The Trinity

[heartwashed]

Then you don't believe the creeds as you claimed.

Actually, I do.

No, it absolutely does not and cannot.

It can and does.

Yes. Just as each person is fully and truly God, yet the three persons are one God.

I works with the idea of God but it does not work with the idea. We are forbidden by Catholic doctrine to say that there are three Lords. Therefore it does not work for you to try and say that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "three-in-one" since that implies that there are three Lords in a sense.

The Son is eternally begotten and became Jesus at the incarnation.

Jesus is eternally the Father and became the Son at the incarnation.

 

[heartwashed]

Let me show you again the problem that you have with 1 Corinthians 8:6.

In it, there is one God, even the Father, and one Lord, even Jesus Christ.

Here, if Jesus isn't the Father, then He isn't God.

For there is one God, even the Father; and one Lord, even Jesus Christ.

If Jesus isn't the Father, then they are one and one.

Therefore the Father is God and Jesus is the Lord; but the Father isn't the Lord and Jesus isn't God.

Because Jesus is the Lord and the Father is God (there being one Lord and one God).

Therefore, since there is one Lord and one God, if Jesus and the Father be separate Persons, then the Father isn't the Lord and Jesus isn't God.

Because the Father is one God and Jesus is one Lord.

If they be separate, they are one and one.

One is God and the other is the Lord.

I gave a message that I believe might have convinced you; but then I pressed the wrong button on my computer and lost the information.

So, I pray that this time around, my message will even be better than the first time I gave it; for that first message was lost.

I think that if the thing is not revealed to you, it is because you are "wise and prudent;" (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21) and I do not say this as a compliment.

You need to humble yourself as a little child or you will in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3).

Because I have shown before that if you cannot say that Jesus is the Lord in light of Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, and 2 Corinthians 6:17-18, then you don't have the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 12:3 (kjv));

And therefore do not belong to Christ (Romans 8:9).

Now, you can gamble your eternity on the idea that the kjv is in error at this point (in 1 Corinthians 12:3) in including the word "the".

But it should be clear that the Father is Lord, Jesus is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord; and yet there is one Lord.

How then are they three separate Persons? Is not a Lord a singular Person?

For I contend that they are distinct and not separate; and that therefore they can all three be absolutely One in that they are all the same Spirit.

 

[heartwashed]

I works with the idea of God but it does not work with the idea.

I meant to say, "It works with the idea of God but it doesn't work with the idea of Lords."

 

[heartwashed]

Jesus is eternally the Father and became the Son at the incarnation.

Jesus is God (1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, James 3:9 (kjv)).

 

[heartwashed]

Free,

I think that if there is one thing that my computer error tells me, it is that you were never meant to know the truth.

For if you knew it, you would be held accountable to it; and your condemnation would be that much worse.

Nevertheless, if I was able to present my case in an even better manner than the first time (in which my presentation was lost to a computer gltich), and you also receive the truth, then perhaps you are in fact predestined to salvation.

 

[Free]

Actually, I do.

You cannot since they contradict you.

It can and does.

No, and I've given the reason why but I'll try again. Ontologically, you believe God is one Person. The doctrine of the Trinity asserts that ontologically God is three Persons. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive; they can never be reconciled.

As I stated, you have held onto the false idea of one Person, as per Oneness Pentecostalism, and are now trying to make it fit within the Trinity. It cannot and will not work. Ever.

I works with the idea of God but it does not work with the idea. We are forbidden by Catholic doctrine to say that there are three Lords. Therefore it does not work for you to try and say that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "three-in-one" since that implies that there are three Lords in a sense.

I meant to say, "It works with the idea of God but it doesn't work with the idea of Lords."

We are also forbidden to say there are three Gods:

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.

As the Anathanasian Creed states, "one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;"

Jesus is eternally the Father and became the Son at the incarnation.

No, as I pointed out, Jesus is the name of God in human flesh, after the Incarnation, not before. Jesus is the Son of God, not the Father.

 

[Free]

Let me show you again the problem that you have with 1 Corinthians 8:6.

In it, there is one God, even the Father, and one Lord, even Jesus Christ.

Here, if Jesus isn't the Father, then He isn't God.

For there is one God, even the Father; and one Lord, even Jesus Christ.

If Jesus isn't the Father, then they are one and one.

Therefore the Father is God and Jesus is the Lord; but the Father isn't the Lord and Jesus isn't God.

Because Jesus is the Lord and the Father is God (there being one Lord and one God).

Therefore, since there is one Lord and one God, if Jesus and the Father be separate Persons, then the Father isn't the Lord and Jesus isn't God.

Because the Father is one God and Jesus is one Lord.

If they be separate, they are one and one.

One is God and the other is the Lord.

My position has no problem with 1 Cor 8:6. As per the Athanasian Creed, and the Bible, that is two persons of the Trinity, both fully and truly God, both Lord, yet there is one God and one Lord.

The issue for you is that there are clearly two distinct persons being talked about, yet you believe there is only one Person. If they are one and the same person, then it was not only pointless of Paul to use different terminology, it unnecessarily creates confusion.

Because I have shown before that if you cannot say that Jesus is the Lord in light of Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, and 2 Corinthians 6:17-18, then you don't have the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 12:3 (kjv));

And therefore do not belong to Christ (Romans 8:9).

Now, you can gamble your eternity on the idea that the kjv is in error at this point (in 1 Corinthians 12:3) in including the word "the".

And here is another fatal mistake. If you look at the Greek, "the" is not in the text, neither is "is." It literally reads, "accursed Jesus . . . Lord Jesus." Translators add "is" to smooth out the English translations. That is why most translations read "Jesus is accursed . . . Jesus is Lord." It is curious then that the KJV alone says "Jesus is the Lord," especially when it says "Jesus accursed." Interestingly, the NKJV says "Jesus is Lord."

You have put far too much weight on this argument when it is the translators of the KJV who added "the" to the text when it isn't in the Greek.

But it should be clear that the Father is Lord, Jesus is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord; and yet there is one Lord.

Yes, I agree with that. In the very same way, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is one God.

How then are they three separate Persons? Is not a Lord a singular Person?

They are three distinct Persons, as the doctrine of the Trinity states.

For I contend that they are distinct and not separate; and that therefore they can all three be absolutely One in that they are all the same Spirit.

What do you mean by "absolutely One"?

 

[for_his_glory]

But I think that you should consider the reality that the Son was begotten in the incarnation (Luke 1:35). I think that the ones who came up with the Trinitarian creeds missed that tidbit in holy scripture.

Then why do you believe in them and show them to us if you believe they are not scriptural saying the writers missed certain tidbits. Are you above scripture in all knowledge of what the Oneness Pentecostals teach in their fallacies!

I don't know about you Free but I'm done with this thread as we are just peddling and getting nowhere.

 

[Free]

Free,

I think that if there is one thing that my computer error tells me, it is that you were never meant to know the truth.

If it says anything, it tells me that it wasn't truth at all. Or, it was just a glitch. They happen.

For if you knew it, you would be held accountable to it; and your condemnation would be that much worse.

Nevertheless, if I was able to present my case in an even better manner than the first time (in which my presentation was lost to a computer gltich), and you also receive the truth, then perhaps you are in fact predestined to salvation.

I have sufficiently shown that your position is irreconcilably different to that of God's revelation of himself in the Bible. And I will continue, by discussing John's prologue.

John's prologue is so rich with meaning, especially when one looks at the Greek.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
Joh 1:9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)
Joh 1:16 For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

The whole point of John’s prologue (1:1-18) is to state who the Word is. So, let's look a bit more closely at 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The word "was" is the Greek en, is a form of eimi (I Am), and denotes a continuous action in the past. That is, when the beginning began (creation; time and space), the Word was already in existence; it is eternal preexistence, that is, absolute existence.

Then when we look at "with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But that doesn't convey the full meaning; it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It expresses direction towards as in relationship and communion, and implies intimacy. That is, the Word is distinct from God but is living with God in intimate union.

"Was God" means that the Word was divine in nature, that is, in nature God. It can never mean "a god" or another "God," as both imply polytheism. Again, this is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is. It is important to understand that the Word is not to be equated with God, as though God and Word are interchangeable.

Only God has existed for eternity past, only a person can be said to be in intimate relationship with another person, and only God is divine in nature.

In verse 2, we once again see that when the beginning began, the logos was already in existence. Verse 3 is clear that the logos was not a thing that was made, or the verse contradicts itself. Here, the Greek, en, contrasts with the Greek word, egeneto, "All things were made through him” (see also John 1:14, "the word became flesh”), which means to enter into existence at a point in time. Verse 4 continues the discussion of the logos, saying that life was in him, the light of men.

After John 1:5, the discussion briefly changes to John the Baptist, who "came as a witness, to bear witness about the light" (vvs 7-8). This "true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world" (vs 9). Then, verse 10 links back to verse 3 by saying "the world was made through him." Verse 12 states that "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." The light clearly refers to Jesus, the pre-Incarnate Word who was coming into the world, of whom John witnessed, and in whom alone believing in his name gives on "the right to become children of God."

Verse 14, goes back to mentioning the Word--"the Word became flesh"--confirming that the Word is also the true light, who is the Son who existed with the Father (and the Holy Spirit) in absolute existence as God. Verse 18, again, shows that the Son is in nature God, yet isn’t the Father.

All of this points clearly to the Son being the per-Incarnate Word, in intimate relationship and union with God, as distinct from God, and yet also being fully and truly God, and who came into the world, taking on the form of a human in the person of Jesus Christ. And it is all entirely consistent and coherent with what the rest of the NT says about God.

 

[Free]

I don't know about you Free but I'm done with this thread as we are just peddling and getting nowhere.

I'm getting there. These threads always end the same, with no one changing their mind. At least no one will be able to say in the end that they didn't know.

 

[heartwashed]

You cannot since they contradict you.

They don't except in cases where they contradict scripture also.

1) In that they declare that Jesus is eternally begotten. It is clear from scripture that Jesus was begotten in the incarnation (Luke 1:35).

2) In that they say that the Son was uncreated. He is uncreated in Spirit; as in His Spirit He is the Father; but He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3 (kjv)).

No, and I've given the reason why but I'll try again. Ontologically, you believe God is one Person. The doctrine of the Trinity asserts that ontologically God is three Persons. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive; they can never be reconciled.

They are reconciled in the concept that God is one Spirit and therefore one Person;

But that He is more than one Person in that He is come in the flesh; for the added nature of human flesh has an effect on personality. God the Father is a Spirit without flesh; while God the Son is the same Spirit come in the flesh. Therefore He is the same Person; and yet two distinct Persons as I am relating to you now.

He also released His same Spirit back to the Father (Luke 23:46) into eternity so that the same Spirit exists next to Himself in eternity (thus John 1:1 is not compromised).

As I stated, you have held onto the false idea of one Person, as per Oneness Pentecostalism, and are now trying to make it fit within the Trinity. It cannot and will not work. Ever.

I have shown you above that it does work.

We are also forbidden to say there are three Gods:

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.

As the Anathanasian Creed states, "one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;"

Yes, we have one God. How is it then that you say that there are three separate Persons who are God>

If they are separate, then they are in fact three Gods.

But if they are distinct, as I am proclaiming to you, then they can be the same Spirit and therefore the same Person; while there are also three distinct Persons within the Trinity in that God is come in human flesh.

No, as I pointed out, Jesus is the name of God in human flesh, after the Incarnation, not before. Jesus is the Son of God, not the Father.

Jesus Christ is the "name" (singular) of God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:13; Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38).

My position has no problem with 1 Cor 8:6. As per the Athanasian Creed, and the Bible, that is two persons of the Trinity, both fully and truly God, both Lord, yet there is one God and one Lord.

The issue for you is that there are clearly two distinct persons being talked about, yet you believe there is only one Person. If they are one and the same person, then it was not only pointless of Paul to use different terminology, it unnecessarily creates confusion.

There is one God, even the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.

Therefore, if Jesus and the Father are not, in some sense, the same Person, then the Father is the one God and Jesus is the one Lord; and therefore Jesus is not God and the Father is not the Lord.

I think that the only reason you might not be seeing this can have to do with the reality of 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; and the fact that you have been indoctrinated; and are "wise and prudent" (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21) in that indoctrination.

And here is another fatal mistake. If you look at the Greek, "the" is not in the text, neither is "is."

There is really no way of knowing since we don't any more have access to the original Greek texts.

Therefore, you are basically gambling on eternity.

And my conclusion, if it be a mistake, is not "fatal".

I am quite secure in my salvation; for I know that I know that I know that I have received the Holy Ghost based on the promise of Acts 2:38-39. I therefore know that I have been sealed by Him unto the day of redemption.

They are three distinct Persons, as the doctrine of the Trinity states.

I don't disagree.

What do you mean by "absolutely One"?

In that they are the same Spirit (Ephesians 4:4; John 4:23-24; John 4:24, Ephesians 3:17, Colossians 1:27, 1 John 5:12; John 7:39, 2 Timothy 1:14).

Then why do you believe in them and show them to us if you believe they are not scriptural saying the writers missed certain tidbits. Are you above scripture in all knowledge of what the Oneness Pentecostals teach in their fallacies!

I have been using the creeds to show you that my doctrine is in accordance with the Trinity except in cases where the Trinitarian creeds contradict holy scripture.

I don't know about you @Free but I'm done with this thread as we are just peddling and getting nowhere.

 

[heartwashed]

I have sufficiently shown that your position is irreconcilably different to that of God's revelation of himself in the Bible. And I will continue, by discussing John's prologue.

You have not produced one verse that contradicts my theology.

I have sufficiently shown that your position is irreconcilably different to that of God's revelation of himself in the Bible. And I will continue, by discussing John's prologue.

John's prologue is so rich with meaning, especially when one looks at the Greek.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
Joh 1:9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)
Joh 1:16 For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

The whole point of John’s prologue (1:1-18) is to state who the Word is. So, let's look a bit more closely at 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The word "was" is the Greek en, is a form of eimi (I Am), and denotes a continuous action in the past. That is, when the beginning began (creation; time and space), the Word was already in existence; it is eternal preexistence, that is, absolute existence.

Yes, Jesus existed prior to creation; and I do not deny that.

Then when we look at "with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But that doesn't convey the full meaning; it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It expresses direction towards as in relationship and communion, and implies intimacy. That is, the Word is distinct from God but is living with God in intimate union.

I also do not deny that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct Persons within the Trinity.

Was God" means that the Word was divine in nature, that is, in nature God. It can never mean "a god" or another "God," as both imply polytheism. Again, this is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is. It is important to understand that the Word is not to be equated with God, as though God and Word are interchangeable.

I'm in agreement.

Only God has existed for eternity past, only a person can be said to be in intimate relationship with another person, and only God is divine in nature.

Again, I'm in agreement.

In verse 2, we once again see that when the beginning began, the logos was already in existence. Verse 3 is clear that the logos was not a thing that was made, or the verse contradicts itself.

Yes. Again, Jesus ascended to exist outside of time (Isaiah 57:15, Ephesians 4:10). For science has revealed to us that time is a created thing.

Here, the Greek, en, contrasts with the Greek word, egeneto, "All things were made through him” (see also John 1:14, "the word became flesh”), which means to enter into existence at a point in time. Verse 4 continues the discussion of the logos, saying that life was in him, the light of men.

Again, no disagreement.

The light clearly refers to Jesus, the pre-Incarnate Word

"And the Word was God." (John 1:1c)

So, the issue here is, how do you define God in this verse?

Do you take the Trinitarian view, that God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost?

In such a case, when we speak of the Word, we are to include the Father and the Holy Ghost; even as we are told in Colossians 2:9 that in Christ dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Or, do you take the scriptural definition (in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, and James 3:9 (kjv))?, that God is referring to the Father?

In such a case, we can compare this to Isaiah 9:6 and come up with a very definite doctrine; that Jesus is the Father come in human flesh.

It will be known to all some day; for the zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this (Isaiah 9:7).

 

[heartwashed]

I'm getting there. These threads always end the same, with no one changing their mind. At least no one will be able to say in the end that they didn't know.

Yes, I have made my doctrine clear; and those who are looking on will understand that what I am preaching is superior to what you are preaching.

For I have the Bible to substantiate my words; while all you have are accusations that my teaching is unorthodox.

 

[heartwashed]

Therefore I am in good company with Paul the apostle; who said,

Act 24:14, But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

 

[heartwashed]

I don't know about you @Free but I'm done with this thread as we are just peddling and getting nowhere.

I really don't blame you but I suppose that it is against the rules to tell you the reason why I believe you are offended.

 

[heartwashed]

I'm getting there. These threads always end the same, with no one changing their mind. At least no one will be able to say in the end that they didn't know.

I think, also, that the only reason why you might not change your mind would be the fact that you are not being a Berean and searching the scriptures that I am referencing to see whether these things are so; but rather are in debate mode.

 

[heartwashed]

Again, this is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is. It is important to understand that the Word is not to be equated with God, as though God and Word are interchangeable.

The Word was God. (John 1:1).

 

[Free]

I had a big reply but decided to delete it. I have reached my limit and I'm done. I've spent far too much time on this. But I will say this:

Your position is fraught with contradiction, errors in exegesis, and irrational arguments. I know you think it works, but I can guarantee you that it does not, cannot, and never will work. Pretty much any biblical scholar or theologian will tell you as much; probably even those in the Oneness camp. You believe in a Trinity of your own making, based on your own definition of "Trinity." You're trying to hold on to the Modalism of Oneness and make it fit with Trinitarianism, likely because things such as the Athanasian Creed say that salvation depends on believing that the Trinity is true. But, again, that will never, ever work.

Ontologically, God is either one Person, as you believe, or three Persons as the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. In no way whatsoever are those two ideas reconcilable. You have been soundly refuted, despite your insistence that you haven't. And this, again, goes back to my point that people typically don't change their minds when presented with information that contradicts their position; they just twist it enough and make it fit, in their heads, although it really doesn't.

I suggest three things: 1) learn what "ontology" means, 2) read what scholars and theologians over the last 1800 years have written, and 3) learn how translations of the Bible actually come about.

 

[heartwashed]

You're trying to hold on to the Modalism of Oneness and make it fit with Trinitarianism, likely because things such as the Athanasian Creed say that salvation depends on believing that the Trinity is true. But, again, that will never, ever work.

Again, I have shown that it does work.

I had a big reply but decided to delete it. I have reached my limit and I'm done.

Very likely because your response failed, again, to refute my premise.

Ontologically, God is either one Person, as you believe, or three Persons as the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. In no way whatsoever are those two ideas reconcilable.

I have shown that they are in fact reconcilable.

You have been soundly refuted,

Nope.

despite your insistence that you haven't.

You have been soundly refuted, friend.

And this, again, goes back to my point that people typically don't change their minds when presented with information that contradicts their position; they just twist it enough and make it fit, in their heads, although it really doesn't.

This is exactly what you have done.

 

[heartwashed]

Free and for_his_glory,

Now that you have publicly lost this debate, I hope that you will consider that the Oneness view of the Trinity; or at least the view of the Trinity that I have set forth; which I have adopted because I have the same Holy Ghost as the Oneness people; given through the promise of Acts 2:38-39;

I hope that you will consider that the fact that you have not been able to refute my statements and that I have refuted some of yours would indicate to you that there is a righteousness in my thinking and that you would do well to consider it further as something that you may adopt for yourselves in the future.

I think that the reason why you cannot receive this doctrine as of yet has to do with the principle of Luke 7:29-30. You are not able to receive it because you have not been baptized properly; and therefore you have not received the Holy Ghost.

As, in Acts 2:38-39, the Holy Ghost is absolutely promised as the result of repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins.

Therefore if you have not received remission of sins through baptism in Jesus' Name, how will you have the true Holy Ghost?

It is necessary to have Him in order to be able to discern sound doctrine (1 Corinthians 2:13-14).