Go for Trinitarian. Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are one complete whole who cannot be separated. They constitute One omnipresent God in heaven, on earth and in our hearts.
Anyway, it is lights out for me.
.
Last edited:
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!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
-
Wearing the right shoes, and properly clothed spiritually?
Join Elected By Him for a devotional on Ephesians 6:14-15
https://christianforums.net/threads/devotional-selecting-the-proper-shoes.109094/
- Status
Anyway, it is lights out for me.
.
For the diagram to be Trinitarian then the words "is not" must be between each of the persons as in the original diagram. That maintains the distinctions of the three persons within the one being that is God. And that is what a Trinitarian must believe, or they are not Trinitarian.
No one is dividing God, but there is distinction within the one God. The phrase "is not" between the persons is to maintain the biblical distinctions of the three co-eternal, coequal persons within the one God.
If you believe that God is one person, an absolute unity, then you cannot, by definition, be a Trinitarian as you have claimed.
"One God in three persons" get it right, you have it wrong yet again.
See the scriptures below, there are no "is nots." Someone is adding to scripture. To do that is wrong.
For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; (Col 2:9)
Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, (Tit 2:13)
You will not find the Lord God spoken of negatively with the words "is not" in all the scriptures.
Adding insult to injury, the guilty party, who adds to scripture, continues to blame the innocent.
.
Last edited:
Three co-eternal, coequal, consubstantial persons within the one being that is God, is what the doctrine of the Trinity states. That is a quick summation of the historical, orthodox definition of the Trinity.
Of course doing that is wrong, but, I am absolutely not doing that.
Of course. And, there is nothing stated about the distinctions here.
The same answer.
It isn't speaking of God negatively, no more than saying God is not tripartite is speaking of God negatively; it's just stating a fact about God. Saying that the Father is not the Son is similar, although not identical, to saying that every father is not their own son. It maintains the distinction between the persons, as is logical, common sense, and biblical.
I haven't added a single thing to Scripture. I am saying the very same things the Bible says, just in a different way. There is always more than one way to say something, right? I'm not blaming anyone for anything.
I am correct in stating that if a person believes that God is a single person, an absolute unity, then they cannot, by definition, as I've given above, be a Trinitarian. The Trinity is defined the way it is, and to reject that is to be something other than Trinitarian. That should go without saying because it is obvious. That's why words and concepts have definitions, so we know what we are and are not talking about. It would be like someone rejecting the deity of Jesus and claiming to be a Trinitarian. It just doesn't work because that goes against the very definition.
Says you about God, who did not say my Father "is not me" but "we are one."
Whatever way you want to spin that, Jesus did not say "we is not." or grammatically better "we are not one."
What is the truth, "We are one," or "we are not one?"
Suit yourself, but the word "not" tells of three individual gods, and that is the worst heresy of all.
.
Last edited:
There is more than one way to understand “we are one,” but none of them are that they are the same person.
Of course he didn’t. That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
Of course he didn’t, because he claimed the opposite.
They are one, they are just not the same person, as the doctrine of the Trinity states.
It absolutely does not. One God, three co-eternal, coequal, consubstantial persons. If you don’t believe that, you’re not a Trinitarian.
They are one God. I have never said otherwise. They just aren’t the same person.
Is each person God?
.
Each person is truly and fully God, being of the same substance that is the one God.
So, you have three persons, and each person is truly and fully God.
How many Gods is that?
.
One. They are distinct, not separate. Each interpentrates the other--"I am in the Father and the Father is in me"--yet they maintain their distinctness. Hence the diagram.
Do you believe in Oneness?
.
It depends on what you mean by "Oneness." If you mean that God is one person, as in Oneness theology, Unitarianism, and Modalism, then no, I clearly don't as that contradicts the Trinity and is not biblical. If you mean that I believe in one God and that all three co-eternal, coequal, constubstantial persons are the one God, then yes.
The second part is a good answer. Your description of the ONE God is also excellent, which begs the question, "why you divide the undividable God into three, when each G/god is identical in nature to the other two?"
Why?
.
Last edited:
I’m not dividing God into three. I said that I am maintaining the biblical distinctions between the three co-eternal, coequal, consubstantial persons.
So, you have three co-eternal, coequal, consubstantial Gods!
.
No.
OK. Thank you for the conversation. The Bible is a much better resource than any man-made diagram, and I want out.
.
- Status