The Trinity

[Free]

Jesus is human; and therefore He is composed of spirit and soul and body (1 Thessalonians 5:23).

Jesus is saying by this that He is there in the flesh and that He is not a disembodied spirit.

If Jesus isn't a Spirit, then He isn't God (John 4:24).

You really need to clarify since you are saying he is composed of spirit, that he isn’t a disembodied spirit, but also that he is Spirit.

There is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4);

This is only in reference to the Holy Spirit.

the Father (John 4:23-24),

“God is spirit,” yes, but you are conflating that with “Spirit” in Eph 4:4. Those are speaking of two different ideas.

the Son (John 4:24; Ephesians 3:17, Colossians 1:27, 1 John 5:12),

None of those say the Son is spirit or Spirit. In fact, Jesus is still in bodily form.

and the Holy Ghost (John 7:39, 2 Timothy 1:14).

Yes, just as in Eph 4:4.

There is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5);

Speaking of the Son only, just as in 1 Cor 8:6.

the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 2 Corinthians 6:17-18), the Son (1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 12:3),

Yes, they are both spoken of as Lord, and each is, as is the Holy Spirit, yet there is one Lord. Unity within the diversity.

and the Holy Ghost (2 Corinthians 3:17).

That is speaking of Jesus, not the Holy Spirit. That chapter is a difficult and has some nuances that it make it not so straightforward.

There is one God (Ephesians 4:6); the Father (Ephesians 4:6, 1 Corinthians 8:6, James 3:9 (kjv)), the Son (Hebrews 1:8-9; John 8:58, Exodus 3:14; John 8:59, John 10:31-33; John 8:24), and the Holy Ghost (Acts 5:3-4, Romans 8:26-27).

Yes, there is only one God.

There are not nine members in the Trinity.

Of course not. No one is saying there is.

I write these things in obedience to Titus 2:1,

Tit 2:1, But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

Then write sound doctrine.

In God's scheme of things, things can be different than when you are looking at them from a merely human perspective.

Agreed.

Obviously, the "son that was given" shall have the name of "The everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6).

But that verse isn’t speaking of the nature of God.

 

[justbyfaith]

That

(2 Cor 3:17)

is speaking of Jesus, not the Holy Spirit.

So you admit that Jesus is a Spirit. Why then did you contend otherwise here?:

None of those say the Son is spirit or Spirit.

 

[justbyfaith]

Free,

Since you are interpreting certain passages, not according to their plain meaning, and not according to the interpretation of the Holy Ghost, I do not see how I can help you.

I will pray that the Lord may open your eyes to what the scriptures plainly teach.

 

[Free]

(2 Cor 3:17)

So you admit that Jesus is a Spirit. Why then did you contend otherwise here?:

You answered your own question. Read what you quoted.

Free,

Since you are interpreting certain passages, not according to their plain meaning, and not according to the interpretation of the Holy Ghost, I do not see how I can help you.

That is the essential problem, isn’t it? One of us is taking things out of context, not reading the plain meaning of verses, and not using sound reasoning or principles of interpretation.

I will pray that the Lord may open your eyes to what the scriptures plainly teach.

While I appreciate it and we should always be praying that for ourselves, I see no reason to change my views based on what you’ve given and also since mine are aligned with historical, orthodox Christianity.

 

[justbyfaith]

You answered your own question. Read what you quoted.


That is the essential problem, isn’t it? One of us is taking things out of context, not reading the plain meaning of verses, and not using sound reasoning or principles of interpretation.


While I appreciate it and we should always be praying that for ourselves, I see no reason to change my views based on what you’ve given and also since mine are aligned with historical, orthodox Christianity.

Your views are aligned with a heretical diagram that has made its way into circulation in the body of Christ which is mormon by nature.

You also deny the contention of the creeds that we are forbidden by catholic doctrine to say that we have three Lords.

For in teaching what is taught by the heretical diagram, that

"the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost"

you are in effect teaching three Lords;

in that you are defining them as separate rather than distinct (which is also forbidden by the creeds).

Therefore, your doctrine is not the historical doctrine of the Trinity.

While my doctrine agrees to the creeds' statements to the uttermost; except in two cases where the statements in the creeds are contradictory to specific Bible verses (Romans 1:3 and Luke 1:35).

And therefore my doctrine is closer to the biblical doctrine than even the creeds.

 

[justbyfaith]

While I appreciate it and we should always be praying that for ourselves, I see no reason to change my views based on what you’ve given and also since mine are aligned with historical, orthodox Christianity.

I don't expect you to change your view in a moment of time.

It may take some conviction of the Holy Ghost to motivate you to change over in your point of view to His doctrine (which is also my doctrine that I have proclaimed to you).

 

[Free]

Your views are aligned with a heretical diagram that has made its way into circulation in the body of Christ which is mormon by nature.

And this simply is not true. That you don't understand the diagram, based on the biblical, historical, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, does not mean that it is heretical or Mormon.

You also deny the contention of the creeds that we are forbidden by catholic doctrine to say that we have three Lords.

For in teaching what is taught by the heretical diagram, that

"the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost"

you are in effect teaching three Lords;

in that you are defining them as separate rather than distinct (which is also forbidden by the creeds).

Therefore, your doctrine is not the historical doctrine of the Trinity

Everything I have given is stated in the creeds, and agrees with them at every point. My position most certainly is the historical, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

Again, here is from the Athanasian Creed:

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

Looking at the lines I bolded:

4--the persons are not to be confounded. Your position confounds the persons.
5--the Father is a person, the Son is a person, the Holy Spirit is a person. Your position is that ontologically, God is one person.
8--Each of the three persons are uncreated. Your position (Coexistent or Concurrent Modalism) is that all three persons are actually just the Father, whose name is Jesus. The Son came into being and then the Holy Spirit came into being at his death.
10--A repeat of point 8, worded differently. Your position is that only the Father is eternal.
19--Each person by himself is God and Lord, also shown in point 17. Your position denies this.
25--None of the persons is before or after another. Your position is that the Father alone existed, then he created the Son, and then the Holy Spirit came about.
26--The three persons are coeternal and coequal. This, together with the other such statements, is speaking of God ontologically, as he exists in and of himself, as he has always existed and never not existed. Again, your position is that the Father alone existed before all creation, which is in direct contradiction to several of the statements.

I have said several of these very things numerous times and nothing I have said contradicts them.

While my doctrineagrees to the creeds' statements to the uttermost; except in two cases where the statements in the creeds are contradictory to specific Bible verses (Romans 1:3 and Luke 1:35).


And therefore my doctrine is closer to the biblical doctrine than even the creeds.

Your doctrine, rightly called "my doctrine," conflicts with the creeds at just about every point. Your doctrine is trying to combine the Oneness unitarian view of God with the Trinity, but those two ideas are antithetical and it cannot be done. Ever. You think your position agrees with the creeds and the Bible, but you have done exactly what Mormons and JWs do--you have redfined the terms and concepts to try and make them fit your position.

I don't expect you to change your view in a moment of time.

It may take some conviction of the Holy Ghost to motivate you to change over in your point of view to His doctrine (which is also my doctrine that I have proclaimed to you).

I can guarantee you that your doctrine is not biblical and so I will never believe it. As you keep saying, it is yours and it is yours alone. You've put yourself on a pedestal above all the thousands upon thousands of theologians and millions upon millions of believers, both current and past, who have studied and believe what I believe, precisely because it is the best explanation of God's revelation of himself in the Bible.

None of what I have said was said in a mean spirit, but you really need to know that your position is in serious error, contradicting the Bible and the creeds at several points.

 

[justbyfaith]

If you do not divide the substance, then the essence of the Father is the same essence of the Son and is the same essence of the Holy Ghost.

That is, if you have three big rocks, that the atoms in one rock are the very same exact atoms in one rock as in the other two.

This means that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are the same Person (being the same Spirit)...

Being distinct from each other in that the Son is come in flesh and the Holy Ghost has lived a human life in the Person of the Son and therefore, because of His experience, He understands humanity more than does the eternal Spirit who reigns in and inhabits eternity and has not yet descended from His own perspective.

 

[justbyfaith]

4--the persons are not to be confounded. Your position confounds the persons.

No, it does not. There is a clear distinction between the Persons in my theology.

5--the Father is a person, the Son is a person, the Holy Spirit is a person. Your position is that ontologically, God is one person.

In one sense, yes (in that they are one Spirit). In another sense, the Persons are distinctly three according to my position.

8--Each of the three persons are uncreated. Your position (Coexistent or Concurrent Modalism) is that all three persons are actually just the Father, whose name is Jesus. The Son came into being and then the Holy Spirit came into being at his death.

Yes, Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3); being uncreated in His Deity.

The Holy Spirit didn't come into being at His death. He always was, in the Person of the Father.

The Spirit of God, as He exists now, in the Person of the Holy Ghost, is who He is in that He understands humanity in an experiential sense, since He lived a human life in the Person of Christ.

10--A repeat of point 8, worded differently. Your position is that only the Father is eternal.

If the Son and the Holy Ghost are each the Father, would that not also make them eternal?

19--Each person by himself is God and Lord, also shown in point 17. Your position denies this.

No, it really doesn't.

But it does deal with the problem in your doctrine in that you cannot deny that you have three Lords. Which is contrary to the doctrine of the creeds.

25--None of the persons is before or after another. Your position is that the Father alone existed, then he created the Son, and then the Holy Spirit came about.

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost exist throughout eternity from my perspective.

26--The three persons are coeternal and coequal. This, together with the other such statements, is speaking of God ontologically, as he exists in and of himself, as he has always existed and never not existed. Again, your position is that the Father alone existed before all creation, which is in direct contradiction to several of the statements.

You do not understand what I am preaching, obviously.

Your doctrine, rightly called "my doctrine," conflicts with the creeds at just about every point.

My doctrine is not mine but His that sent me (even as Jesus said, so say I).

Your doctrine is trying to combine the Oneness unitarian view of God with the Trinity, but those two ideas are antithetical and it cannot be done.

It can be done and has been done within the framework of the Holy Spirit's doctrine (as I teach it).

The Trinity in itself is not a doctrine of three Gods but that God is three-in-one.

Therefore, it does not have to be reconciled with a unitarian viewpoint. It is already the belief in one God.

I can guarantee you that your doctrine is not biblical and so I will never believe it. As you keep saying, it is yours and it is yours alone. You've put yourself on a pedestal above all the thousands upon thousands of theologians and millions upon millions of believers, both current and past, who have studied and believe what I believe, precisely because it is the best explanation of God's revelation of himself in the Bible.

None of what I have said was said in a mean spirit, but you really need to know that your position is in serious error, contradicting the Bible and the creeds at several points.

Unfortunately, in your position, it is not God who descended, but 1/3 of God or else a 2nd God who descended to take on an added nature of human flesh.

My position is indeed biblical; in that it sets forth the concept that God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16 (kjv)).

 

[justbyfaith]

I can guarantee you that your doctrine is not biblical and so I will never believe it.

I know that you may come to believe in it as soon as you see the biblical substantiation for it. For that to occur, God must remove the blinders from your eyes. I will be praying for you that that happens.

 

[justbyfaith]

As you keep saying, it is yours and it is yours alone.

There are others who also do hold and will hold to it; for it is my prayer that the word of the Lord, as I am preaching it, may have free course and be glorified.

 

[Free]

If you do not divide the substance, then the essence of the Father is the same essence of the Son and is the same essence of the Holy Ghost.

In the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, which I have been espousing and what the creeds state, all three persons are of the same indivisible substance; that is what makes each of them truly and fully God.

That is, if you have three big rocks, that the atoms in one rock are the very same exact atoms in one rock as in the other two.

This means that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are the same Person (being the same Spirit)...

Your conclusion doesn't follow. If they are the same person, that is the same as saying one rock is that rock. Be careful in applying analogies to God.

Being distinct from each other in that the Son is come in flesh and the Holy Ghost has lived a human life in the Person of the Son and therefore, because of His experience, He understands humanity more than does the eternal Spirit who reigns in and inhabits eternity and has not yet descended from His own perspective.

If the "eternal Spirit" doesn't know or understand what Jesus went through, then he cannot be God.

I know that you may come to believe in it as soon as you see the biblical substantiation for it. For that to occur, God must remove the blinders from your eyes. I will be praying for you that that happens.

I will not come to believe it. I know I won't because there is no biblical substantiation for it. It's based on ignoring context, ignoring grammar, ignoring the plain use of language, and fallacious reasoning. It simply cannot be biblical.

There are others who also do hold and will hold to it; for it is my prayer that the word of the Lord, as I am preaching it, may have free course and be glorified.

You have said it is your doctrine, that you came to understand, so the likelihood that anyone else believes it is very slim. And I'll do my best to uphold the actual biblical, historical, orthodox doctrine.

 

[Free]

No, it does not. There is a clear distinction between the Persons in my theology.

It does because the Father became the Son and the Holy Spirit lived in Jesus and knows more than the Father. That is very much confounding the persons.

In one sense, yes (in that they are one Spirit). In another sense, the Persons are distinctly three according to my position.

God is ontologically either one person or is not one person, such as three persons, he cannot be both, and simply saying "in one sense" and "in another sense" doesn't make it so. Your whole position is that God is ontologically one person, while the historic, orthodox position is that God is ontologically three persons, that there never was a time when God was not three persons, including prior to all creation when all that existed was God.

Yes, Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3); being uncreated in His Deity.

The Holy Spirit didn't come into being at His death. He always was, in the Person of the Father.

The Spirit of God, as He exists now, in the Person of the Holy Ghost, is who He is in that He understands humanity in an experiential sense, since He lived a human life in the Person of Christ.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

If the Son and the Holy Ghost are each the Father, would that not also make them eternal?

That is confounding the persons. And, no, it would not also make them eternal. As you have said elsewhere: "I believe that the Son was begotten in the incarnation."

No, it really doesn't.

But it does deal with the problem in your doctrine in that you cannot deny that you have three Lords. Which is contrary to the doctrine of the creeds.

Yes, your position certainly does deny that each person is fully God and fully Lord, since the Son came into existence at a point in time and the Holy Spirit is really the Father. Everything I have said regarding my position is exactly what the Athanasian Creed states.

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost exist throughout eternity from my perspective.

Yes, after the Son and the Holy Spirit came into being, which is not at all biblical. By definition then, your position denies that none are before or after the other.

You do not understand what I am preaching, obviously.

In one sense, no, because it is so contradictory and confusing. It even seems that you don't even understand what you're preaching. But I do understand enough to know that it is fraught with problems.

My doctrine is not mine but His that sent me (even as Jesus said, so say I).

You have repeatedly said it was yours, given that it contradicts the Bible and the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, I do believe that it is yours.

It can be done and has been done within the framework of the Holy Spirit's doctrine (as I teach it).

The Trinity in itself is not a doctrine of three Gods but that God is three-in-one.

Therefore, it does not have to be reconciled with a unitarian viewpoint. It is already the belief in one God.

And, there it is, again. You do believe in a unitarian view of God. This means, as I have said numerous times, that you believe God is ontologically one person. The Bible does not support this and neither do the creeds, for that reason. It cannot be done, which is why you have not done it and your doctrine has so many problems.

Unfortunately, in your position, it is not God who descended, but 1/3 of God or else a 2nd God who descended to take on an added nature of human flesh.

No, my position is that of the Bible and the creeds, namely, that the second person of the Trinity, who has always existed (is coexistent, coequal, and coeternal) with the Father, being of the same substance, came and took on human flesh. Your position is that the Father came and took on human flesh, but that idea is flatly refuted by the words of Jesus himself, never mind the writings of the Apostles (of course, that is precisely why they agree with the words Jesus).

My position is indeed biblical; in that it sets forth the concept that God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16 (kjv)).

No, your position is not biblical, and this is yet another case of begging the question. You are presuming that "God" here is referring only to the Father. Of course, the Greek most likely says "who," not "God," not that it makes much difference.

 

[justbyfaith]

Your conclusion doesn't follow. If they are the same person, that is the same as saying one rock is that rock. Be careful in applying analogies to God.

Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity is that God is three-in-one; not just three.

If the "eternal Spirit" doesn't know or understand what Jesus went through, then he cannot be God.

Of course the Holy Ghost knows what Jesus went through and is the same Spirit as the Father. However, the Father does not know this experientially; since He was never a man until His experience of the incarnation.

I will not come to believe it. I know I won't because there is no biblical substantiation for it. It's based on ignoring context, ignoring grammar, ignoring the plain use of language, and fallacious reasoning. It simply cannot be biblical.

It is very biblical; and if you believe the Bible, you will believe in "my" doctrine.

You have said it is your doctrine, that you came to understand, so the likelihood that anyone else believes it is very slim. And I'll do my best to uphold the actual biblical, historical, orthodox doctrine.

"my" doctrine is His that sent me.

It does because the Father became the Son and the Holy Spirit lived in Jesus and knows more than the Father. That is very much confounding the persons.

Jesus and the Father are distinct from each other in "my" doctrine.

The Father is a Spirit without flesh; Jesus is the same Spirit come in flesh.

You can continue to deny the plain understanding that we can get from John 4:23-24, John 4:24, and Ephesians 4:4 (knowing that Jesus is God); but in denying it you are denying the plain teaching of holy scripture.

God is ontologically either one person or is not one person, such as three persons, he cannot be both,

In the old days they may have said the same about the doctrine of the Trinity..."God cannot be three and one at the same time." Now that they have rid the doctrine of God being One, they have no problem with what is called the Trinity today.

The fact that I say that God is one Spirit is what stumbles you; because in that sense He must indeed be one Person.

Yet He is three distinct Persons in that one of the Persons is in flesh and the other two are a Spirit without flesh; also being distinct from each other.

Your whole position is that God is ontologically one person, while the historic, orthodox position is that God is ontologically three persons,

I do not deny that God is three Persons.

that there never was a time when God was not three persons, including prior to all creation when all that existed was God.

Yes, I believe that. God has, throughout eternity, been three Persons.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

I am stating biblical doctrine. Whether you agree or disagree with it is up to you to decide.

That is confounding the persons. And, no, it would not also make them eternal.

If they are the Father then they would be eternal because the Father is eternal.

And no, I am not confounding the Persons, I was merely going on what you had stated before.

I believe in three distinct Persons within our triune Godhead.

As you have said elsewhere: "I believe that the Son was begotten in the incarnation."

Yes; and that is a biblical statement (Luke 1:35).

Yes, your position certainly does deny that each person is fully God and fully Lord, since the Son came into existence at a point in time and the Holy Spirit is really the Father.

Jesus is the Lord. The Father is the Lord. The Holy Ghost is the Lord.

There, I have confessed to all three being Lord.

I don't think that you can make the same confession; for I think that you believe in three Lords.

But you are forbidden by catholic doctrine to teach what you actually believe.

Everything I have said regarding my position is exactly what the Athanasian Creed states.

Nope. The Athanasian creed forbids you to teach that there are three Lords.

But that is what you are doing when you say that

"the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost".

Yes, after the Son and the Holy Spirit came into being, which is not at all biblical.

The Son and the Holy Ghost have always been, in my theology.

In one sense, no, because it is so contradictory and confusing. It even seems that you don't even understand what you're preaching.

Yes, it is confusing to you because what I am preaching is spiritually discerned and therefore it is foolishness to you.

But I do understand enough to know that it is fraught with problems.

There are no problems that I can see in my theology in all my reading of the Bible (and I read it very frequently).

You have repeatedly said it was yours, given that it contradicts the Bible and the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, I do believe that it is yours.

"My" doctrine is not mine but His that sent me.

And, there it is, again. You do believe in a unitarian view of God. This means, as I have said numerous times, that you believe God is ontologically one person.

God is three-in-one.

You appear to believe that He is three but not One. That is tritheism; not the Trinity.

The Bible does not support this and neither do the creeds, for that reason. It cannot be done, which is why you have not done it and your doctrine has so many problems.

Again, what I am preaching is spiritually discerned and I find no problems with it either logically or scripturally.

Your position is that the Father came and took on human flesh, but that idea is flatly refuted by the words of Jesus himself,

Which words?

No, your position is not biblical, and this is yet another case of begging the question. You are presuming that "God" here is referring only to the Father.

You are assuming that "God" here is referring only to the Son. My understanding is that it is referring to all of God.

Just so it does not get lost in the shuffle, I am referring to 1 Timothy 3:16 (kjv).

 

[justbyfaith]

You have said it is your doctrine, that you came to understand, so the likelihood that anyone else believes it is very slim.

It has been said that prayer changes things.

 

[justbyfaith]

And I'll do my best to uphold the actual biblical, historical, orthodox doctrine.

Except that you don't believe in the biblical, historical, orthodox doctrine.

 

[Free]

Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity is that God is three-in-one; not just three.

I know. That's exactly what I have been stating the whole time. You think you believe that in the historic, orthodox sense, but I assure you that you don't.

Of course the Holy Ghost knows what Jesus went through and is the same Spirit as the Father. However, the Father does not know this experientially; since He was never a man until His experience of the incarnation.

Again, if there is anything that the Father doesn't know, then he can't be God, he can't be the Father of the Bible.

It is very biblical; and if you believe the Bible, you will believe in "my" doctrine.

"my" doctrine is His that sent me.

Your doctrine is your doctrine alone and it is certainly not biblical.

Jesus and the Father are distinct from each other in "my" doctrine.

The Father is a Spirit without flesh; Jesus is the same Spirit come in flesh.

That isn't distinctness. That is confounding the persons. You still don't understand the meaning of ontology and how that proves your doctrine doesn't line up with the Bible nor the creeds.

You can continue to deny the plain understanding that we can get from John 4:23-24, John 4:24, and Ephesians 4:4 (knowing that Jesus is God); but in denying it you are denying the plain teaching of holy scripture.

No, I understand them just fine. I've explained them to you already.

In the old days they may have said the same about the doctrine of the Trinity..."God cannot be three and one at the same time." Now that they have rid the doctrine of God being One, they have no problem with what is called the Trinity today.

Who has said this, other than non-Christians?

The fact that I say that God is one Spirit is what stumbles you; because in that sense He must indeed be one Person.

This is a unitarian view of God, which beliefs God is an absolute unity, ontologically a single person. And that is where you depart from the Bible and the Creeds.

Yet He is three distinct Persons in that one of the Persons is in flesh and the other two are a Spirit without flesh; also being distinct from each other.

You are clinging to Modalism and arguing that the different modes makes them distinct persons, but that is not the distinctness mentioned in Scripture nor in the creeds.

I do not deny that God is three Persons.

According to your own doctrine, but you do in the historic, orthodox sense.

Yes, I believe that. God has, throughout eternity, been three Persons.

No, you don't. You just said, "He must indeed be one Person." You have said elsewhere:

"I contend therefore that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one and the same Lord;

And if one Lord, then one Person."

You also believe it was the Father who came in the flesh, at which point the Son came into existence. By definition then, you do not believe that "God has, throughout eternity, been three Persons," as believed in the historical, orthodox Trinity. Again, the problem is that you have redefined terms and twisted scripture in order to try and erroneously marry Oneness and the Trinity. It cannot and will not ever work.

I am stating biblical doctrine. Whether you agree or disagree with it is up to you to decide.

You are free to believe that, even if it isn't true.

If they are the Father then they would be eternal because the Father is eternal.

See, again, the unitarian view of Oneness theology, which, by definition, is antithetical to the biblical teaching as stated in the historic, orthodox doctrine.

And no, I am not confounding the Persons, I was merely going on what you had stated before.

You are confounding the Persons. The statement immediately prior to this, you said "If they are the Father then they would be eternal because the Father is eternal." You believe that the Father came in the flesh, at which point the Son came into being. That is precisely what it means to confound the persons. The Son came in the flesh, not the Father, even Jesus says this several times, as well as John and Paul.

I believe in three distinct Persons within our triune Godhead.

In your own contradictory, fallacious way, but not in the correct way.

Yes; and that is a biblical statement (Luke 1:35).

That is a misunderstanding and misuse of that verse, which contradicts numerous other verses. It is simply stating that Mary's child would be called the Son of God. There is nothing in that verse to suggest that that is when the Son was begotten or came into existence.

Jesus is the Lord. The Father is the Lord. The Holy Ghost is the Lord.

There, I have confessed to all three being Lord.

I don't think that you can make the same confession; for I think that you believe in three Lords.

But you are forbidden by catholic doctrine to teach what you actually believe.

And they are all one Lord, yet, the Father isn't the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit. That is the historic, orthodox teaching of the Trinity.

Nope. The Athanasian creed forbids you to teach that there are three Lords.

But that is what you are doing when you say that

"the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost".

No, that is what the Bible plainly teaches and why the creeds do as well. You are again confounding the persons. If the Father is not the Son who is not the Holy Spirit, then the only other option is the heresy of the unitarian view: the Father is the Son and is the Holy Spirit. That is antithetical to the Trinity. Therefore, you do not believe the Trinity.

The Son and the Holy Ghost have always been, in my theology.

No, they haven't. If you deny that the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit, then the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot have always been.

Yes, it is confusing to you because what I am preaching is spiritually discerned and therefore it is foolishness to you.

No, it lacks sound reasoning and is based on distorting scripture to fit your doctrine. It has absolutely nothing to do with it being spiritually discerned. That just becomes an excuse for poor study.

There are no problems that I can see in my theology in all my reading of the Bible (and I read it very frequently).

Reading it is one thing, understanding it is quite another.

"My" doctrine is not mine but His that sent me.

God is three-in-one.

You appear to believe that He is three but not One. That is tritheism; not the Trinity.

How have you gotten that from what I have said? I have repeatedly and continually stated that there are three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons within the one being that is God.

Again, what I am preaching is spiritually discerned and I find no problems with it either logically or scripturally.

There is a lot wrong with it logically and biblically, and I have pointed out many errors.

Which words?

I've given them before, numerous times, but you've ignored them every time, so why would I give them again?

You are assuming that "God" here is referring only to the Son. My understanding is that it is referring to all of God.

Just so it does not get lost in the shuffle, I am referring to 1 Timothy 3:16 (kjv).

I am not assuming anything. Everything in the NT, including John 1:1 and Phil 2:5-8, shows that it was the Son who came in the flesh, not the Father.

Anyway, this is pointless. You will never convince me that your doctrine is true.

 

[Free]

Except that you don't believe in the biblical, historical, orthodox doctrine.

I have proven numerous times that it is and yours is not.

It has been said that prayer changes things.

It does change things, but what it will not do is cause the Holy Spirit to lead a person into error or out of truth.

This is going to go nowhere, so we should just call it a day.

 

[justbyfaith]

You think you believe that in the historic, orthodox sense, but I assure you that you don't.

I know that I know that I know that I believe what the Bible teaches on the subject.

Again, if there is anything that the Father doesn't know, then he can't be God, he can't be the Father of the Bible.

So, you're saying that the Father is human; since He understands and knows experientially the reality of how humans think?

Thanks for admitting that Jesus is the Father!

Your doctrine is your doctrine alone and it is certainly not biblical.

My doctrine is His that sent me and it most certainly is biblical.

That isn't distinctness. That is confounding the persons. You still don't understand the meaning of ontology and how that proves your doctrine doesn't line up with the Bible nor the creeds.

"ontology" is a great swelling word impaho.

No, I understand them just fine. I've explained them to you already.

Your understanding of them is flawed.

For you have rejected the kjv's rendering of them and in doing so, you are heaping to yourself teachers (in the translators of other versions) to tell you what your itching ears want to hear.

You really ought to switch to the kjv. If only for the reason that you are not going to convince anyone like me of anything that you believe apart from quoting it.

Who has said this, other than non-Christians?

You are identifying yourself as a non-Christian?

This is a unitarian view of God, which beliefs God is an absolute unity, ontologically a single person. And that is where you depart from the Bible and the Creeds.

Saying that God is one Spirit and therefore, in a specific sense, one Person...is not in denial of the fact that He is, in another sense, three Persons.

You are clinging to Modalism and arguing that the different modes makes them distinct persons, but that is not the distinctness mentioned in Scripture nor in the creeds.

In your view the distinctness is that

"the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost"

so that there are three Lords.

That is not the Trinity according to the creeds.

The creeds forbid you to teach that there are three Lords.

According to your own doctrine, but you do in the historic, orthodox sense.

I am a Trinitarian in the orthodox sense.

No, you don't. You just said, "He must indeed be one Person." You have said elsewhere:

"I contend therefore that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one and the same Lord;

And if one Lord, then one Person."

You also believe it was the Father who came in the flesh, at which point the Son came into existence. By definition then, you do not believe that "God has, throughout eternity, been three Persons,"

But you are not understanding everything that I have said on the subject. I will post a link shortly that clarifies things.

Coexistent modalism...the true Trinity.

Here is how I define the Trinity. The Father is a Spirit without flesh inhabiting eternity (John 4:23-24, Isaiah 57:15). The Son is the same Spirit come in flesh (John 4:24, Ephesians 4:4, 1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7). The Holy Ghost is the same Spirit as He is released from the physical body of...

christianforums.net

Again, the problem is that you have redefined terms and twisted scripture in order to try and erroneously marry Oneness and the Trinity. It cannot and will not ever work.

I have twisted nothing.

The Trinity is the concept that God is three-in-one.

Because I emphasize the -in-one of that equation, suddenly I am a modalist? I do not believe that the Persons of the Trinity exist in modes

You are free to believe that, even if it isn't true.

You are free to believe the opposite, even though it isn't true.

The Son came in the flesh, not the Father,

Your point of view takes as a given that the Son is eternally begotten.

However, in that case, the Son is either 1/3 of God or else He is a 2nd God.

Thus, it is not God (all of Him) who was manifested in the flesh, from your perspective.

In your own contradictory, fallacious way, but not in the correct way.

Yes, in the correct way.

That is a misunderstanding and misuse of that verse, which contradicts numerous other verses. It is simply stating that Mary's child would be called the Son of God. There is nothing in that verse to suggest that that is when the Son was begotten or came into existence.

What verses teach that the Son is eternally begotten rather than being begotten in the incarnation?

Romans 1:3 tells us that Jesus "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

And they are all one Lord, yet, the Father isn't the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit. That is the historic, orthodox teaching of the Trinity.

No; that is relatively new development that came about because of your heretical diagram.

The true Trinity is what I have explained in my threads on the Trinity.

(will post a link shortly).

Coexistent modalism...the true Trinity.

Here is how I define the Trinity. The Father is a Spirit without flesh inhabiting eternity (John 4:23-24, Isaiah 57:15). The Son is the same Spirit come in flesh (John 4:24, Ephesians 4:4, 1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7). The Holy Ghost is the same Spirit as He is released from the physical body of...

christianforums.net

No, that is what the Bible plainly teaches and why the creeds do as well. You are again confounding the persons. If the Father is not the Son who is not the Holy Spirit, then the only other option is the heresy of the unitarian view: the Father is the Son and is the Holy Spirit. That is antithetical to the Trinity. Therefore, you do not believe the Trinity.

That is the view that there are three Lords which is forbidden by the creeds. If

"the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost",

then that is three Lords;

Because each one of them is Lord according to scripture and the creeds.

And I do not teach that the Father IS the Son IS the Holy Ghost, either. The reality is somewhere in between;

That there is one Spirit, who became flesh; and that the Spirit as He exists in flesh is a distinct Person from the Spirit as He exists in eternity without flesh.

So, I do believe in the Trinity; because I believe in three distinct Persons in our triune Godhead.

No, they haven't. If you deny that the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit, then the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot have always been.

If the Father is the Son and the Spirit, and has always existed, then it follows that the Son and the Spirit have always existed (in the Person of the Father).

No, it lacks sound reasoning and is based on distorting scripture to fit your doctrine.

I have not come at the scriptures attempting to get them to fit my doctrine.

Actually, I have come to the scriptures with an open heart and mind and allowing myself to submit in my thinking to what they really teach.

Reading it is one thing, understanding it is quite another.

I understand it quite well. I actually see the implications of certain things that you seem to have not been able to ascertain as of yet.

I've given them before, numerous times, but you've ignored them every time, so why would I give them again?

So that I can refute them again.

Which is exactly the reason why you don't want to repeat the drama.

I am not assuming anything. Everything in the NT, including John 1:1 and Phil 2:5-8, shows that it was the Son who came in the flesh, not the Father.

Those passages do not say that the Father didn't come in the flesh.

As a matter of fact, if you apply an algebraic hermeneutic to John 1:1 in comparison to 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, and James 3:9 (kjv), you may in fact see that John 1:1 declares that in the beginning, the Word was the Father.

I have proven numerous times that it is and yours is not.

Nope.

It does change things, but what it will not do is cause the Holy Spirit to lead a person into error or out of truth.

Of course; and since I am leading people into the truth out of error, prayer will avail to get people to see it by the power of the Holy Ghost.

 

[justbyfaith]

from https://christianforums.net/threads/coexistent-modalism-the-true-trinity.97351/


Here is how I define the Trinity.

The Father is a Spirit without flesh inhabiting eternity (John 4:23-24, Isaiah 57:15).

The Son is the same Spirit come in flesh (John 4:24, Ephesians 4:4, 1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7).

The Holy Ghost is the same Spirit as He is released from the physical body of the Son at His crucifixion (Luke 23:46).

(For God is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4, John 4:24).)

The Holy Ghost being distinct from the Father in that He has lived the human life of Christ and therefore has an experiential understanding of humanity.

The Son being distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost in that He is come in flesh (while the Father and the Holy Ghost also dwell in the Person of the Son, Colossians 2:9).

I believe that the Son was begotten in the incarnation (Luke 1:35); which does not make it impossible that He is pre-existent.

For He ascended to fill all things (Ephesians 4:10); even to exist outside of time.

For in the Bible codes of Genesis 1 it can be determined that there are ten dimensions in reality. The risen and ascended Son fills all ten. So, He is far above the fourth dimension; which is time. Therefore Jesus exists outside of time.

And because He exists outside of time, His existence extends into eternity past.

Thus, the Father created the worlds through Jesus Christ; since Christ existed in the beginning;

While the beginning of His life (as the Son in flesh) happened at the juncture of Luke 1:35.

Some have tried to define this theology as not being the Trinity by giving it the label of "Coexistent Modalism".

I think that such is a slander on the doctrine.

I developed this doctrine as an emphasis on the Oneness of God in the Trinity, as a response to mormon theology; which has also infiltrated the minds of some who call themselves Trinitarians; that there are three beings who are God;

i.e. that the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost.

I would declare that they are the same Spirit (John 4:24, Ephesians 4:4) and therefore, also, in a specific sense, the same Person.

While they are also three distinct Persons according to the beginning statements of this post.