The Trinity

[Free]

Yes.

But that contradicts what you said on the first page and more than once:

“The distinction between the Father and the Son being that the Father is a Spirit inhabiting eternity (Isaiah 57:15) without flesh while the Son is that same Spirit come in human flesh (1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7).”

What I stated, and you said “Yes” to, is very different from what you initially stated above.

There would be no way of knowing that the kjv has errors unless we had the original autographs and a comparison could be made.

Which means there would be no way of knowing whether it’s right either.

 

[heartwashed]

But that contradicts what you said on the first page and more than once:

“The distinction between the Father and the Son being that the Father is a Spirit inhabiting eternity (Isaiah 57:15) without flesh while the Son is that same Spirit come in human flesh (1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7).”

What I stated, and you said “Yes” to, is very different from what you initially stated above.

I think that maybe you haven't read or else have been trying to ignore all that I have written on this subject.

I stated: "You are if you're denying that the Son existed in eternity past as distinct from the Father."

You here have denied that is the case. Yet, when I said: "As the pre-incarnate Son, he existed outside of time, eternally as God. That is at the heart of Trinitarianism."

You reply with this:
Which contradicts what you just said and supports what I said. If the Son, in his pre-incarnate form is that he is the Father, then he cannot also have existed in eternity past as distinct from the Father.

Yes, He could have.

Because He ascended to exist outside of time (Ephesians 4:10, Isaiah 57:15); which includes eternity past.

.
.
.

Which means there would be no way of knowing whether it’s right either.

We trust that it is right because of a belief in the basic attributes of God...that He is sovereign and Omnipotent and loving.

Because He is sovereign and Omnipotent, He is able to preserve His unadulterated whole counsel; which is the message of salvation.

Because He is loving, He is motivated to do so.

 

[heartwashed]

I think, also, that those who desire to be orthodox, when deciding who they will listen to as concerning doctrine, are well advised to be listening to the one who is defending the authority of God's word rather than the person who is casting doubt on our ability to trust that what we read in the Bible is accurate to the gospel message.

 

[Free]

I think that maybe you haven't read or else have been trying to ignore all that I have written on this subject.

I can assure you, I am ignoring nothing. I specifically worded things the way I did to try and avoid confusion, but you're intent on not understanding.

I stated: "Did the Son exist as distinct from the Father, and the Holy Spirit as distinct from both the Father and the Son prior to creation?"

By "prior to creation," I have come to suspect is what you might mean by "one eternal moment." There was a time when nothing existed but God and that is what I (and pretty much every theologian) means by "prior to creation." It does not simply mean "existing outside of time."

So, then, did the Son exist as distinct from the Father, and the Holy Spirit as distinct from both the Father and the Son prior to creation? It not, as your position asserts, then you cannot be, by definition, a Trinitarian. If God the Father came down and took on human flesh in the person of Jesus, and at that point the Son came into existence, then you are, by definition, a Modalist.

To say that the Son then ascended to heaven, outside of time, and so has existed for all eternity is false and serves only to obfuscate the issue.

We trust that it is right because of a belief in the basic attributes of God...that He is sovereign and Omnipotent and loving.


Because He is sovereign and Omnipotent, He is able to preserve His unadulterated whole counsel; which is the message of salvation.

Because He is loving, He is motivated to do so.

If that is the case, then there is no reason to think that the KJV is better than any other version, especially since it teaches of the existence of unicorns.

I think, also, that those who desire to be orthodox, when deciding who they will listen to as concerning doctrine, are well advised to be listening to the one who is defending the authority of God's word rather than the person who is casting doubt on our ability to trust that what we read in the Bible is accurate to the gospel message.

You don't understand what I have said and so are reading much more into it than you should. It suggests that you don't understand manuscript evidence and the process of translation by which we get our different versions of the Bible. I absolutely defend the authority of the Bible and its trustworthiness.

The fact that the KJV has been revised three times since 1611, with over 100,000 changes, proves that it is not inerrant. What you have said goes beyond even what the authors of the KJV state, since they not only did not claim inerrancy, they put many notes in the margins as to other possible translations of words or phrases.

Here is from the preface of the 1611 KJV, from the translators themselves:

"Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

https://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html

 

[heartwashed]

I can assure you, I am ignoring nothing. I specifically worded things the way I did to try and avoid confusion, but you're intent on not understanding.

I stated: "Did the Son exist as distinct from the Father, and the Holy Spirit as distinct from both the Father and the Son prior to creation?"

By "prior to creation," I have come to suspect is what you might mean by "one eternal moment." There was a time when nothing existed but God and that is what I (and pretty much every theologian) means by "prior to creation." It does not simply mean "existing outside of time."

"outside of time" includes prior to creation (when nothing existed).

So, then, did the Son exist as distinct from the Father, and the Holy Spirit as distinct from both the Father and the Son prior to creation? It not, as your position asserts, then you cannot be, by definition, a Trinitarian. If God the Father came down and took on human flesh in the person of Jesus, and at that point the Son came into existence, then you are, by definition, a Modalist.

Therefore I agree that the Son existed as distinct from the Father prior to creation.

Also, if what you are saying is true, then modalism is the biblical view of the Godhead.

Because we have established that the creeds do substantiate modalism (if what I am teaching be modalism) to a certain degree; and therefore one or both of you have rejected the creeds.

But if the view that I have set forth is modalism, you have not yet shown my view to be unbiblical.

You have only been able to label it as something that has been traditionally accepted as unbiblical.

And I would contend with your labeling of my doctrine also; for in that I believe in distinction between the members of the Trinity, my point of view does not exactly fall under the definition of modalistic thinking.

To say that the Son then ascended to heaven, outside of time, and so has existed for all eternity is false and serves only to obfuscate the issue.

Nevertheless it allows my doctrine to fit within the definition, as you have set it forth, of what may be called Trinitarian.

If that is the case, then there is no reason to think that the KJV is better than any other version, especially since it teaches of the existence of unicorns.

There is nothing wrong with the teaching that unicorns may have existed; many species of animals have gone extinct over the centuries. Also, many have thought that the Orix fits the description of the unicorn when you look at it from the side.

You don't understand what I have said and so are reading much more into it than you should. It suggests that you don't understand manuscript evidence and the process of translation by which we get our different versions of the Bible. I absolutely defend the authority of the Bible and its trustworthiness.

The fact that the KJV has been revised three times since 1611, with over 100,000 changes, proves that it is not inerrant. What you have said goes beyond even what the authors of the KJV state, since they not only did not claim inerrancy, they put many notes in the margins as to other possible translations of words or phrases.

Since we do not have access to the original autographs, if the kjv or some other version is not inerrant as concerning doctrine, it follows that we do not have the unadulterated word of God in a form today that is inerrant as concerning doctrine.

Therefore your contention implies that we cannot rely on the Bible, as it exists today, to give us doctrine; since any verse in the Bible may be one that contains error and therefore may lead you astray as concerning doctrine.

Here is from the preface of the 1611 KJV, from the translators themselves:

"Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

It should be clear that if anyone or anything is perfect, they will have the attitude that they are not.

Phl 3:12, Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
Phl 3:13, Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
Phl 3:14, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
Phl 3:15, Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

Also, my position is not kjv-only but kjv-superior.

Within my position, I agree that other translations are useful in determining the meaning of scripture. However, where there is a discrepancy, I believe that the kjv is superior and trumps all other versions. Therefore if someone reads their Bible in the kjv and says in their heart, "I don't like that....what does this translation say?", I believe that they are doing what was prophesied in 2 Timothy 4:3. But if they go to other translations because they don't quite understand the verse as it is written in the kjv, they can certainly gain added insight into the meaning of the verse by going to that other translation.

 

[Free]

"outside of time" includes prior to creation (when nothing existed).

No. Try reading again what I wrote.

Therefore I agree that the Son existed as distinct from the Father prior to creation.

No, you don't. You believe the Father entered into time, long after creation, became a separate person in Jesus, becoming the Son, who then went and entered eternity. But that is unbiblical and exceedingly different than what I have stated and what theologians and scholars have understood for over 1600 years.

Also, if what you are saying is true, then modalism is the biblical view of the Godhead.

No, it isn't. Your view is close to Modalism, which is infinitely different that Trinitarianism.

Because we have established that the creeds do substantiate modalism (if what I am teaching be modalism) to a certain degree; and therefore one or both of you have rejected the creeds.

No, we have not even remotely established anything of the sort. You believe in a form of Modalism; the creeds, which I believe, teach Trinitarianism.

But if the view that I have set forth is modalism, you have not yet shown my view to be unbiblical.

Yes, I have. Perhaps we need to discuss the ideas of the ontological Trinity and the economical Trinity. Your position is based only on the economical Trinity, the three persons as they works in creation and for our salvation. However, the definition I have given, and what the creeds give, is the ontological Trinity, how the Trinity exists in and of itself.

In other words, God did not become a Trinity, as your position asserts, he has always been triune. Just as we believe "God is love," that is, it is his very nature, he cannot not love, or that he is spirit or omnipotent or omniscient, he is three divine, coequal, coeternal persons.

And I would contend with your labeling of my doctrine also; for in that I believe in distinction between the members of the Trinity, my point of view does not exactly fall under the definition of modalistic thinking.

Which is why I have also said it is "a form of Modalism."

Nevertheless it allows my doctrine to fit within the definition, as you have set it forth, of what may be called Trinitarian.

Not at all.

Since we do not have access to the original autographs, if the kjv or some other version is not inerrant as concerning doctrine, it follows that we do not have the unadulterated word of God in a form today that is inerrant as concerning doctrine.


Therefore your contention implies that we cannot rely on the Bible, as it exists today, to give us doctrine; since any verse in the Bible may be one that contains error and therefore may lead you astray as concerning doctrine.

No. You're adding to the definition of what was said. I never said the versions we have are "not inerrant as concerning doctrine," I simply said they are not inerrant. I even said: "Most every translation will lead one to know the true God and to salvation. Some are worse than others, some better than others."

Within my position, I agree that other translations are useful in determining the meaning of scripture. However, where there is a discrepancy, I believe that the kjv is superior and trumps all other versions.

On what basis?

Therefore if someone reads their Bible in the kjv and says in their heart, "I don't like that....what does this translation say?", I believe that they are doing what was prophesied in 2 Timothy 4:3.

Not necessarily. For instance, I believe unicorns are of myths and fairy tales, so I don't like that error in the KJV and I refer to other translations instead.

 

[for_his_glory]

Therefore I agree that the Son existed as distinct from the Father prior to creation.

I just thought of these verses and wanted to jump back in for a response from you.

I understand that all things were created by Jesus as He being the word as always being Alpha and Omega, Rev 1:8, co-equal with God as well as the Holy Spirit also being the very Spirit of God with no beginning nor no end. It's all part of God's Spirit in three different ways, but the very same Spirit.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Not sure how you understand these verses, but I see it as Jesus was in the beginning being co-equal to God as being the very word of God and all things were made by Jesus in whom is the very word of God. You have to take out any physical appearance as these verses are about the spirit form without flesh and blood in the very beginning before creation or Jesus coming in the flesh. God, Jesus, Holy Spirit all being that same Spirit that is God, but distinct only in the purpose of God and His plan of salvation and to teach us His written word.

How do you understand these scriptures in John 1:1-5?

 

[heartwashed]

No, you don't. You believe the Father entered into time, long after creation, became a separate person in Jesus, becoming the Son, who then went and entered eternity. But that is unbiblical

You keep saying, "That is unbiblical"; and yet you have not once, in saying that, offered a verse or passage that contradicts the doctrine that you are trying to refute as unbiblical.

No, we have not even remotely established anything of the sort. You believe in a form of Modalism; the creeds, which I believe, teach Trinitarianism.

Okay, here it is again.

The creeds teach that the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord. Yet we are forbidden by Catholic doctrine (in the creed) to say that there are three Lords.

So, I ask you; since we are forbidden to call Father, Son, and Holy Ghost three Lords, how are they three Persons?

Here this creed substantiates a modalistic form of thinking (that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Person).

So, you can either reject the creed; and therefore you do not have the creeds to fall back on in your definition of the Trinity; or you must accept this modalisitic idea as being a doctrine of the creeds.

Yes, I have.

No, you have not shown my doctrine to be unbiblical. In order to do that, you would have to take one or more of my statements and give a Bible verse that contradicts one or more of my statements. And you certainly haven't done that. btw, my main doctrinal statement is here: https://christianforums.net/threads/the-trinity.92500/post-1704068.

Have at it.

On what basis?

Faith.

Not necessarily. For instance, I believe unicorns are of myths and fairy tales, so I don't like that error in the KJV and I refer to other translations instead.

That is not an error.

I understand that all things were created by Jesus as He being the word as always being Alpha and Omega, Rev 1:8, co-equal with God as well as the Holy Spirit also being the very Spirit of God with no beginning nor no end. It's all part of God's Spirit in three different ways, but the very same Spirit.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Not sure how you understand these verses, but I see it as Jesus was in the beginning being co-equal to God as being the very word of God and all things were made by Jesus in whom is the very word of God. You have to take out any physical appearance as these verses are about the spirit form without flesh and blood in the very beginning before creation or Jesus coming in the flesh.

If the Word is not a physical human being in the beginning, and is also a separate Person from the Father, then that is two Spirits (see Ephesians 4:4).

But if they are distinct rather than separate, it can be concluded that they are one Spirit. However, in this, it must be true that they are one and the same Spirit; and therefore the same Person.

God, Jesus, Holy Spirit all being that same Spirit that is God,

Yes, this is what I teach. Is it what you believe?

How do you understand these scriptures in John 1:1-5?

You can gain insight into my understanding by reading the following post #6.

here: https://christianforums.net/threads/the-trinity.92500/post-1704068

 

[heartwashed]

Here is the only thing that you might be able to contend with in my doctrinal statement (which was not backed up adequately by scripture; but which I will back up now with scripture and logic):

The Holy Ghost, being released to the Father; and being the same Spirit as the Father (Ephesians 4:4), ascended to fill all things (Ephesians 4:10) as being in effect the Spirit of Jesus Christ, and therefore being Jesus Christ;

I would ask you this question concerning this.

We know that Jesus is a Man sitting on the right hand of the throne of God; being come in the flesh perpetually (1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7). And therefore He exists today in a finite human body.

How then is He ascended to fill all things (Ephesians 4:10); except in the Person of the Holy Ghost?

Thus I declare to you that the Holy Ghost can be called by the name of Jesus Christ; and therefore, there is a sense in which He is Jesus Christ.

Even as it is written,

Mat 28:19, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father, <even> of the Son, <even> of the Holy Ghost:

Act 2:38, Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

[heartwashed]

edit:

Here is the only thing that you might be able to contend with in my doctrinal statement (which

one thing

was not backed up adequately by scripture; but which I will back up now with scripture and logic):

 

[heartwashed]

*

In one of the Trinitarian creeds, it is written, the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord; yet we are forbidden by Catholic doctrine to say that there are three Lords.

If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not three Lords, but one (Ephesians 4:5) according to the doctrine of the Trinity, how are they three Persons according to the same doctrine?

Again, I will say that you can give lip service to the idea of God being one when your underlying belief does not allow for that to be the case; if you understand that underlying belief you might even come to realize that your belief is not in one God or Lord but in three Gods or three Lords.

I even asked you whether you believe that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Lord or three Lords, and you have declined to answer.

Is it not because in order for your outward theology to be in conjunction with your underlying belief, your answer has to be "three Lords"?

But the Bible is clear that there is only one Lord (1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:5).

That Lord is Jesus Christ according to 1 Corinthians 8:6 and 1 Corinthians 12:3.

But that Lord is the Father according to Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, and 2 Corinthians 6:17-18.

So, we have one Lord: the Father and the Son.

This indicates to me that they are the same Lord;

Even the same Spirit:

The distinction between the Father and the Son being in that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

Of course, the Holy Spirit is also the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:17).

There is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5).

1Co 12:3, Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

 

[heartwashed]

In other words, God did not become a Trinity, as your position asserts, he has always been triune.

I believe this to be true, with the understanding that the Son was begotten in the incarnation (Luke 1:35).

Because God, in inhabiting eternity, sees everything in time from the perspective of eternity.

Jesus has always existed outside of time (for that He ascended to fill all things, Ephesians 4:10); while His origin is in that He was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3 (kjv)).

 

[heartwashed]

On what basis?

Also on the basis of my experience.

I started with the kjv, and at one point someone encouraged me to get a modern version and start reading it. My walk with Christ went downhill from there.

When I returned to the kjv, my walk with Christ started to look up again.

Just a testimony, you can take it or leave it.

But it is the reason why I adhere to the kjv.

No, you don't. You believe the Father entered into time, long after creation, became a separate person in Jesus,

Distinct; not separate.

 

[heartwashed]

Here is my challenge at this point.

Take any of my statements that I have made in post #2 (https://christianforums.net/threads/the-trinity.92500/post-1703155) or in post #6 (https://christianforums.net/threads/the-trinity.92500/post-1704068) and refute them with the Bible.

 

[Free]

You keep saying, "That is unbiblical"; and yet you have not once, in saying that, offered a verse or passage that contradicts the doctrine that you are trying to refute as unbiblical.

And that is a part of the problem. It isn't about one verse or passage; there are numerous passages that need to be taken into account.

The creeds teach that the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord. Yet we are forbidden by Catholic doctrine (in the creed) to say that there are three Lords.

Firstly, what do you mean by "Lord"? Secondly, where is that forbidden "in the creed"? Thirdly, which creed or creeds are you taking about?

So, I ask you; since we are forbidden to call Father, Son, and Holy Ghost three Lords, how are they three Persons?

Here this creed substantiates a modalistic form of thinking (that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Person).

So, you can either reject the creed; and therefore you do not have the creeds to fall back on in your definition of the Trinity; or you must accept this modalisitic idea as being a doctrine of the creeds.

Again, which creed?

No, you have not shown my doctrine to be unbiblical. In order to do that, you would have to take one or more of my statements and give a Bible verse that contradicts one or more of my statements. And you certainly haven't done that. btw, my main doctrinal statement is here: https://christianforums.net/threads/the-trinity.92500/post-1704068.

Again, it is false to think that it is a matter of one verse refuting a statement. There is much that needs to be taken into account. I am aware of your main doctrinal statement, and everything I have said thus far proves that statement to be false.

"I would say that God the Father is a Spirit (John 4:23-24) who descended and took on an added nature of human flesh after having lived one eternal moment,"

That is a statement of Modalism, not Trinitarianism. I gave a number of passages in which Jesus himself says the Father sent him into the world. There is also:

Gal_4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

1Jn_4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

1Jn_4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1Jn_4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

Again, this all agrees with John 1:1-18 and Phil 2:5-8. It was the eternal Son that descended and took on human flesh. That is Trinitarian.

Faith.

So, it is entirely subjective and there is no reason to believe it to be the case. It is rather inconsistent of you to demand biblical proof from others about doctrine and then argue to the KJV being superior on an entirely subjective basis. Why does one require objective proof and the other doesn't?

That is not an error.

It sure is. Unicorns are fairy tale creatures, creatures of man's imagination. Remember, you have no basis for saying it is not an error.

 

[Free]

I believe this to be true, with the understanding that the Son was begotten in the incarnation (Luke 1:35).

Because God, in inhabiting eternity, sees everything in time from the perspective of eternity.

Jesus has always existed outside of time (for that He ascended to fill all things, Ephesians 4:10); while His origin is in that He was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3 (kjv)).

This is just playing games with the language. Jesus hasn't always existed outside of time. Even according to your own position, the Father entered into time and took on human flesh in the person of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus has not always existed. The Son, however, has always existed and it was he who took on human flesh.

Even you have to admit that there was a time when creation did not exist. It was then that the Son existed, distinct from the Father, as did the Holy Spirit exist distinct from both. One God, three divine, coequal, coeternal persons.

 

[for_his_glory]

If the Word is not a physical human being in the beginning, and is also a separate Person from the Father, then that is two Spirits (see Ephesians 4:4).

But if they are distinct rather than separate, it can be concluded that they are one Spirit. However, in this, it must be true that they are one and the same Spirit; and therefore the same Person.

You need to quit looking for the physical human being that was Jesus who came in the form of man, but being the very word of God, but to look at what the Spirit of God means as God, Son and the Holy Spirit that are all God's Spirit, (one Lord, one faith, one baptism) but within three operations of God's Spirit for His purpose of salvation through Christ and that which He gives of His Spirit in that of His Holy Spirit that comforts us and teaches us all truths. Flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God and that is why we have to be Spiritually born again in order to enter into the kingdom of God.

You can gain insight into my understanding by reading the following post #6.

here: https://christianforums.net/threads/the-trinity.92500/post-1704068

In your post #6 you said:
Therefore Jesus and the Father are the same Spirit; as there is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4); and God is that Spirit (John 4:24); Jesus being God; and there being one God (James 2:19).

The distinction between the Father and the Son being that the Father is a Spirit inhabiting eternity (Isaiah 57:15) without flesh while the Son is that same Spirit come in human flesh (1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7).

Free and I have been saying this all along, but you refute what we have said, which is the same exact thing you said here. Are you that prideful that you can not see that we agree with this? In this whole thread you have had Biblical truths and unbiblical points of views as you say one thing then contradict your self saying different things. How are we to discuss with you when you are all over the place in how you present your understandings.

 

[for_his_glory]

1John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

We can understand these verses to say all three that bear witness are all the very Spirit of God who is Alpha and Omega, no beginning, no ending as all three being the very Spirit of God has always been and will always be.

 

[heartwashed]

And that is a part of the problem. It isn't about one verse or passage; there are numerous passages that need to be taken into account.

So, quote a statement that I have made and bring forth the many passages that you think refute that statement.

Firstly, what do you mean by "Lord"? Secondly, where is that forbidden "in the creed"? Thirdly, which creed or creeds are you taking about?

Lord = Master.

In the Athanasian creed. See post #50 (https://christianforums.net/threads/the-trinity.92500/post-1704598).

Again, which creed?

The Athanasian creed.

Again, it is false to think that it is a matter of one verse refuting a statement.

So, bring forth your many verses that refute any one of my statements.

There is much that needs to be taken into account. I am aware of your main doctrinal statement, and everything I have said thus far proves that statement to be false.

I don't think so. The best you have been able to do is to deflect what I am saying by going to another translation and saying that it is better. But you have not been able to produce a single verse that refutes any one of my statements in post #6. If you think that you have, bring it forth again now and prove me wrong.

"I would say that God the Father is a Spirit (John 4:23-24) who descended and took on an added nature of human flesh after having lived one eternal moment,"

That is a statement of Modalism, not Trinitarianism.

Again, you are using a logical fallacy, in labeling my doctrine as something outside of the realm of orthodoxy, without any proof of scripture that what I am saying is in any way false.

I gave a number of passages in which Jesus himself says the Father sent him into the world.

And I told you that the way that the Father sent the Son into the world was in the preparing for Him of a body (Hebrews 10:5).

There is also:

Gal_4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

1Jn_4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

1Jn_4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1Jn_4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

Again, this all agrees with John 1:1-18 and Phil 2:5-8. It was the eternal Son that descended and took on human flesh. That is Trinitarian.

Philippians 2:5-8 speaks of Jesus emptying Himself of the attributes of Deity and becoming a Man.

1) If Jesus is not the Father in His pre-incarnate form, then before the incarnation He was either 1/3 of God or else a 2nd God. Which one is it in your view?

2) In Matthew 28:19 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost have a singular name; and when you compare to Acts 2:38 (the hermeneutic of 1 Corinthians 2:13) you find that that name is Jesus Christ.

And therefore, in Philippians 2:5-8, when it says, "Jesus Christ" it is referring to the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

And I have given my doctrine as concerning John 1:1-18 in post #6 (https://christianforums.net/threads/the-trinity.92500/post-1704068). I would suggest that you read it again. You have also not been able to refute any of what is written in that post...you can claim that you have; but it is an empty claim for as long as you do not actually refute what I have said in that post.

So, it is entirely subjective and there is no reason to believe it to be the case.

Because my faith in the kjv is faith, there is a substance to it and an evidence for it, in that it is faith (Hebrews 11:1).

It is rather inconsistent of you to demand biblical proof from others about doctrine and then argue to the KJV being superior on an entirely subjective basis. Why does one require objective proof and the other doesn't?

You can reject the kjv as being the inspired and inerrant (as concerning doctrine) word of God if you so desire. My primary audience is to those who accept the veracity and authority of the kjv. Those who do not, as far as I am concerned, are walking down the broad path that leads to destruction and until they start walking down the narrow path that leads to life, my teaching will not benefit them except inasmuch as they accept the veracity of the kjv. In some cases it may benefit them even if they don't; but probably not unto salvation.

It sure is. Unicorns are fairy tale creatures, creatures of man's imagination. Remember, you have no basis for saying it is not an error.

There is no proof that unicorns are not actually true animals that have become extinct.

Therefore rejecting the kjv on the basis of their mention is indeed frivolous. You should have more faith than that.

This is just playing games with the language. Jesus hasn't always existed outside of time. Even according to your own position, the Father entered into time and took on human flesh in the person of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus has not always existed. The Son, however, has always existed and it was he who took on human flesh.

So, is it your contention that Jesus isn't the Son of God? See 1 John 4:15, 1 John 5:5, John 20:31.

For if Jesus hasn't always existed outside of time, but the Son has, how is Jesus the Son? These are your statements.

But I contend that Jesus is the Son of God and that He ascended to exist outside of time; which includes prior to creation. All things were indeed made by Him.

Even you have to admit that there was a time when creation did not exist. It was then that the Son existed, distinct from the Father, as did the Holy Spirit exist distinct from both. One God, three divine, coequal, coeternal persons.

I don't disagree with these statements in the slightest.

 

[heartwashed]

You need to quit looking for the physical human being that was Jesus who came in the form of man, but being the very word of God, but to look at what the Spirit of God means as God, Son and the Holy Spirit that are all God's Spirit, (one Lord, one faith, one baptism) but within three operations of God's Spirit for His purpose of salvation through Christ and that which He gives of His Spirit in that of His Holy Spirit that comforts us and teaches us all truths. Flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God and that is why we have to be Spiritually born again in order to enter into the kingdom of God.

In your post #6 you said:
Therefore Jesus and the Father are the same Spirit; as there is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4); and God is that Spirit (John 4:24); Jesus being God; and there being one God (James 2:19).

The distinction between the Father and the Son being that the Father is a Spirit inhabiting eternity (Isaiah 57:15) without flesh while the Son is that same Spirit come in human flesh (1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7).

Free and I have been saying this all along, but you refute what we have said, which is the same exact thing you said here. Are you that prideful that you can not see that we agree with this? In this whole thread you have had Biblical truths and unbiblical points of views as you say one thing then contradict your self saying different things. How are we to discuss with you when you are all over the place in how you present your understandings.

If we have been agreeing all along, then what is your contention with me? I believe that I have been agreeing with much of what you say but that you have been disagreeing with some of my statements without actually specifying what those statements are.

Also, in what post have I refuted my own thinking in post #6?

1John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

We can understand these verses to say all three that bear witness are all the very Spirit of God who is Alpha and Omega, no beginning, no ending as all three being the very Spirit of God has always been and will always be.

Yes, one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4) and therefore one Person. 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 4:24; John 7:39, 2 Timothy 1:14).

One Lord (Ephesians 4:5) and therefore one Person. The Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 2 Corinthians 6:17-18), the Son (1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 12:3), and the Holy Ghost (2 Corinthians 3:17).