The Baptism of Jesus - Trinity or Tritheism?

[Free]

P.S. - Norm, I have never heard a Trinitarian admit they were wrong about anything in forum discussions such as this

If you are going to make such a statement, at least tell the other half of it: that you have never heard anyone other than a Trinitarian admit they were wrong about anything in forum discussions such as this either.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

P.S. - Norm, I have never heard a Trinitarian admit they were wrong about anything in forum discussions such as this

If you are going to make such a statement, at least tell the other half of it: that you have never heard anyone other than a Trinitarian admit they were wrong about anything in forum discussions such as this either

Granted - but that would only indicate there is no difference, in character, between Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians. That doesn't do much to help establish that Trinitarians have the Holy Spirit while non - Trinitarians do not, which is what most Trinitarians would have us believe.

Also, there is the pervading attitude among Trinitarians that they need to cover for one another no matter what. Defending the faith at all costs, whatever :roll: Like, for example, your comment here. I'm willing to bet you KNOW CJ's wrong in this instance, (or you'd be arguing on his behalf concerning the Modalism statement) but instead of acknowledging his error, you choose to challenge me on something else.

 

[Free]

I haven't been following the debate and I don't know what cj said that may or may not be wrong.

Granted - but that would only indicate there is no difference, in character, between Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians.

But you should still make a balanced statement instead of putting one side down as it tends to imply that the others don't do what you said Trinitarians do. It just isn't a fair representation of what is going on in these debates. I suspect that it was just your bias coming through. :D

 

[cj]

Brad, you still wrongly think you have a good understanding of what Modalism is, but you don't.

Modalism is not where one takes on various forms at any given time, but where one becomes another and then another..... the Father became the Son who became the Spirit.

According to Modalism, the Father cannot "unbecome" the Son, nor can the Son "unbecome" the Spirit.

The way I understood Nroof's speaking was as follows....

He is one entity comprised of three independant expressions (for lack of a better word), a son, a father, and a husband. These expressions are according to the economy necessary for the proper functioning of specific relationships. Which is why I thought it was a fair explanation of the triune nature of God, and not in any way inline with what Modalism teaches.


In love,
cj

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Brad, you still wrongly think you have a good understanding of what Modalism is, but you don't.

Modalism is not where one takes on various forms at any given time, but where one becomes another and then another..... the Father became the Son who became the Spirit.

According to Modalism, the Father cannot "unbecome" the Son, nor can the Son "unbecome" the Spirit

I don't know where you got this version of Modalism, but you're only arguing details. The essential difference between Trinitariaism and Modalism is that Trinitarianism believes God is 3 persons and Modalism that God is ONE PERSON - one person with 3 roles/aspects/expressions. Whether the modes can "unbecome" one another or not would represent further conjecture on the nature of the Modalistic model itself, not the difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism.

The way I understood Nroof's speaking was as follows....

He is one entity comprised of three independant expressions (for lack of a better word), a son, a father, and a husband. These expressions are according to the economy necessary for the proper functioning of specific relationships. Which is why I thought it was a fair explanation of the triune nature of God, and not in any way inline with what Modalism teaches

And if I understand YOU correctly, you may not be a Trinitarian either? The bottom line is that Modalism claims there is only one person BEHIND the son/father/husband - that the son/father/husband are expressions of that one person. Trinitarianism believes there are 3 literal persons, and that these persons are NOT each other, in the same sense that the analogy's son/father/husband ARE each other.

What you say is a "fair explanation of the triune nature of God" is Modalistic, not Trinitarian, in CONCEPT - except that you use the term one"entity" instead of one "person".

 

[cj]

Brad, you still wrongly think you have a good understanding of what Modalism is, but you don't.

Modalism is not where one takes on various forms at any given time, but where one becomes another and then another..... the Father became the Son who became the Spirit.

According to Modalism, the Father cannot "unbecome" the Son, nor can the Son "unbecome" the Spirit

I don't know where you got this version of Modalism, but you're only arguing details.

And yet thankfully we serve a God who is one of even the smallest of details.

As for where I get it from,...... certainly not a brief review of something googled on the internet.

To know something is not to know about it in a superficial way.

The essential difference between Trinitariaism and Modalism is that Trinitarianism believes God is 3 persons and Modalism that God is ONE PERSON - one person with 3 roles/aspects/expressions.

No is not. Again, go research (more deeply) the matter you are speaking of.

What is a person if not a role/aspect/expression?

Tell me Brad, what scripture speaks of God being a person?

This ignorance is the issue of the folly of theology, the "study" of God.

Men, in their limited light, apply human concepts to that which is not human.

Jesus was both divine and human, so what was His "person"?

What you are doing is taking two false teachings and applying them to the total picture. You can't.

Neither that which declares that God is three persons in one person, nor one person who has gone through a process, is correct. Yet each have a bit of the truth, for God is three, and yet one, and God has gone through a process and yet remains unchanged.

Whether the modes can "unbecome" one another or not would represent further conjecture on the nature of the Modalistic model itself, not the difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism.

Modalism is simply this.... the Father became the Son and the Son became the Spirit.

What you have issuing out of this, as a result of superficial understanding being received as truth, is what you are describing along with other variations that I've heard. Eighteen hundred years is a lot of time for the story to become confused.

And my point was not that of the difference between the two, it was that you were in error telling Nroof that what he was saying was Modalism..... go back and read it again so that you will not misrepresent people's speaking.

And if I understand YOU correctly, you may not be a Trinitarian either? The bottom line is that Modalism claims there is only one person BEHIND the son/father/husband - that the son/father/husband are expressions of that one person. Trinitarianism believes there are 3 literal persons, and that these persons are NOT each other, in the same sense that the analogy's son/father/husband ARE each other.

The two extremes have never interested me.

God is simply God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit,.... Whom we can know intimately through His economy of life towards us.

Trinitarians who know/understand the reality of God's triune being would absolutely declare that God is one and yet He is three, and that in this none are seperate, and yet all three are individual.

What you say is a "fair explanation of the triune nature of God" is Modalistic, not Trinitarian, in CONCEPT - except that you use the term one"entity" instead of one "person".

Because who really knows what a God "person" is?

As for my explanation being Modalistic in concept, though it isn't, I fully understand why you are unable to grasp the truth of this. You simply are not open to doing so.

Its like folks of the early twentieth century when they called cars horseless carriages,...... its really hard for men to give up concepts tha have taken root, so they try to build a connection for themselves, albeit that connection has no reality.

Was a car really just a horseless carriage, or was it something totally different?

I say that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have always eternally coexisted as themselves and as the one God at the same time. This is not Modalistic in any way, shape, or form.

In love,
cj

 

[Free]

This is my understanding of modalism:

There seems to be two positions, one likely derived from the other. The first is that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all different modes of God that appear one at a time. The second, and the one that UPC teaches, is that Jesus is God who simultaneously exists as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The problem with this is that this means the Son is essentially created, that is, he didn't exist for eternity past. Other than that, this view is very similar to the doctrine of the Trinity and it all becomes a game of semantics.

 

[Imagican]

You guys still at it? He he he.

Abraham was asked by God to sacrifice his son as a sign of obedience. Abraham was in the process of doing just that when he was stopped. If you will note the symbolism throughout the Old Testament you will clearly see that EVERYTHING was meant to provide an example of Christ to come and die in the future.

As Abraham was asked to sacrifice that which was most dear to him, God has offered no less for all of mankind- the sacrifice of His Son so that we all might live. For God to die himself would be utterly meaningless in the scope of the entire Bible. For him to die in the flesh could be accomplished without any sacrifice at all of His own. It took the death of His Son to show His love for us. Not His own death but the death of Him which He held spotless and most dear- His Son.

If this isn't obvious to those that read the Bible then I suggest that it wasn't meant for them to understand. But I trully believe, that to many this idea of Trinity, is obviously a man-made tradition and teaching and has absolutely nothing to do with the truth to be found in the Word.

Yes, one could certainly read a Trinity into the Word if they so choose. But the same people that created this concept were also able to read murder and slavery into the Word as they saw fit. They enslaved, tortured, and murdered all whom they chose and used the Bible as their reason for it. Yet we now know that these things that they did were completely against the Word. These same people would encourage you to listen to them and follow their teachings rather than read the Word for yourself. So, who would you trust the most? God and His Word, or those that would choose to alter it to suit their own personal needs and desires?

 

[Free]

For God to die himself would be utterly meaningless in the scope of the entire Bible.

Actually, no. If God himself didn't die, then we are still dead in our sins. Either that or the whole "Christian" thing is a sham. It is the only way that the entire Bible can have meaning.

But the same people that created this concept were also able to read murder and slavery into the Word as they saw fit. They enslaved, tortured, and murdered all whom they chose and used the Bible as their reason for it.

Completely irrelevant and fallacious.

These same people would encourage you to listen to them and follow their teachings rather than read the Word for yourself. So, who would you trust the most? God and His Word, or those that would choose to alter it to suit their own personal needs and desires?

That is such a poor argument it's hard to know where to begin. Firstly, you are assuming that those who don't believe as you do haven't read the Word for themselves and are following the mere words of men, ignoring the fact that thousands upon thousands have intently studied the Word and come to the conclusion that the doctrine of the Trinity is correct, or at least closest to the truth. That is totaly arrogant.

Secondly, to say that those who don't believe as you do alter the Bible "to suit their own personal needs and desires" ignores history and the integrity and godliness of many people.

Thirdly, you are implying that just because the doctrine of the Trinity is orthodoxy that it isn't correct. Of course your whole last paragraph erroneously assumes that man determined what was orthodox and therefore the Trinity is a false doctrine of man.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Brad, you still wrongly think you have a good understanding of what Modalism is, but you don't.

Modalism is not where one takes on various forms at any given time, but where one becomes another and then another..... the Father became the Son who became the Spirit.

According to Modalism, the Father cannot "unbecome" the Son, nor can the Son "unbecome" the Spirit

I don't know where you got this version of Modalism, but you're only arguing details.

And yet thankfully we serve a God who is one of even the smallest of details.

As for where I get it from,...... certainly not a brief review of something googled on the internet.

To know something is not to know about it in a superficial way.

The essential difference between Trinitariaism and Modalism is that Trinitarianism believes God is 3 persons and Modalism that God is ONE PERSON - one person with 3 roles/aspects/expressions.

No is not. Again, go research (more deeply) the matter you are speaking of.

What is a person if not a role/aspect/expression?

Tell me Brad, what scripture speaks of God being a person?

This ignorance is the issue of the folly of theology, the "study" of God.

Men, in their limited light, apply human concepts to that which is not human.

Jesus was both divine and human, so what was His "person"?

What you are doing is taking two false teachings and applying them to the total picture. You can't.

Neither that which declares that God is three persons in one person, nor one person who has gone through a process, is correct. Yet each have a bit of the truth, for God is three, and yet one, and God has gone through a process and yet remains unchanged.

Whether the modes can "unbecome" one another or not would represent further conjecture on the nature of the Modalistic model itself, not the difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism.

Modalism is simply this.... the Father became the Son and the Son became the Spirit.

What you have issuing out of this, as a result of superficial understanding being received as truth, is what you are describing along with other variations that I've heard. Eighteen hundred years is a lot of time for the story to become confused.

And my point was not that of the difference between the two, it was that you were in error telling Nroof that what he was saying was Modalism..... go back and read it again so that you will not misrepresent people's speaking.

And if I understand YOU correctly, you may not be a Trinitarian either? The bottom line is that Modalism claims there is only one person BEHIND the son/father/husband - that the son/father/husband are expressions of that one person. Trinitarianism believes there are 3 literal persons, and that these persons are NOT each other, in the same sense that the analogy's son/father/husband ARE each other.

The two extremes have never interested me.

God is simply God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit,.... Whom we can know intimately through His economy of life towards us.

Trinitarians who know/understand the reality of God's triune being would absolutely declare that God is one and yet He is three, and that in this none are seperate, and yet all three are individual.

What you say is a "fair explanation of the triune nature of God" is Modalistic, not Trinitarian, in CONCEPT - except that you use the term one"entity" instead of one "person".

Because who really knows what a God "person" is?

As for my explanation being Modalistic in concept, though it isn't, I fully understand why you are unable to grasp the truth of this. You simply are not open to doing so.

Its like folks of the early twentieth century when they called cars horseless carriages,...... its really hard for men to give up concepts tha have taken root, so they try to build a connection for themselves, albeit that connection has no reality.

Was a car really just a horseless carriage, or was it something totally different?

I say that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have always eternally coexisted as themselves and as the one God at the same time. This is not Modalistic in any way, shape, or form

Before you obfuscate the point anymore, let's go back to "square one" -

Norm's take on the Trinity used the analogy...

"I am a father,
I am a son,
I am a husband,
...but I am still one person"

This is NOT Trinitarianism. It is the classic analogy used (contemporarily) by the "Oneness Pentecostal" to explain that God is not 3 persons but ONE PERSON with 3 roles or expressions. The Oneness Pentecostal position, which is Modalistic, is considered heresy by all mainstream Trinitarian denominations, and all mainstream Trinitarian scholars. This simple fact is not the result of a brief google search, it is "Trinitarianism 101". It is an age-old debate between Trinitarianism and Modalism.

If you don't have a problem with the preceeding analogy, YOU are not a Trinitarian. Welcome to the fold :D

 

[BradtheImpaler]

This is my understanding of modalism:

There seems to be two positions, one likely derived from the other. The first is that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all different modes of God that appear one at a time. The second, and the one that UPC teaches, is that Jesus is God who simultaneously exists as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The problem with this is that this means the Son is essentially created, that is, he didn't exist for eternity past. Other than that, this view is very similar to the doctrine of the Trinity and it all becomes a game of semantics.

There may be more than one version of Modalism, but the main point is that it is NOT TRINITARIANISM, which CJ hasn't grasped.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Whether Jesus is God, as I have pointed out, is another debate. You take the deity of Christ for granted, so I am agreeing with you (for "argument's sake") ...

[quote:7ef5a]I disagree with your premise (Jesus is God)....

I'm sorry, I was going on the assumption that all here where Christians and believed in the Deity of Christ. If so, then I don't understand what you disagree with in my premise that Jesus is God. Without that, we have nothing (but that's a different debate). My argument in raising the point in this debate that Jesus is God is to point out that Jesus (the Son) and the Father are the same exact God, not two different gods.

...pointing out the INEVITABLE CONCLUSION of that understanding, which is that there is no intrinsic difference between "one God" and "more than one God" if your God can indeed be distinct persons who have a RELATIONSHIP with one another.

I think you've missed the point of Jesus being God, and the Father being the same exact God. It is not polytheism (I don't believe that there are three beings of deity in one Godhead), nor is it modalism (I don't believe that God operated in different modes through history, nor that He has different personalities according to the work He is doing). If you don't like the term Trinity, because you believe it's a pagan title, then call it something esle, Godhead (it's what Paul used). You can call it multiple personalities if it really helps you, but still it's One God, not polytheism nor modalism. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all one in the same God, yet threes distinct person of that one God. I do not claim to be an expert in the understanding of how God can be the Father and The Son and the Holy Spirit, but it is so and supported from the Scriptures. No, there is not one single Scripture that expressly states this, but is it fully supported. The fundamental doctrine that Jesus is God means that He is the very God that the Father is.

But your comment here is disasterous to your position. Like Nroof's and CJ's ignorance of the difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism, you display an ignorance of the difference between Monotheism and Polytheism when you say -

"In Genesis, God speaks to at least two other BEINGS"

God is only ONE "being" according to Trinitarianism, and certainly more than one being is more than one God. You and Nroof are "heretics", according to the officially accepted doctrine of the Trinity, per your terminology. No doubt you may accuse me of "semantics", but all this goes to show is that many Trinitarians use terminology which they each have their own personal definitions for. The doctrine actually is BASED on semantics, and an appeal to "correct" terminology. Behind the terminology, though, there is no possibility of a concept that lies inbetween God as "one person with 3 roles" or "3 distinct beings (Gods)". Only the terminology lies inbetween.

In this one thing I agree with you. Indeed I did use an incorrect term. I should have said that God was speaking to two other persons instead of BEINGS. I apologize for throwing a wrench into the works and thus seemingly causing a disaster to my position. The argument still stands, that the Three are in fact the same God, not three separate but equal gods, thus my ignorance, as you so lovingly pointed out, is simply an error in terminology, and while I may not understand perfectly the Trinity, I do know that modalism is one school of thought within the doctrinal debate of the Trinity and that I do not hold to that particular view of the Trinity.

If your God is more than one person, and if these persons are NOT each other, and, in fact, have a relationship with one another, then there is no difference in CONCEPT between your brand of "monotheism" and polytheism. The only difference is you insist you have only one God. But the term "one God" is MEANINGLESS in light of the fact that the characteristics of this one God are the same as the characteristics of MORE than one God.

Okay, my God is one God. There are three distinct Persons in the Godhead of the one God, and they do have a relationship with one another (perhaps solely for mankinds sake, I don't know). Yet there is a fundamental difference in my "brand of 'monotheism' and polytheism. It is not that I insist that I worship one God, the same one God of Israel, but that it is in fact one God that I worship as commanded by God Himself. The difference in not simply in that I say He is one God, but that He truly is one God. Three separate gods with the same exact essence and attributes would serve no purpose as they would be the same god. Three god that are all-everything would make each of them all of each other. What would be the point, there then would be another God other than God. I can only speculate as to why God chose a Trinity to Express Himself to us. I know that I can identify with the Father/Son relationship, and perhaps that is the only reason He does Express Himself, so that we can identify with Him and His love for us better. But appearance of polytheism, that is appears that there are three Gods, is as far at it goes. Appearances or characteristics are not the same as Being. God is still One God, not three.

For instance, there is nothing wrong with a theology (for theology's sake) which held to a belief in 3 Gods, each of which were eternal, each of which were equal, each of whom loved the other, and each of whom were always in agreement. Now this IS the Trinity, except that Trinitarians insist that it's not "3 Gods". But please try to think this through - what is the DIFFERENCE whether I call these 3, "3 persons of one God" or "3 Gods"? The only difference lies in what we choose to CALL them, not what they ARE.

I suppose, for theology's sake, there is nothing wrong with believing in 3 Gods, except as it pertains to Christian theology, in which this would be heresy. It matters not that they are all eternal, love each other and are in agreement with each other. What matters is if they are the same of the essence. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all of the same essence and that is why the are co-equal to each other. Three separate and distinct gods are not of the same essence, and this is the difference between stating one God in Three Persons and Three Gods. Three Gods making up a single Godhead would not be a Trinity but Triumvirate. That is essentially the DIFFERENCE in saying "3 persons of one God or 3 Gods. "

Again I must ask here, are we all Christians, or no? If not, then I can hardly see how we can have a debate that will go anywhere if we don't even have the same basic beliefs. Do we all even believe that Jesus is God, not just a god, but the Jehovah God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Israel? If not, then the hole debate is futile as we don't even have a common ground[/quote:7ef5a]

Matthew, forgive me for not addressing all of your comments but this thread (like most others) is getting off the immediate point too easily- let me restate ny question again, more clearly...

Trinitarians cite the Baptism of Jesus as illustrative of how God is comprised of 3 distinct persons. My question is, if 3 distinct divine persons can be "one God", what is the difference between one God and MORE than one God, since it only takes one divine person to constitute a God? What would be the actual difference between monotheism and polytheism if a polytheistic construct exhibits multiple Gods, each of whom are distinct persons (from one another) and the Trinitarian "brand" of monotheism holds to multiple persons but claims they are ONE God? What these multiple persons actually are lies not in what we CALL them collectively (we could call them a "Buick" - it wouldn't mean anything) but the fact that multiple divine persons IS polytheistic theology. Belief in a single divine
person would, of course, be monotheistic, right? So what is a belief in MULTIPLE divine persons? POLY-theistic. "Mono" means one, "poly" is more than one. Three distinct persons, each of whom is not the other, is a polytheistic framework, no matter if you try to force the 3 under the label of "one God". In order to accept Trinitarianism, one must place more emphasis on the "LABEL" (one God) than on the intrinsic characteristics of what this (supposed) one God's characteristics are.

Again, the original question...

What GREATER SEPERATION OF "BEING" would be necessary to constitute 3 Gods, than that which is illustrated in the Baptism of Jesus scenario, where one speaks to another, one is the Father of the other, and all 3 are pictured (visibly and audibly) as NOT being one another but as working and functioning together in a group as would any 3 seperate beings who had a common goal?

If it walks like a duck (multiple Gods) and quacks like a duck (multiple Gods) it's a duck (multiple Gods) - of it is "labelled" something else (one God) that label is therefore MEANINGLESS.

 

[Imagican]

For God to die himself would be utterly meaningless in the scope of the entire Bible.

Actually, no. If God himself didn't die, then we are still dead in our sins. Either that or the whole "Christian" thing is a sham. It is the only way that the entire Bible can have meaning.

But the same people that created this concept were also able to read murder and slavery into the Word as they saw fit. They enslaved, tortured, and murdered all whom they chose and used the Bible as their reason for it.

Completely irrelevant and fallacious.

These same people would encourage you to listen to them and follow their teachings rather than read the Word for yourself. So, who would you trust the most? God and His Word, or those that would choose to alter it to suit their own personal needs and desires?

That is such a poor argument it's hard to know where to begin. Firstly, you are assuming that those who don't believe as you do haven't read the Word for themselves and are following the mere words of men, ignoring the fact that thousands upon thousands have intently studied the Word and come to the conclusion that the doctrine of the Trinity is correct, or at least closest to the truth. That is totaly arrogant.

Secondly, to say that those who don't believe as you do alter the Bible "to suit their own personal needs and desires" ignores history and the integrity and godliness of many people.

Thirdly, you are implying that just because the doctrine of the Trinity is orthodoxy that it isn't correct. Of course your whole last paragraph erroneously assumes that man determined what was orthodox and therefore the Trinity is a false doctrine of man.

Free,

I still maintain that it IS relevant as to WHO created 'trinity' and WHY. And I don't know what I stated that was false. A simple study of history and you too will find that the things that I stated are fact.

I offer once again the example of a man stranded on a deserted island with nothing more than the Bible to learn God's Word. I don't believe anyone would argue that 'trinity' would be utterly impossible to discover or interpret without someone, (a man), to offer this word and it's definition for it is NOT contained in the Bible. So, if a belief in 'trinity' is of such importance why did it take men to create it? Neither Christ, His apostles, nor God himself offered us this word 'trinity' but those that were responsible for the death of Christ. And many of these people argued against this pagan belief in the beginning of it's inception into Christianity. They were outnumbered however and many excommunicated for thier beliefs. One way to stiffle opposition to one's teachings.

So, the fact that a pagan society already posessing a trinity incorporated it into Christianity is certainly relevant. The simple FACT that these same people often murdered and tortured those that refused this doctrine is a prime indication as to it's reality. If 'trinity' were the truth then why would one have to threaten people with death to force them to accept it? Would this be the way that Christ would have those that understood his purpose teach it to others?

The creators of the 'trinity' tried to take away the one thing totally needed for meaningful obedience and worship- free will. God himself never took this from mankind, yet the creators of 'trinity' tried their best.

 

[Free]

I still maintain that it IS relevant as to WHO created 'trinity' and WHY.

But you are still assuming that the Trinity was created.

Neither Christ, His apostles, nor God himself offered us this word 'trinity' but those that were responsible for the death of Christ.

Again, you are using fallacious reasoning. Whether or not the word 'trinity' appears in the Bible is irrelevant. And neither were those who were responsible for the death of Christ the ones who "created" the Trinity.

So, the fact that a pagan society already posessing a trinity incorporated it into Christianity is certainly relevant.

Please provide even one source of evidence for this "fact," just one primary source.

 

[cj]

This is my understanding of modalism:

There seems to be two positions, one likely derived from the other. The first is that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all different modes of God that appear one at a time. The second, and the one that UPC teaches, is that Jesus is God who simultaneously exists as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The problem with this is that this means the Son is essentially created, that is, he didn't exist for eternity past. Other than that, this view is very similar to the doctrine of the Trinity and it all becomes a game of semantics.

Free, in a sense you are right, but in another sense true Modalism cannot be a variation.

Modalism is what I stated. What you have added is a variation of it. And as I believe I said in my post, after hundreds of centuries one must expect this to happen,especially with men, who are know to adapt things to suit their particular present needs.

And the same is true of the matter of the Trinity.

Brad makes all these bold statements about what I am not understanding, but what he fails to see is his own blindness regarding the handling of triths by men, over time. Brad also fails to see and thus understand that Satan is the great counterfeiter, and because of this, we can look at the doctrine of the Trinity we have today and understand that it night be of Satan.

In fact, we can know that both the Oneness doctrine that has come out of the apostate Pentecostal movement (whether it is according to true Modalism or a variation of it) and the Trinity doctrine that has come out of the apostate Roman movement, are both counterfeit works of Satan.

But what we can also know is that a good counterfeit starts with the real thing, and if is anyone who knows who God is, its His adversary.

Whatever these two camps want to say, the truth about both is that there is a "threeness" about the "oneness" of God. Both camps agree on this.

And the fact is, in God's wisdom He did not go further than this in His given word to men.

But, men in their pride and ignorance have decided that they must go further, and thus have made doctrines and teachings, adding to the words of the bible.

What need do men have of knowing God is "three persons", or of knowing that God is one person who manifests Himself in three ways?

No need,.... for it adds nothing to our being to know either.

Both are garbage/refuse/dung, taken from the fallen minds of fallen men, to satiate their craven fleshly desires.

"Theology" at its best/worse.

Neither doctrine is complete, meaning both still must invoke the vagueness of God's "mystery" in order to be acceptable, yet men hang their hats on each.

What self-serving fools men can be.




And then we come to Brad's comment that I must be one or the other,..... in man's typical way.

In this Brad exposes his inability to move out of his own box, his own limited thoughts and concepts.

Brad,..... I am absolutely a Trinitarian, just not in the ignorant way of many who call themsefl such in their ignorance of what the Trinity really is.

And as for being a Modalist,.... because I know what true Modalism is I can reject your label as foolishness, including the foolishness of the Pentecostal oneness movement's variation of Modalism.

Just look at the confusion both apostate sourced false teachings have brought believer's into.

Read God's word and know these things, and if for no other reason but that of following His word and having nothing to do with the deadness of these environments, remove oneself from them. Come out.



Saints, there is so much of Jesus, He who God loves, that we could be discussing, and be uplifted in,..... and yet we spend precious time in discussions such as this.

How can this be redeeming the time. And if not, then it is the wasting of time and thus against God.

Who here can before God say that they have grown with the growth of God because they have come to know either of these teachings?

None.

What of Enoch, did he know either teaching before he was taken?

And Abraham? David? Samuel? John B.? and on and on......

Saints, don't allow Satan to bind you up in religion, which is what this discussion is all about.


RELIGION........ the repeated binding of a person with many small cords (traditions, doctrines, forms, teachings).


In love,
cj

 

[Imagican]

Free,

The 'trinity' was created by the Romans. The same people that crucified Christ. Mythra was a triune God worshipped by the Romans at a time when they murdered Christians for thier beliefs. It wasn't until over three hundred years after His death that they incorporated Christ into their religious system. There was much argument about 'trinity' among the bishops of Rome until a pagan emperor, Constantine, sided with those that chose to add 'trinity' into Christianity and he dictated that from that point on there would be a 'trinity' in the Roman Catholic doctrine. All this is a matter of history. And it didn't end here. A few hundred years later the Roman Catholic Church was forced to face this issue of 'trinity' once again by those among them that refused to see or accept 'trinity'.

I'm not really here to offer history lessons. Every single bit of this information is readily available to anyone willing to spend just a little bit of time researching the history of the Roman Catholic Church and 'trinity'. All I want to offer to those that have questions concerning this doctrine is that it is man-made tradition and has no defining place in the Bible. One has to read a 'trinity' into the Bible. Without prior introduction one would find it utterly impossible to find this concept and word in the Bible. The closest this offered in the Bible is Godhead. Why change something that we can't completely understand into something else that we understand even less?

 

[Imagican]

http://eawc.evansville.edu/essays/mithraism.htm
http://www.roman-emperors.org/conniei.htm
http://www.litjournal.com/docs/fea_pagan2.html

These links will offer a taste of history as far as religious paganism in the Roman empire previous to Christianity. I leave it to you who would question the pagan influence the Roman Church brought to Christianity to study it further. Once one understands the power the Roman Catholic Church held over Christianity it becomes easily understood how they were able to incorporate thier traditions into Christianity rather than the truth. Like calling thier bishops 'father' after the Bible expressly forbids this practice. Worshipping idols, praying to Mary, etc. etc. Holidays such as Christmas and Easter, it goes on and on and many of the modern denominations have carried on these traditions even when knowing that they are NOT CHRISTIAN but of pagan origins.

Satan's number one incentive is the subversion of the Christian and Jewish Church. Looks like he's well on his way huh? Ever wonder why the modern Church is so concerned with MONEY? Look at their example. The Roman Catholic Church has been notorious in it's underhanded means of extracting money from it's congregation no matter how deceitful the means. Remember Martin Luther?

Free, perhaps you should study a bit of history concerning the Roman Catholic Church. This planet has never had a more ruthless and powerful religious community in all it's history. And these being the same people that put Christ to death.

 

[Imagican]

CJ,

Nice post. The Bible tells us of the Godhead but no where speaks of a 'trinity'. Yet you say you too are a trinitarian. I learned the Word through the means that we are commanded to learn- READING and studying the Word. Having never spent time in Church or with fellow believers, (until recently), I had never heard of a 'trinity'. How could my God leave me so ignorant of a thing held to be so important by those that believe in it? And I have yet to find ANYONE that accepts or believes in 'trinity' that was not taught this doctrine by someone else. And taught in such a way as to be convinced that without it's acceptance one can't be saved. Rubbish. That's like saying that one can't be saved without physical baptism. Utter foolishness. Or like someone EX-COMMUNICATING an individual. The idea of a man being able to deny one's acceptance of Christ or condemning one to hell is utterly idiotic in my opinion. Yet,,,,,,,,,,,there have been those that were brainwashed into believing it. Not so different than many other traditions-including, (in my opinion), 'trinity'.

And I have found no more obedience among those that accept this 'trinity' than among those that don't. Christian means Christ-like, not Catholic or Protestant. To live like Christ is to give, NOT take. Yet I have been forced to observe that since it's inception, 'trinity' takes and gives NOTHING of any true meaning. It takes away truth and offers tradition, it takes away the magnitude of the sacrifice Christ, (the SON of God), made and offers a simple gesture made by an all powerful God. And it takes away the singular power of God and places it within us all. Wow, that's exactly what Satan wanted isn't it- to be like God.

Sorry guys to burst your bubbles, but we are not God. Created in His image, no doubt, but far, far, far too immature to even begin to understand what He is much less are we able to immitate Him.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Brad makes all these bold statements about what I am not understanding, but what he fails to see is his own blindness regarding the handling of triths by men, over time. Brad also fails to see and thus understand that Satan is the great counterfeiter, and because of this, we can look at the doctrine of the Trinity we have today and understand that it night be of Satan.

In fact, we can know that both the Oneness doctrine that has come out of the apostate Pentecostal movement (whether it is according to true Modalism or a variation of it) and the Trinity doctrine that has come out of the apostate Roman movement, are both counterfeit works of Satan

I agree both viewpoints are incorrect, that is, that neither represents the true intensions of the bible writers. But the point of my reaction to Norm's analogy was not that it was, in truth, correct or incorrect, but that it is not Trinitarianism as classically defined by the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches. What you have adopted is your own version of Trinitarianism, which is fine and dandy, but if Norm brought his Father/Son/Husband analogy into any of the churches mentioned above he would be told that it was Modalism or Oneness that he was espousing, not Trinitarianism. I think there is little chance he would be told -

"That's fine cause according to CJ's version of Trinitarianism that analogy isn't necessarily wrong"

What need do men have of knowing God is "three persons", or of knowing that God is one person who manifests Himself in three ways?

No need,.... for it adds nothing to our being to know either

Again, I agree. But why stop there? What does it "add to our being" to believe there is a "threeness to God's oneness" - whatever THAT means?

And then we come to Brad's comment that I must be one or the other,..... in man's typical way

I didn't say you must be one or the other, I myself am not one or the other. I'm saying these two explanations of the Godhead are incompatible, and that if the Father/Son/Spirit are all God, then there must be EITHER 3 literal persons or one person with 3 roles. To claim that both of these viewpoints can be correct, or that both are incorrect, makes you a NON-Trinitarian to just about everyone else in the Christian (or so-called "heretical Christian) world except yourself.

 

[Diaconeo]

The problem I see with this post's argument is man's linear thinking. It is argued that Father/Son/Holy Spirit Godhead must be three separate gods acting in agreement with each other or must be one single God with three different roles. This is limiting God to our own simple, human understanding. Why must it be one or the other. Can't God possibly be One God that has chosen to reveal Himself as Three Persons? Is God so limited that He can't possibly do this? Why must we put limitations on God that He does not put on Himself?

Those that accept the doctrine of the Trinity will never be able to open the eyes of them that don't. Those that deny this doctrine will never be able to convince those that do that it is wrong. Both side argue that the other is somehow blinded or lied to by Satan in either accepting or denying the doctrine and for that Satan wins because he has been able to put discord in the unity that all true believers have in Christ. Those that accept and defend the doctrine of the Trinity do so by a harmony of all the Scriptures, those that deny it do so by claiming that there is no one scripture that plainly teaches this.

I personally believe that it is plain as day that the Scriptures teach that God is One and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all this One God. I don't care what anyone else really wants to call it, as long as they agree that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that He is truly Jehovah God, I can share a unity of Faith with them. I may disagree with their view of the Trinity, but that doesn't mean they are going to Hell for that belief. Just as, I hope, they don't believe I'm going there for believing in it. I am resigning from this particular thread since it's not really going anywhere fast. People are starting to throw names out, however subtly they may or may not be doing it, and that's just not healthy for christian fellowship.


In Christ,

Matthew