What's new
By:
Filters
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!

The Truth About The Trinity Doctrine: The Answer to All Questions.

Peterlag said:
If you believe Peter was the first Pope. Then the Catholic church did not take over the Christian church because the Catholic church is the Christian church. If you believe otherwise then at some point the Christian church had to become Catholic. Do I not make sense?
Click to expand...
Not really.

You stated that the CC overtook the Christian church.
Do you mean forcefully?
Or do you mean that it just naturally succeeded the Christian church?
There's a big difference.

Here's what I believe:
Peter was one of the first Popes.
The Catholic Church is the first church.
Because it can be traced back to Peter.

The early Christian church was called the universalist church...which is what Catholic means.

How do YOU understand this?
It's simple history.
 
Randy said:
Yes to the Father doing all that He is pleased to do. - Jesus always does what pleases Him. Jesus is in heaven at the right hand of the Father because that's the Fathers will. Jesus will raise us up on the last day because that is the Fathers will. Everything outlined in the bible in regard to our salvation is according to the Fathers will. God is Spirit He can not undo Himself.
Click to expand...
Your idea is easier to understand Randy.
Problem is that it does not represent the Trinity.
I don't believe one has to believe the Trinity or understand it to be saved.
However, I do think one has to accept it in order to be called a Christian.
 
Free said:
Modalism, not "Modulism."


It explains Modalism, not Trinitarianism.
Click to expand...
I'm not debating this anymore Free.

If the diagram you and I like is correct,
then Father is not Son but both are GOD.

Now go explain that.

The Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit.
He is also GOD.

Just like the example in Cooper 's analogy.

The man WAS THE OWNER, but he was also A WORKER.
But he DID NOT SPLIT Himself.
He was still ONE.
 
wondering said:
I'm not debating this anymore Free.

If the diagram you and I like is correct,
then Father is not Son but both are GOD.

Now go explain that.

The Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit.
He is also GOD.
Click to expand...
Explain what? You seem to have completely misunderstood what I said. I have very clearly been arguing for Trinitarianism. It seems that you are not understanding Cooper's position either, as I show below.

wondering said:
Just like the example in Cooper 's analogy.


The man WAS THE OWNER, but he was also A WORKER.
But he DID NOT SPLIT Himself.
He was still ONE.
Click to expand...
That is more akin to Modalism, not Trinitarianism. That is one person playing two different roles; there is no distinction between the owner and the worker other than the role. That is, the owner is the worker. It is to say that the Father is the Son and is the Holy Spirit. There is essentially no difference because they are all the same person.

Since the Trinity is three distinct persons, by definition, the owner cannot also be the worker. That is why Cooper takes issue with the outer ring in the diagram--the "is nots"--because for him God is the Father, who is also the Son, and is also the Holy Spirit. There is no distinction of persons; there is only one person.

The only difference I can see between Copper's position and Modalism, is that historically, Modalists have believed that God reveals himself in a different role at a different point in time and so the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not all exist at the same time. Copper believes God reveals himself in different roles but they all exist at the same time.

Just found this, which backs up my claim that Cooper really is a Modalist, since some Modalists do believe that the one person that is God appears in all three roles concurrently:

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/09/modalistic-monarchianism.html
 
Last edited:
wondering said:
Your idea is easier to understand Randy.
Problem is that it does not represent the Trinity.
I don't believe one has to believe the Trinity or understand it to be saved.
However, I do think one has to accept it in order to be called a Christian.
Click to expand...
My praise is from God
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

And I passed the test - which means I'm in the faith Paul spoke of
Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

I actually asked Jesus about the trinity - I know who HE claims to be
 
Randy said:
My praise is from God
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

And I passed the test - which means I'm in the faith Paul spoke of
Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

I actually asked Jesus about the trinity - I know who HE claims to be
Click to expand...
The main problem with your position is that you deny that the Son existed for eternity past, the same as the Father. That is, the Son came into being at a point in time. Therefore, it contradicts 1 Cor 8:6, John 1:1-3, and Col 1:16-17, among others.
 
Free said:
Explain what? You seem to have completely misunderstood what I said. I have very clearly been arguing for Trinitarianism. It seems that you are not understanding Cooper's position either, as I show below.


That is more akin to Modalism, not Trinitarianism. That is one person playing two different roles; there is no distinction between the owner and the worker other than the role. That is, the owner is the worker. It is to say that the Father is the Son and is the Holy Spirit. There is essentially no difference because they are all the same person.

Since the Trinity is three distinct persons, by definition, the owner cannot also be the worker. That is why Cooper takes issue with the outer ring in the diagram--the "is nots"--because for him God is the Father, who is also the Son, and is also the Holy Spirit. There is no distinction of persons; there is only one person.

The only difference I can see between Copper's position and Modalism, is that historically, Modalists have believed that God reveals himself in a different role at a different point in time and so the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit do not all exist at the same time. Copper believes God reveals himself in different roles but they all exist at the same time.

Just found this, which backs up my claim that Cooper really is a Modalist, since some Modalists do believe that the one person that is God appears in all three roles concurrently:

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/09/modalistic-monarchianism.html
Click to expand...
I understand your point Free.
I understand how you think Cooper is explaining Modalsim.
What I'm saying is that the line is too fine to argue about...

Different persons explain the Trinity differently precisely because it's so difficult to explain.

I agree with you that the Persons are distinct. As I've said, I've given lessons to young teens trying to explain this Trinity we speak of. I've had to read some on it and find that sometimes two persons are saying the same idea, but using different words.

I explained to the kids that God Father, God Son, and God Holy Spirit have different "roles".

Can we agree to that?
 
Randy said:
My praise is from God
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

And I passed the test - which means I'm in the faith Paul spoke of
Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

I actually asked Jesus about the trinity - I know who HE claims to be
Click to expand...
This is not the first time I hear this Randy.
As I've stated, I am not going to debate this with you.
I did say that IF you want to be CALLED a Christian, you do have to adhere to Christian doctrine.
This has nothing to do with being saved or not. Doctrine does not save us, Jesus saves us.
He is our Lord.
But if He's not God,,,then aren't we worshipping a man?

Think of it...if every Christian could make up their own idea of what Christianity is...
where will we end up?
 
wondering said:
I understand your point Free.
I understand how you think Cooper is explaining Modalsim.
What I'm saying is that the line is too fine to argue about...

Different persons explain the Trinity differently precisely because it's so difficult to explain.

I agree with you that the Persons are distinct. As I've said, I've given lessons to young teens trying to explain this Trinity we speak of. I've had to read some on it and find that sometimes two persons are saying the same idea, but using different words.

I explained to the kids that God Father, God Son, and God Holy Spirit have different "roles".

Can we agree to that?
Click to expand...
When speaking of the economic Trinity, yes, they have different roles but they are all equally and truly God, yet remain three distinct persons. But we must never, as Cooper is doing, lose the distinction of persons. He is most definitely not simply explaining the Trinity in a different way since he is saying the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one person. It is Modalism.
 
Free said:
When speaking of the economic Trinity, yes, they have different roles. But we must never, as Cooper is doing, lose the distinction of persons. He is most definitely not simply explaining the Trinity in a different way since he is saying the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one person. It is Modalism.
Click to expand...
But they ARE all one person!

Are we agreed that there is only One God?
 
wondering said:
This is not the first time I hear this Randy.
As I've stated, I am not going to debate this with you.
I did say that IF you want to be CALLED a Christian, you do have to adhere to Christian doctrine.
This has nothing to do with being saved or not. Doctrine does not save us, Jesus saves us.
He is our Lord.
But if He's not God,,,then aren't we worshipping a man?

Think of it...if every Christian could make up their own idea of what Christianity is...
where will we end up?
Click to expand...
I think Jesus was before man or the world began. That being has been in my prayers as far back as my memory goes.
That's good you don't want to debate. Neither do I. But I belong to Jesus and am only concerned with what HE calls me.
 
wondering said:
But they ARE all one person!
Click to expand...
No, they are not. Now you are confusing Trinitarianism with Modalism. This has all been explained thoroughly in this thread, and others, so why are you now confusing the two?

By definition (using the one Randy provided): The orthodox trinity is one God existing in 3 coeternal, coequal, consubstantial persons sharing one essence. Namely God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit.

Modalism, by definition, "teaches that God is a single person who has eternally existed and yet He has revealed himself in three modes or forms. Modalism rejects the Trinitarian belief that God exists at all times as three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Rather, the modalist believes that God is one person made known in three modes." I provided this definition back on page 2.

wondering said:
Are we agreed that there is only One God?
Click to expand...
Of course there is only one God.
 
Last edited:
Free said:
No, they are not. Now you are confusing Trinitarianism with Modalism. This has all been explained thoroughly in this thread, and others, so why are you now confusing the two?

By definition (using the one Randy provided): The orthodox trinity is one God existing in 3 coeternal, coequal, consubstantial persons sharing one essence. Namely God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit.

Modalism, by definition, "teaches that God is a single person who has eternally existed and yet He has revealed himself in three modes or forms. Modalism rejects the Trinitarian belief that God exists at all times as three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Rather, the modalist believes that God is one person made known in three modes." I provided this definition back on page 2.


Of course there is only one God.
Click to expand...
Free, I don't know how else to say this.
If the above, underlined by me, is correct, then there are THREE GODS.

God does not exist in 3 persons...
3 persons exist in One God.

It doesn't matter if they're co-eternal, co-equal, co-substantial....
it would make 3 gods.

What do you think is the major difference between modalism and trinitarianism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top