The Trinity

[heartwashed]

We have already answered this several times and with many scriptures that apparently you are not even taking the time to read.

I would ask you to give me a direct answer to the question of whether you believe in three Lords or one Lord.

Then, you can quote whatever scriptures you may have to back up your assertion.

 

[heartwashed]

I never said your doctrine is heresy, but how you present it is very confusing as you say one thing then turn around saying something totally different.

I think that you need to ask the Holy Spirit to illuminate what I have been saying to you; because I don't think that I have been doing what you are saying at all.

Can you give me an example of how I have given self-contradictory statements? Maybe I can clarify what I am saying so that the apparent contradiction is reconciled.

 

[Episcopius]

Acts 5:3-4 clearly calls the Holy Spirit God.

Isaiah speaks of the child who is to be born “and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, THE MIGHTY GOD, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace”

Holy Spirit is God - Jesus is God.

 

[heartwashed]

heartwashed even though I respect your views you are not hearing what we are saying as none of us have ever said there are three God's. I feel it's time for me to walk away as you are not here to discuss, but to persuade us to believe everything you say as being right and we being wrong, or at least that is how I see it.

God bless you and have a good evening

I am definitely here to discuss if you are also willing to discuss. I do desire also to convince you of my point of view. I think that this is also the default of every poster on any Christian Message Board, that we desrie to get our point of view across.

But if you don't want to discuss these things with me over the fact that I desire to convince you of my point of view, perhaps you have a similar motivation in posting to me and have decided to discontinue with the debate over the fact that you seem to not be getting through to me; because you also desire to convince me of your point of view and feel that there is no reason to continue if you are not going to accomplish that.

But, you might decide to continue with the conversation as one who is here to learn rather than to debate.

You may even be motivated to continue with the conversation if that becomes your motivation.

Because I do have insights that you might be able to benefit from; and if your only reason for discussing this topic with me is to convince me that you are right and I am wrong, then you will probably leave the discussion before being able to glean these valuable insights.

 

[for_his_glory]

I am definitely here to discuss if you are also willing to discuss. I do desire also to convince you of my point of view. I think that this is also the default of every poster on any Christian Message Board, that we desrie to get our point of view across.

But if you don't want to discuss these things with me over the fact that I desire to convince you of my point of view, perhaps you have a similar motivation in posting to me and have decided to discontinue with the debate over the fact that you seem to not be getting through to me; because you also desire to convince me of your point of view and feel that there is no reason to continue if you are not going to accomplish that.

But, you might decide to continue with the conversation as one who is here to learn rather than to debate.

You may even be motivated to continue with the conversation if that becomes your motivation.

Because I do have insights that you might be able to benefit from; and if your only reason for discussing this topic with me is to convince me that you are right and I am wrong, then you will probably leave the discussion before being able to glean these valuable insights.

No one needs to be convinced in anyone's point of view, but to only respect those who believe the way they do whether they be right or wrong. The reason why I am opting out of our conversation is that the conversation with you is only one sided as you keep overtalking our replies to you without carefully reading them to know that Free and I have said many times that there are not three God's but you keep pushing the issue with us and give no mind to what we are presenting to you.

I may join you in other topics, but I am done going around in circles with you rehashing the same things over and over and I have nothing more to add.

You have a good day brother and may God bless you.

 

[for_his_glory]

heartwashed I will leave these scriptures with you once more in hopes you will read and study them as we have never said there are three God's, but Jesus and the Holy Spirit being co-equal with the Godhead.

Scriptures that reference Jesus being referred to as God:
John 1:1-14; John 10:30; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8, 9; 1 John 5:7, 8, 20; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 13:14; Isaiah 9:6; 44:6; Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:23; 28:19; John 14:16, 17; Genesis 1:1, 2 (cross reference John 1:1-14); 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:15-17; John 14:9-11; Philippians 2:5-8; Rev 1:8

Scriptures that reference the Holy Spirit as being God:
Psalms 139:7, 8; John 14:17; 16:13; Isaiah 40:13; 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11; Zechariah 4:6; Luke 1:35; Ephesians 4:4-6; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; Titus 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21; Jude 1:20

 

[heartwashed]

for_his_glory,

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]

Scriptures that reference Jesus being referred to as God:
John 1:1-14; John 10:30; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8, 9; 1 John 5:7, 8, 20; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 13:14; Isaiah 9:6; 44:6; Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:23; 28:19; John 14:16, 17; Genesis 1:1, 2 (cross reference John 1:1-14); 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:15-17; John 14:9-11; Philippians 2:5-8; Rev 1:8

Scriptures that reference the Holy Spirit as being God:
Psalms 139:7, 8; John 14:17; 16:13; Isaiah 40:13; 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11; Zechariah 4:6; Luke 1:35; Ephesians 4:4-6; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; Titus 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21; Jude 1:20

Of course there is no need for me to even look up those scriptures except to reinforce what I already believe.

I do not deny that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God.

 

[for_his_glory]

Of course there is no need for me to even look up those scriptures except to reinforce what I already believe.

I do not deny that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God.

You can't even read the scriptures we give you because of your preconceived mind that they might come against what you believe. One sided discussions never work as it will not discuss the views of others. I can see now why you have been banned from other threads as you are not here to discuss, but to force your views on others. This is why I am done trying to discuss with you as there is no discussion, especially when you ignore the fact that Free and I have told you many times that there are not three God's.

You have a good evening.

 

[heartwashed]

You can't even read the scriptures we give you because of your preconceived mind that they might come against what you believe. One sided discussions never work as it will not discuss the views of others. I can see now why you have been banned from other threads as you are not here to discuss, but to force your views on others. This is why I am done trying to discuss with you as there is no discussion, especially when you ignore the fact that Free and I have told you many times that there are not three God's.

You have a good evening.

You have a good evening also.

I am not opposed to looking up your scriptures as I have read them all before and none of them contradicts my theology.

If anything in the Bible contradicted my theology, I would have changed my theology to fit the understanding that is given by the Bible.

I do not believe that I am attempting to be one-sided in this discussion. If anything that you have to say resonates with me and also truly contradicts my point of view, I will change my point of view.

But it goes to show that what I said in post #64 (https://christianforums.net/threads/the-trinity.92500/post-1704689) is true, that the only reason why you don't want to continue with the discussion is because you find yourself unable to convince me of your point of view. And the reality is that you truly do desire to be the victor in any contest of logic and reasoning.

But if my scriptures and logic are defeating your scriptures and logic, then you ought to consider that your point of view might be incorrect.

 

[Free]

If anything in the Bible contradicted my theology, I would have changed my theology to fit the understanding that is given by the Bible.

I have found that it almost never works this way.

But if my scriptures and logic are defeating your scriptures and logic, then you ought to consider that your point of view might be incorrect.

And this is why. In my opinion, Scripture and logic clearly refute your view (maybe not every single point, but most), and we have nearly 2000 years of Church history on our side.

 

[heartwashed]

I have found that it almost never works this way.

If that is the case with you, then I am sorry for you.

As for me, I hold the holy scriptures (in the kjv) to be the infallible and inerrant word of God; and I base my entire belief system on what is written in them.

And this is why. In my opinion, Scripture and logic clearly refute your view (maybe not every single point, but most), and we have nearly 2000 years of Church history on our side.

If that were the case, then your scriptures and logic would have publicly refuted my view.

But your best (and probably only) argument against my point of view resides in a labeling of it as not being Trinitarian, but of modalism.

And I have shown that my view is not modalism but is of the true Trinity, in that I do find that there are distinctions between the members of the Trinity.

You have not shown any scriptural argument that refutes my point of view in the whole of this thread.

But you are welcome to try and come up with future attempts.

 

[Free]

If that is the case with you, then I am sorry for you.

I have changed my views as necessary, but most don’t. That is what I was referring to.

As for me, I hold the holy scriptures (in the kjv) to be the infallible and inerrant word of God; and I base my entire belief system on what is written in them.

Good to know you believe in unicorns and that Easter was known among the Apostles and early church.

Only the Autographs were inerrant.

If that were the case, then your scriptures and logic would have publicly refuted my view.

Again, you’re not understanding. From where I sit, I have refuted your view and you don’t think I have. That is precisely my point.

But your best (and probably only) argument against my point of view resides in a labeling of it as not being Trinitarian, but of modalism.

I’ve been debating this topic for nearly 20 years (not that that means I know it all; far from it). I’ve hardly gotten started.

If you believe there was a time when the Son did not exist, which your position strongly implies, then you believe in Modalism or some form of it. If you don’t believe that the one God has existed for “eternity past” (prior to creation) as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three divine, coequal, coeternal persons, then you don’t believe the Trinity.

 

[heartwashed]

I just want to point out that I do not have any disagreements with anything that the two of you have said about the Trinity here.

But if you have a disagreement, what exactly is it that you disagree with?

 

[Free]

I just want to point out that I do not have any disagreements with anything that the two of you have said about the Trinity here.

Then why have you been disagreeing with nearly everything to we have said?

But if you have a disagreement, what exactly is it that you disagree with?

Feel free to address my post above.

 

[heartwashed]

Good to know you believe in unicorns and that Easter was known among the Apostles and early church.

Only the Autographs were inerrant.

The original autographs are no longer available to us; so you are saying that we cannot have the unadulterated message of the whole counsel of God that brings salvation in a way that we can rely upon.

Easter was in fact celebrated by the early church as early as the 2nd century according to Wikipedia. That the aposles may have celebrated it as early as Acts 12:4 is not unreasonable to me as a concept.

And there are certainly many animals that have become extinct throughout history.

Some believe that the Orix fits the description of a unicorn as one looks at it from the side.

Again, you’re not understanding. From where I sit, I have refuted your view and you don’t think I have. That is precisely my point.

Okay then rehash it.

If you have an irrefutable argument that refutes anything I have been saying, use the quote feature to bring up my statement and then restate the argument. See if I don't have an answer.

Because it is true that from my perspective, I have answered every argument that you have set forth and that there are some arguments that I have set forth that you have been unable to answer.

I’ve been debating this topic for nearly 20 years. I’ve hardly gotten started.

If you believe there was a time when the Son did not exist, which your position strongly implies, then you believe in Modalism or some form of it. If you don’t believe that the one God has existed for “eternity past” (prior to creation) as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three divine, coequal, coeternal persons, then you don’t believe the Trinity.

However, you have not shown that my point of view is unbiblical.

You can only label it in order to try to deter people from believing in it.

I don't remember what it is called; but that is some sort of logical fallacy.

 

[heartwashed]

Then why have you been disagreeing with nearly everything to we have said?

What have I disagreed with?

The two of you have been disagreeing with me.

 

[heartwashed]

If you believe there was a time when the Son did not exist, which your position strongly implies,

My position agrees with the concept that the Son has always existed.

 

[Free]

My position agrees with the concept that the Son has always existed.

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?

The original autographs are no longer available to us; so you are saying that we cannot have the unadulterated message of the whole counsel of God that brings salvation in a way that we can rely upon.

There are known errors in every translation and translator bias in every translation. That is what happens when we no longer have the autographs, but have copies of copies of copies. Most every translation will lead one to know the true God and to salvation. Some are worse than others, some better than others.

Because it is true that from my perspective, I have answered every argument that you have set forth and that there are some arguments that I have set forth that you have been unable to answer.


However, you have not shown that my point of view is unbiblical.

Case in point.

 

[heartwashed]

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?

Yes.

There are known errors in every translation and translator bias in every translation. That is what happens when we no longer have the autographs, but have copies of copies of copies. Most every translation will lead one to know the true God and to salvation. Some are worse than others, some better than others.

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

Case in point.

What point?