netchaplain
Member
I don't see how this is related to the Trinity issue I was referring to in post 308. Thanks!
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
The Trinity
- Thread starter netchaplain
- Start date
It isn't jumping through hoops. It's a basic question requiring basic Bible study and simple reasoning.
1Jn 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. (ESV)
1Jn 4:16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (ESV)
"God is love" is an expression of His essential nature and not merely the idea that He is loving; He cannot not love. It's the same as God is light (1 Joh 1:5) and God is spirit (Joh 4:24). To say that “God is love” raises the question of what love is, what the highest and greatest view of love is. Firstly, "love" here is the Greek word agape, and means "love," "brotherly love," "affection," "goodwill," "benevolence." In other words, it is an action towards another. Even apart from that, we know that at its fullest, love is an outward expression towards others which is reciprocated. Those who only love themselves we call narcissists.
For God to be love, to be agape, His love necessarily must have been towards at least one other person which was then reciprocated in loving relationship, prior to the creation of all time and space, for eternity past. And that is what we see in John 17:24--that the Father loved the Son, even before creation. It is also what we see in John 1:1--"the Word was with God." These fully support what John says in 1 John 4:8 and 16. It is impossible that God could be love itself, as John states, without anyone else to love prior to creation.
However, if God is a monad (Islam, Arianism, Modalism, Oneness, Unitarianism), that is, he is ontologically one person, an absolute unity, then to say “God is love” means 1) that God loved himself, and 2) that the fullest and proper expression of his love is dependent on creation. This contradicts the statement that “God is love,” as it leaves His love incomplete and deficient, meaning that he cannot be the true God of the Bible.
That's right, there is no trinity in that commandment of Jesus.
that's the whole point, friend.
It is amazing how many times anti-Trinitarians quote only the last clause from John 1:1, as thought that is the whole verse.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)
Looking at the first clause, "In the beginning" is clearly a reference to Gen 1:1. The word "was" is the Greek, en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and speaks of continuous action in the past, that is, absolute preexistence before any creation. What that statement means is that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.
In the second clause, "and the Word was with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It expresses “direction towards,” as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy. It is important to note here that in the Greek the article is present, so it reads, "the Word was with [the] God." So, God is a reference to someone other than the Word, at a minimum it is a reference to the Father.
When it comes to the last clause, "the Word was God," it is significant that "God" doesn't have the article in the Greek, as it was in the preceding clause. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable, and they are one and the same, which is the error of Oneness theology. But this whole passage is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is, so John purposely doesn't use the article to avoid equating the two words. What it can only mean then, is that the Word was divine in nature, or deity. However, since there is only one God, it is rightly translated as "the Word was God."
There is only one understanding of this verse--the Word existed for eternity past in intimate relationship with another, who is God the Father (at a minimum), and the Word is divine in nature, making him also God.
We should also consider verses 2, 3, and 14:
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. (ESV)
We see a repeat of verse 1 with the use of en, pros, and God with the article, reaffirming the timeless preexistence of the Word who was in active communion with the Father.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)
Simple, straightforward logic tells us that since "all things were made through" the Word, and that "without him was not any thing made that was made," it necessarily follows that the Word is not something that was made (see also 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17). That is, there never was a time when the Word did not exist.
John then makes it clear in verse 14 that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." That is, the Word, not the Father, entered into time--Greek for "become" is egeneto (same as "made" in verse 3)--and took on human flesh. This is all precisely what Paul is speaking of in Phil 2:5-8.
But, we should also consider John's reference to Gen 1:1 and note what else happens in that chapter.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
...
Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)
Clearly there is only one God. Interestingly, this one God uses plural personal pronouns of himself--"us" and "our"--to speak of creating humans. But when he actually does create man and woman, the pronouns become singular--"his" and "he." This, too, shows that there is plurality within the one God, so it is no surprise, indeed no coincidence, that John makes a reference to Gen 1:1 in John 1:1.
The incarnation is a mystery, but John clearly makes the case the Word had always existed before creation--absolute preexistence--with God and was divine in nature. He then entered time, taking on human flesh, completed the work he both came and was sent to do, and then was received back into glory.
Remember, this is John's introduction, the whole point of which is to introduce us to the Word that became flesh for the salvation of humans and the redemption of all creation. Everything else he says about the Son, Jesus, the Son of God, flows from this and cannot contradict it.
God is one God; therefore He is one being who exists in three Persons.
To say that He is three separate beings is a mormon concept and not Christian.
No.
There is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4); the Father (John 4:23-24), the Son (John 4:24; Ephesians 3:17, Colossians 1:27, 1 John 5:12), and the Holy Ghost (John 7:39, 2 Timothy 1:14).
This shows that there is one Spirit who is God;
the Son being the same Spirit as the Father (the Father being a Spirit without flesh), albeit come in the flesh (John 1:14, 1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7).
Not if you believe that the Persons in the Trinity are separate rather than distinct.
And you purport that when you say that
"the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost".
I don't think that you are considering the implications of your doctrine.
You can give lip service to the concept of one God;
But when you say that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate rather than distinct, you imply three Gods.
And when you say that
"the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost",
the implication is that they are separate rather than distinct.
yes.
My mission is also to make clear the Oneness of the Lord; without denying the Deity of Christ which is an essential for salvation according to John 8:24...and also without denying that the members of the Godhead are distinct Persons within our triune Godhead.
Even in Trinitarianism, it is true that God loved Himself; since God the Father loved God the Son, God the Son loved God the Father, and so forth. So God loved God.
reference?
Every Trinitarian source I check agrees with what I have said about the doctrine of the Trinity and the creeds, whether it's one of my own sources or it's online. Your doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere to be found. That should be a huge red flag.
Here are just two online sources:
"For He is not Himself the Word, as He is not the Son nor the image" (Augustine, speaking of the Father).
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130107.htm
"The doctrine of the Trinity is the best explanation for all of the biblical evidence. There is only one God, but He exists as three co-equal, co-eternal Persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. This is different from the teaching of three individual gods because of the interdependency and unity of the three Persons of the Trinity. There is one God who exists as three individual Persons sharing the same essence or nature. Thus, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; however, the Father is not the same person as the Son, nor is the Son the same person as the Holy Spirit."
https://www.gotquestions.org/God-Jesus-same-person.html
Yes, I am talking about Trinitarianism, true Trinitarianism.
John 1:1-3,14 (kjv).
That is what I am talking about.
However, you are in denial of the creeds' laying forth of the concept that it is forbidden by catholic doctrine to say that there are three Lords.
So, you are in denial of the teaching of the creeds; and therefore your doctrine is not true, historical, orthodox, Trinitarianism.
Somehow the mormon doctrine on the issue has made its way into your thinking.
I am trying to cure you of that; but it will be to no avail if you continue to harden your heart against the truth like this.
Last edited:
The Trinitarian creeds declare that it is a no-no to teach that there are three Lords.
(and they are a Trinitarian source).
But that is exactly what you are doing when you say that
"the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost".
If you disagree, then I think that you are not considering the implications of what you believe.
popsthebuilder
Member
That's scripture
An image or representation or even manifestation is not an original.
I understand that those words are plural, but that doesn't mean GOD was talking to Himself or another equally powerful equally eternal god next to HIM that's actually wholy god yet not, wholy one, but not. If GOD is one, and spirit, and not a man, then trying to claim the words "us" or "our" must mean another person beside GOD is stretching a little; especially when scripture says expressly that none is beside HIM, that there is no other; that HE alone did all these things... People like to conflate the title "son of GOD" with "GOD almighty"; yet the Christ of GOD Himself rebuked this when rebuking those who judged Him saying that even in there book it is said that those to whom the Word of GOD comes are sons of GOD. So if son of GOD means GOD almighty, then there must be waaaayyy more than just three separate GOD almighties. That can't be right.
Plausible
Jesus received the Word/ Spirit. The Holy Temple was filled with the Holy Spirit of GOD, the Light of GOD shines through the lamp; but it is not the empty lamp without the oil... The oil represents the Spirit; the anointing Spirit of GOD; GOD Almighty.
No. GOD gave Jesus every word to speak; and also all other power and authority. Is not the one who gave such things greater than the one having received them?
Jesus is the physical temporal man. No man made the World.
Every word was given Him from the FATHER/ Spirit of GOD
Unified in Spirit
Unified in Spirit
The Spirit that filled Him is GOD. "also" shows distinction between Him and GOD. Not the opposite.
Whomever GOD chooses to allow to give of HIS Spirit is capable of such. You have added a limit to GOD that is not demoted in scripture.
GOD is spirit.
The Holy Spirit is spirit/ GOD
Jesus received that SPIRIT. He was as us in every way.
You're ignoring the fact that Jesus was the Holy Temple, and not the Holy Spirit in and of Himself. You are also conflating the Word/ Spirit of GOD with Jesus prior to His conception. You seem to also have to turn a blind eye to scripture showing that Jesus prayed to GOD, and admitted to not knowing some things. Did Jesus not pray in earnest? Was He not sincere? Did almighty GOD lie when He said He didn't know a thing?
popsthebuilder
Member
Lol. GOD being love in no way means the Almighty must have had another Almighty to be love and to love self.
That's one of the weakest attempts to support a doctrine I have seen in a while. Not the first time I've seen it is what's sad.
Define your God as being plural if you want. Ignore how bloodily and cowardly and heinously the doctrine became solidified if you want. Ignore whole swaths of scripture in order to deceive yourself if you really must. You won't be swaying me though.
So you think the land grab of the crusades that was eventually stopped, was done by those who understood the things of GOD? They didn't even grasp "love your neighbor/ enemy; let alone the very nature of GOD; in my opinion of course.
popsthebuilder
Member
Who said the Word of GOD was made?
You never addressed the word "was", or the word "became".
It’s actually a very strong support and something that your position cannot account for.
It’s how Christians have always defined him.
I’m not going to bother addressing your red herrings.
No one, least of all me.
I addressed all that needs to be addressed.
These are not saying God came in the flesh.
It seems you are a "Jesus is the Father" claimer.
good day.
I am done with you too.
Rejecting the doctrine outright is not going to excuse you on the day of judgment.
I am only going to say this one more time: the Bible and the creeds fully and unequivocally affirm everything I have said. Your attempt to create a Trinity based on a unitarian view of God does not work and never will work, since there is no biblical support for God being an absolute unity, a single person. The two ideas are antithetical. Your made-up “Trinitarian” doctrine shows that you fundamentally do not understand the historic, orthodox doctrine and you continue to ignore all the hard evidence, like every anti-Trinitarian does, so there is no point in continuing.
Since you said it one more time, I will say it one more time, also:
Your contention that
"the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost"
is a doctrine of three Lords;
which is expressly forbidden by the creeds.
I believe in a tri-unitarian view of God.
In my view, God is not only three (as it appears to be in your view, since you deny the unitarian aspect of God's tri-unity); He is three-in-one.
There is in fact biblical support for Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being one Spirit; and I have shown that support time and time again.
I understand what my Bible says about the Trinity. I started with reading the Bible with the doctrine of the Trinity on the back-burner of my thought processes; and when I understood it, I went to the creeds and found that they were in agreement (except in two particular instances where the creeds deny the plain teaching of holy scripture; in Romans 1:3 and Luke 1:35).
1) I am not an anti-Trinitarian. I am Trinitarian to the core.
2) You have not shown any hard evidence for your philosophy, that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate rather than distinct.
popsthebuilder
Member
You've addressed very little indeed. I wish you the best. May GOD continually guide you, and yours, and all HIS children.