The Trinity Doctrine

Participant

To epistemaniac.

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 20 2006,20:37)

Btw t8, if you dismiss or deny the Trinity simply because other religions held similar doctrines, then you must deny Christianity because other religions believed in a single deity.

blessings

If you read my post properly, I deny the Trinity doctrine because it is not taught in the bible. Not because it is used in other religions or the fact that the word Trinity is not mentioned.

I reject the Trinity because it is not taught as a foundational doctrine, nor is there any specific teaching on it. People believe that doctrine by inference, but the inference they use is faulty.

Now if the Trinity is not found in the bible, but is found in pagan religions, what does that lead one to conclude?

I prefer to keep away from the influence of Babylon.

July 20, 2006 at 2:06 am#22443

Participant

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 20 2006,01:37)

Btw t8, if you dismiss or deny the Trinity simply because other religions held similar doctrines, then you must deny Christianity because other religions believed in a single deity.

blessings

Hi e,
Is Christianity very alike to other faiths in your view?

July 20, 2006 at 2:09 am#22444

Participant

Hi e,
Your words;
“1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God””

So is Jesus our God or the only begotten Son of our God?

July 20, 2006 at 2:13 am#22445

Participant

Hi e
Your words
” one cannot dismiss the doctrine of the Trinity simply because it was codified at a certain time in early church history, for if you do, in order to be consistent, you must also deny the books that are in the canon for they were settled about the same time as the doctrine of the Trinity became official Church doctrine. The gospels were agreed upon around 185, but the rest was not settled until much later.”

Does what 'the church” codify become truth to you?
Or does truth come from the bible?

Scripture says the Holy Spirit does not speak on his own initiative so which spirit guided the development of these new and unbiblical ideas into the traditional orthodox teachings?

July 20, 2006 at 2:52 am#22447

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 20 2006,01:11)

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 20 2006,01:03)

Semmy, in answer to “Also how is someone eternally begotten?”
Again… your argumentation is very superficial, its easy to see how the eternal Son of God can be eternally “begotten”;

“G3439
μονογενής
monogenēs
Thayer Definition:
1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God”

So it is very very simple for Jesus to be eternally begotten since only He is God’s Son by nature, while any believer becomes a Son or daughter through adoption. So “mongenes” is telling us that Jesus had a unique – one of a kind relationship to the Father, one that no other person ever had or will have.

blessings

Hi E,
So Jesus is a son of God by “nature”
What does this mean?
Does it mean he was begotten as another divine being in the beginning?
Does it mean he never was begotten of God but because he is of divine substance in God as a person he is somehow a son by that situation?
That is hard to grasp. is not a son separate from his father?

what does it mean for the Son and the father (and the HS) to have the same “nature”? Here are some definitions:

“the complex of emotional and intellectual attributes that determine a person's characteristic actions and reactions; “it is his nature to help others”

“the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized;”

“a causal agent creating and controlling things in the universe;”

“The Nicene Creed. The statement drafted on the 19th of June, 325, began with a strong statement of monotheism, “We believe in one God.” Against Arius’ definition of begotten, which he took to mean “created,” the Nicene Creed differentiated the terms by stating that the Son of God was “begotten, not made.” Additionally, the Son was declared homoousia with the Father, from the Greek homo, “same,” and ousio, “substance, nature or essence.”10 This was a clear affirmation of the Son’s deity (though as will be seen below the term caused a lot of confusion between the Eastern and Western bishops). The final denunciation against Arius lay in the closing portion of the Creed, “But those who say there was when He was not…these the Catholic Church anathematizes.” The Council was solely concerned with settling the debate over the deity of Christ, and thus regarding the Holy Spirit they simply wrote “We believe…in one Holy Spirit.” (basictheology)

you ask “Does it mean he was begotten as another divine being in the beginning?”
No

“Does it mean he never was begotten of God but because he is of divine substance in God as a person he is somehow a son by that situation?”
ehhhh? This is a fairly convulted question…. but… clearly the Bible says He was begotten. The fallacy you are trying to trap me in, or one that you are just not mindful of and are falling into yourself, is thinking that one single word has to mean the same thing every time it appears in Scripture. God, being one in essence and three in person is how Jesus is both eternally God and yet, as to the role He was always in, in eternity, always being the Son, having been decreed before the foundation of the world, was to step into creation, to “tabernacle in the flesh”, and in this sense, one of divine submission and obedience, and one that harkens back to the typology of Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son, yet the Lord God provided a substitute then, and in the fullness of time, “….Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Phil. 5b-8)

you said “That is hard to grasp.”
I will indeed grant you that Whether we are biblical trinitarians or persons of the Arian heresy, in either case, no one says they have God and His being and nature totally figuered out. How could the finite ever totally comprehend the infinite?

“is not a son separate from his father?”
Remember, analogies can only go so far, and when dealing with God, God is sui generis… i.e. one of a kind, totally unique…. the comparisons to humans and their relationships with one another must always fall short, and therefore so too does the comparison of an earthly son's relationship with his father fall short of the relationship between the Father, Son and HS. So any attempt to equate a human's relationsip to God is to committ the Category Fallacy, e.g. trying to compare like to unlike things (God and His nature as compared to a human and their nature), and then turning around and complaining because they are not exactly alike (i.e. an earthly son and father's relationship is not and cannot ever be exactly like the Son of God's relationship to the Father).

lastly you say
“Surely he would not be a son at all by that logic?”

I have never really been sure what kind of logic you use 😉

blessings

July 20, 2006 at 3:00 am#22448

Participant

The bible teaches that God is one. This is why the Jews haven't embraced the trinity doctrine. That doctrine teaches that God is triune, while saying that he is also one to appease particular scriptures.

It's sort of like saying “yes trees are green, but they are blue, because blue and yellow make green”. Therefore trees are blue.

But when you take the end result, it is actually saying trees are blue, even though they are really green.

At this point many just say I believe they are blue because that is what everyone says, even though I do not fully understand it and they look green, not blue.

It's so rediculous that even a child is happy to believe that trees are green. But the wise have all these philosophies and formulas to say otherwise.

Have a look at the reaction you get when explaining the Trinity to a new believer. In fact don't do that. But ask christians what they thought when they first heard it.

I know my reaction was exactly the same as when I heard the Theory of Evolution. After a while I believed in Evolution because it was a foundational doctrine and I couldn't challenge something as foundational as that, could I. I mean after all I don't have the credentials that these scientists have that promote that doctrine.

But then I grew up and realised that the world doesn't have a clue whats really going on.

July 20, 2006 at 3:02 am#22449

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 20 2006,01:48)

Hi e,
This is a public forum and all are invited to participate in all discussions.
Our God is one and has a son.
Do you follow the church or Christ?
Would you defend Christ's church against these evil and new doctrina nonbiblical additions such as trinity?
Or would you defend the church tradition against truth??

lol… I know that…. but then that really has nothing to do with me addressing one single particular person….. that is, if I respond to one particular person's reasoning (in this case, Semmy's), and then another totally different person (in this case t8) responds complaining that they were not using that type of reasoning, it hardly seems rational to complain about my addressing an error I never said they made, now is it? If I would have said “all Arian/non Trinitarians make this same mistake”, then sure, you would have a right and reason to say this and t8 would have been right to complain if I was not representing his/her beliefs properly, but then again, I never said that all non-Trinitarians use “the word trinity is never found in the Bible so it can't be true” argument.

it's truly sad that time has to be wasted pointing out such elementary things

ah well…..

blessings

July 20, 2006 at 3:03 am#22450

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 20 2006,03:09)

Hi e,
Your words;
“1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God””

So is Jesus our God or the only begotten Son of our God?

yes

July 20, 2006 at 3:09 am#22451

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 20 2006,03:13)

Does what 'the church” codify become truth to you?
Or does truth come from the bible?

Scripture says the Holy Spirit does not speak on his own initiative so which spirit guided the development of these new and unbiblical ideas into the traditional orthodox teachings?

lol…. ok… tell me where in the Bible it states which books of the Bible are going to make up the canon that today we call the Holy Bible…..

sure truth comes from the Bible… but not all truth… the Bible does not contain directions to get from my house to Taco Bell, or directions on how to build an atomic bomb, or affirm or deny that Larry Bird is one of the greatest basketball player's to ever play the game, or the theory of relativity, or string theory etc etc etc…..

Scripture is truth, but, ALL truth is God's truth, whether it is found in the Scriptures or not….

blessings

July 20, 2006 at 3:09 am#22452

Participant

Hi e,
The old fallback logic of
“how can we expect to understand God?”
does not wash when it is men who have introduced this confusion.

We should be able to understand the relationship between a father and a son because our relationship with our own sons is based on the relationship between the Father and the Son according to scripture.They are directly comparable. Fathers produce children and family.
Eph 4.14
“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from Whom every family in heaven and on earth derives it's name”

Was Jesus always God and always working in his own divine powers when on earth?
If so then what did he shed in the kenosis?
What of his powers as a child?
What benefit to him was the anointing of God's Spirit placed on him of Power by God
What value was his blessing in the Jordan?

July 20, 2006 at 3:14 am#22453

Participant

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 20 2006,04:03)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 20 2006,03:09)

Hi e,
Your words;
“1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God””

So is Jesus our God or the only begotten Son of our God?

yes

Hi e,
So to you Jesus is God and the Son of that God?

The truths of God are simple
and for children
not intellectual Houdinis.

July 20, 2006 at 3:14 am#22454

Participant

I am sure that Semmy doesn't disbelieve the Trinity doctrine only based on the lack of the word “Trinity”. That was my point.
It is but one pointer only in a larger context. The main pointers are the lack of scriptural teaching and the fact that what scripture does teach is in conflict with the man-made Trinity doctrine.

You then say that it is sad to waste your time with elementary things. Well I can only conclude that your elementary things are not the same elementary things that Paul teaches.

You appear to be bringing a new elementary teaching which is no elemenary teaching at all.

Hebrews 6:1-2
1 Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,
2 instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

Maybe your bible mentions the trinity in this verse. If so what translation is it? But you know full well it is not there.

July 20, 2006 at 3:16 am#22455

Participant

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 20 2006,04:09)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 20 2006,03:13)

Does what 'the church” codify become truth to you?
Or does truth come from the bible?

Scripture says the Holy Spirit does not speak on his own initiative so which spirit guided the development of these new and unbiblical ideas into the traditional orthodox teachings?

lol…. ok… tell me where in the Bible it states which books of the Bible are going to make up the canon that today we call the Holy Bible…..

Scripture is truth, but, ALL truth is God's truth, whether it is found in the Scriptures or not….

blessings

Hi e,
So you have found truths about God and spiritual matters outside of scripture and that compare in veracity to scripture itself?

Sounds familiar.

Did not Jesus rebuke the Pharisees for making their teachings equal to or greater than the Word of God?

Mk 7.6 f
“And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
'(A)THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7'(B)BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'

8″Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the Âtradition of men.”

9He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your (D)tradition.

10″For Moses said, '(E)HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, '(F)HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';

11but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is (G)Corban (that is to say, [a]given to God),'

12you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;

13thus invalidating the word of God by your (H)tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

July 20, 2006 at 3:18 am#22456

Participant

oh… you also said “Scripture says the Holy Spirit does not speak on his own initiative so which spirit guided the development of these new and unbiblical ideas into the traditional orthodox teachings?”

First, I want to compliment you on finally using personal pronouns for the Holy Spirit. You may be catching on after all 😉

Secondly, you are begging the question that the doctrine of the Trinity is false in this statement, eg Trinitarians totally agree with “Scripture says the Holy Spirit does not speak on his own initiative”, it's begging the question to say that a Trinitarian would not agree with this. The question is, is the doctrine of the Trinity unbiblical, new, unorthodox, orthodox, heresy, whatever…… and nothing in this post suggests it is unbiblical…

blessings

July 20, 2006 at 3:22 am#22457

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 20 2006,04:16)

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 20 2006,04:09)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 20 2006,03:13)

Does what 'the church” codify become truth to you?
Or does truth come from the bible?

Scripture says the Holy Spirit does not speak on his own initiative so which spirit guided the development of these new and unbiblical ideas into the traditional orthodox teachings?

lol…. ok… tell me where in the Bible it states which books of the Bible are going to make up the canon that today we call the Holy Bible…..

Scripture is truth, but, ALL truth is God's truth, whether it is found in the Scriptures or not….

blessings

Hi e,
So you have found truths about God and spiritual matters outside of scripture and that compare in veracity to scripture itself?

Sounds familiar.

Did not Jesus rebuke the Pharisees for making their teachings equal to or greater than the Word of God?

if anything, you are a master at clouding the issues…. at missing the point… of introducing red herrings….. and all sorts of other sleight of hand tricks….

my saying that there is truth outside of the Bible is not the same thing as saying that the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity is found outside the Bible…

get it straight…. don't fence with wind mills and don't create straw men…..

blessings

July 20, 2006 at 3:26 am#22458

Participant

epistemaniac.

Can I say that you came knocking on our door and brought this strange teaching with you.

We didn't come to you.

What spirit motivates a man to oppose the truth that God is one. Probably the same spirit that motivated men to persecute the prophets of old, the apostles, and teachers of the NT.

It's sad that there is no end of candidates that wish to oppose the first comandment and to deny in their teachings that Jesus came in the flesh.

July 20, 2006 at 3:34 am#22459

Participant

Hi e,
Your statements;
“oh… you also said “Scripture says the Holy Spirit does not speak on his own initiative so which spirit guided the development of these new and unbiblical ideas into the traditional orthodox teachings?”

First, I want to compliment you on finally using personal pronouns for the Holy Spirit. You may be catching on after all 😉

My view:

Since Jesus and the apostles and prophets did not speak of trinity it is a new teaching. It goes beyond scripture. It is unorthodox and unbiblical. I realise the Harlot church has made it orthodox among her family but we are not of her.

Jesus calls the Holy Spirit “the finger of God” in Lk 11.20[cf Mt 12.28]

Are fingers ever separate, even separate persons, from the body they belong to?

July 20, 2006 at 3:46 am#22460

Participant

Quote (t8 @ July 20 2006,04:00)

It's sort of like saying “yes trees are green, but they are blue, because blue and yellow make green”. Therefore trees are blue.

But when you take the end result, it is actually saying trees are blue, even though they are really green.

At this point many just say I believe they are blue because that is what everyone says, even though I do not fully understand it and they look green, not blue.

It's so rediculous that even a child is happy to believe that trees are green. But the wise have all these philosophies and formulas to say otherwise.

Have a look at the reaction you get when explaining the Trinity to a new believer. In fact don't do that. But ask christians what they thought when they first heard it.

But then I grew up and realised that the world doesn't have a clue whats really going on.

t8, you said “The bible teaches that God is one. This is why the Jews haven't embraced the trinity doctrine. That doctrine teaches that God is triune, while saying that he is also one to appease particular scriptures.”

So what? They also denied He was the Messiah. Do you want to join them in this error as well?

The doctrine of the Trinity does not attempt to “appease Scriptures”, its the only way to properly reconcile the full council of God. And hey, some people can't deal with having to face the full council of God;

“And He said, Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father. From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.
(Joh 6:65-66 NKJV)

you said “It's sort of like saying “yes trees are green, but they are blue, because blue and yellow make green”. Therefore trees are blue.”

no… its more like saying there is one tree and it has green leaves, blue flowers with yellow tips on the flowers…. one tree, 3 colors…. one God, 3 persons….

you said “But when you take the end result, it is actually saying trees are blue, even though they are really green.”

No. That only happens when people try and create straw men out of other people's beliefs, or they might, as in this case, create a false dichotomy, an “either/or” that really is a “both/and”.

you said “At this point many just say I believe they are blue because that is what everyone says, even though I do not fully understand it and they look green, not blue.”

It's never a good idea to accept something just because other's say it. That is exactly why I do not listen to all the Arians who try and deny the Trinity.

you say “It's so rediculous that even a child is happy to believe that trees are green. But the wise have all these philosophies and formulas to say otherwise.”

ahh.. but while we are to trust as a child, we are not to stay there and remain babes. No one is commended in the Bible for their immaturity or ignorance about the Scriptures.

and actually its the “wise philosophers” who say that just because they can't understand how God can be both 3 and 1 (though not in the same way, that is, the 3 in 1 does not violate the law of non-contradiction which says that a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship, ie, God is not 3 in the same way He is 1) that they must reject it.

you said “Have a look at the reaction you get when explaining the Trinity to a new believer.”

I have, many times. What, do you allow the understanding of a new believer to dictate your beliefs!?!? Well no wonder you haven't progressed t8!! lol….. 😉

you said “In fact don't do that. But ask christians what they thought when they first heard it.”

I have many times, none ever denied it outright, they realized right away that God was not someone they would fully comprehend, ever… and if He is triune… if the Bible teaches He is triune, then they were happy to accept it as biblical doctrine.

you said “I know my reaction was exactly the same as when I heard…….”

And? So? What? Does everyone else's experience have to be the same as yours? This is not to say anything about my beliefs concerning evolution, its the fact that just because you reacted in a certain way to a teaching, you expect anyone and everyone else to react the same way. This hardly seems reasonable.

lastly you say “But then I grew up and realised that the world doesn't have a clue whats really going on.”

So true, but then, the doctrine fo the Trinity has nothing to do with this conclusion. You don't find secular atheistic philosophers defending the Trinity. If anything, the most they usually might eventually grant is that there was “some kind of intelligent designer” and that's it, as the former famous atheist Anthony Flew has done is his latter years… that is, its people like this who don't have a clue because they do not trust the full counsel of the Scriptures to teach them that this intelligent designer is a Triune Being, a Father, a Son sent to atone for the sins of His Bride, and a Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth.

blessings

July 20, 2006 at 3:46 am#22461