fallen short of the glory of God, but some can be blameless, that righteousness is based on blood sacrifice. None of the people cited would be blameless without confessing their sin and accepting a blood sacrifice by faith.

nonsense! Tell it my Yak shepherd in Siberia.

The blood of Jesus Christ alone is what saves. It makes peace with God for those [any] who are justified by faith in God. God knows who they are that order up their life because they believe there is a God and place their faith in that revelation.[Rom. 5.1] Hearing the gospel isn't necessary for that. It is necessary to make disciples to Jesus Christ. One must be born again but not for salvation but to enter the Kingdom of God. [Jn.3.3,5]

Well, as I said this is a new issue. You have your own interpretation of it. It's not consistent with verses such as Romans 10:9-15.

And you are not addressing the issue of Blamelessness.

We've lived too long with the false notion/teaching that one has to be born again for initial salvation.. In that I DON"T mean one can hear and then wilfully reject and still be saved. To do that is to call God a liar.

Again, are you being merely overly confident in the expression of your position?? However, it actually seems arrogant. You are placing your own special interpretive ability above others. Thus, you can announce, "we've lived too long...is to call God a liar." So presumptuous. Then, one has to wonder, is there a motive on your part for finding in Bible interpretation, what the church for 2,000 years has not found?? Do you lift yourself up??


Regard,

Paul[/quote:ce97d]

Stop runnin off at the mouth and stick with the issue of blamelessness being addressed. Then, if you want, explain why there are so many denominations, eh? If the "church" had not strayed from it's source why do suppose there would be so many of them?? Hmmm? Give me scripture to show me my "presumptious" error!!! Prove me wrong!--- leave your denominationalism home.

 

[MPaul]

Stop runnin off at the mouth. Explain why there are so many denominations. eh? If the "church" had not strayed from it's source why do suppose there would be so many of them?? Hmmm? Give me scripture to show me my "presumptious" error!!! --- leave your denominationalism home.

Do you have the right to tell me to stop running at the mouth because you are sure, or could it be due to arrogance??

Have you ever studied the theory of denominationalism?? It arose during the English Civil War as a way of unifying all Christianity. It states that on core doctrine, all Christians are one, but on peripherial matters, there can be disagreement, which will be resolved eventually through debate, which is why freedom of speech arose and is essential in a Protestant society.

I review it in an outline at --

http://www.loveofchrist.info/theology/church.html#V

And, in another article I review how Scripture represents Christian unity as spiritual not organizational.

http://www.loveofchrist.info/church/noninstitutional.html#III

So, how many issues do you want to raise?? Have you considered beginning new threads?? I'll consider meeting your Yak shepherd, if that's the best answer you got. However, I probably won't start responding to new issues with answers on prior issues.

Regards,

Paul

 

[Ormly]

Stop runnin off at the mouth. Explain why there are so many denominations. eh? If the "church" had not strayed from it's source why do suppose there would be so many of them?? Hmmm? Give me scripture to show me my "presumptious" error!!! --- leave your denominationalism home.

Do you have the right to tell me to stop running at the mouth because you are sure, or could it be due to arrogance??

Have you ever studied the theory of denominationalism?? It arose during the English Civil War as a way of unifying all Christianity. It states that on core doctrine, all true Christians are one, but on peripherial matters, there can be disagreement, which will be resolved eventually through debate, which is why freedom of speech arose and is essential in a Protestant society.

I review it in an outline at --

http://www.loveofchrist.info/theology/church.html#V

And, in another article I review how Scripture represents Christian unity as spiritual not organizational.

http://www.loveofchrist.info/church/non ... l.html#III

So, how many issue do you want to raise?? Have you considered beginning new threads?? I'll consider meeting your Yak shepherd, if that's the best answer you got. However, I probably won't start responding to new issues with answers on prior issues.

Regards,

Paul

The arrogance lies with you -- so stuff it and finish addressing blamelessness. You said there were no/are/whatever, blameless. I gave many scriptures proving you wrong. Go from there.

 

[DivineNames]

True, in the natural world three cannot be both three and one. But, the supernatural world does not have to be governed by the laws of the natural world. Thus, God can be both separate and united.

So you are saying that the reality of God doesn't have to be "logical" or "governed by the laws of the natural world".

If you want to put the doctrine outside of analysis, the flip side of the argument is that you can't know if the doctrine is coherent. For all you know, its completely meaningless nonsense.

It is not, as you said, "Thus, God can be both separate and united".

Rather, it is perhaps God can be both separate and united, but whether it is possible is impossible to know.

Also, with regard to those who want to show the doctrine isn't coherent, you will not entirely evade them merely by appealing to divine mystery.

 

[DivineNames]

DN, do you find it interesting that whenever Christians respond on these forums to what is presumably a heretical position by a poster such as myself, they INEVIDABLY wind up arguing with ONE ANOTHER over something related or unrelated within the space of several posts?

It seems so... :D

 

[DivineNames]

Is the Trinity a True Contradiction?

http://www.quodlibet.net/rauser-trinity.shtml


"If then we deny that logic applies to God, we undermine our ability to know anything about God. Take for example, Paul's promise "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9) Now it appears that as Van Til would have it, the law of non-contradiction does not apply to God. If so, then in light of God's promise in Romans 10:9, two contradictory states of affairs could obtain such that we could be saved and not saved, or God though morally perfect could in this case be lying. So if we accept that no truth, including the law of non-contradiction, can apply univocally to God and creatures, then any theological assertion we care to make - God is three persons, Jesus is God - could be simultaneously true and false. If this is Van Til's position Hoeksema is indeed correct that it would "destroy the very foundations of theology." Under the rubric of divine sovereignty and transcendence, we would undermine our ability to say anything whatsoever about God. Along similar lines, to identify a contradiction with God would undermine theology, and by extension creation, apparently leaving us in a morass of trivialism."

 

[Ormly]

Is the Trinity a True Contradiction?

http://www.quodlibet.net/rauser-trinity.shtml


"If then we deny that logic applies to God, we undermine our ability to know anything about God. Take for example, Paul's promise "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9) Now it appears that as Van Til would have it, the law of non-contradiction does not apply to God. If so, then in light of God's promise in Romans 10:9, two contradictory states of affairs could obtain such that we could be saved and not saved, or God though morally perfect could in this case be lying. So if we accept that no truth, including the law of non-contradiction, can apply univocally to God and creatures, then any theological assertion we care to make - God is three persons, Jesus is God - could be simultaneously true and false. If this is Van Til's position Hoeksema is indeed correct that it would "destroy the very foundations of theology." Under the rubric of divine sovereignty and transcendence, we would undermine our ability to say anything whatsoever about God. Along similar lines, to identify a contradiction with God would undermine theology, and by extension creation, apparently leaving us in a morass of trivialism."

Jesus Christ was a Man among men, a Man living in unsullied communion with God. That is the kind of man He expects us to be through His regeneration of us.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

"If then we deny that logic applies to God, we undermine our ability to know anything about God. Take for example, Paul's promise "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9) Now it appears that as Van Til would have it, the law of non-contradiction does not apply to God. If so, then in light of God's promise in Romans 10:9, two contradictory states of affairs could obtain such that we could be saved and not saved, or God though morally perfect could in this case be lying. So if we accept that no truth, including the law of non-contradiction, can apply univocally to God and creatures, then any theological assertion we care to make - God is three persons, Jesus is God - could be simultaneously true and false. If this is Van Til's position Hoeksema is indeed correct that it would "destroy the very foundations of theology." Under the rubric of divine sovereignty and transcendence, we would undermine our ability to say anything whatsoever about God. Along similar lines, to identify a contradiction with God would undermine theology, and by extension creation, apparently leaving us in a morass of trivialism."

Absolutely DN, and this is what I have been trying to get across in all these Trinity debates with my own insufficient communicative skills....

What Trinitarians are trying to do is to identify the true nature of God as lying somewhere INBETWEEN "modes of one Person" ("Oneness/Modalism") and "3 literally seperate persons" ("Tritheism") They are attempting to postulate a category of existence inbetween Monotheism and Polytheism, and then still CALL IT MONOTHEISM. But there is no rational possibility of existence inbetween these two categories, and, if there were, it wouldn't mean anything to US. If God is as much "3" as He is "one", if God is as much "They" as He is "He", then that "threeness", that "oneness", that "He-ness" and that "They-ness" cancel each other out, and we are left, conceptually, with NOTHINGNESS.

This built in, self - detonating logic, is even more obvious with the deity of Christ issue. How can an entity be "fully God" AND "fully man"? Being God PROHIBITS being man, and vice -versa. They only look at the "glass being half full", not realizing it is also "half empty". If Jesus is God, he is, to the extent he is God, not man - if he is genuinely man, he is, to that extent NOT GOD, and if an entity be "not God" to ANY extent, how CAN he "be God" at all?

The same applies to to "One God - 3 persons" issue. If He is one, He is in a genuine sense, NOT three, and vice-versa. The "escape hatch" that most Trinitarians try to utilize to avoid this obvious problem is simply to take the whole thing OUT of the realm of logic and rationality. But this is, as your quote illustrates, suicidal both philosophically and theologically. Because if God can be anything, if His intrinsic nature contains diametric opposites in nature, then God, and anything God may want to convey to us, is meaningless TO US.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

DN, do you find it interesting that whenever Christians respond on these forums to what is presumably a heretical position by a poster such as myself, they INEVIDABLY wind up arguing with ONE ANOTHER over something related or unrelated within the space of several posts?

It seems so... :D

"Every sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed His will to man. To each reader the bible conveys a different meaning" (Ingersoll)