- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Hi, t8,
Not quite sure I follow you here. Are you trying to argue the passage reflects a major distinction between God and Christ so that Christ cannot be considered God and then the Trinity is all wrong? If so, my response is that Scripture provides but conflicting snap shots of the ontological structure of God which often do conflict. Here is a prime example. That means we also have to take into account those passage that do identify Christ with God. Then, the next step, is to see how these might be fit together. I know I suggested how this might work, in some recent posts of mine, but I don’t know if you had time to read any of those.
HH.
The verse is simple and clear. I do not even need to explain it.
You seem to preach an opposite meaning by saying that there is one God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
A child can read it as saying, there is one God the Father, and that Jesus the messiah was sent by this God who is his Father.
Further, these words are eternal life, so not to be interpreted lightly. Eternal life is the reason salvation is offered to man.
HH. As for Nick. Have you felt like leaving this forum because of Nick? I am curious. I do not want people put off from posting here because of him or others. That is counter-productive to the reason this site was set up. I prefer if people leave it is because they cannot face the truth. Not because of bad behaviour or silly spammy posts from any member.
Hello again, t8,
You brought into p lay one passage in Scripture which does present s subordinationalistic view of Christ. However, there are other passages that do in fact identify Christ with God, such as the prologue to Jn. The Trinity is a central teaching in Christianity, due to these latter passages. The problem is putting them together into a unified picture.
Hello again, t8,
No, I haven’t thought of leaving the site because of Nick alone. However, I do not put up with flaming posts and very poor scholarship. It is one thing to make constructive criticism of the Trinitarian formulations. It is another to call the church fathers all liars and those who hold with the Trinity all idolaters, etc. That’s totally uncalled for and also very ignorant. t as much as I can, as I have the education to do so. However, when members start flamming, I’m through with them.
Hello again, t8,
Here is a kind of PS that just came to my mind. I am comfortable dealing with controversy. However, many Christians aren’t. The way members such as Nick and several others have come across would definitely threaten them off from posting. They would feel the very heart of their faith is being unduly attacked; and if they stuck around, would engage in a major flame war, denouncing Nick et all as heretics and godless. Then you really would have a problem on your hands.
Hi hoghead,
Scripture is all about the work of the Spirit of God done through human vessels. 2 Peter 1 points to this.
The vessels deserve honour as 2tim 2 explains but what often happens is that the men are worshiped as God by the world.
Unless men are reborn from above they cannot see the kingdom nor recognise the Spirit at work.
Despite their earnest sincerity their efforts can end in confused ideas such as trinity.
Paul and Barnabus had to correct this misconception and suffered for their words.
Hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
Hi, Ed,
So? I seem to recall I also posted something there. That’s there, this is here.
Hi Hoghead1,
Yes, this is what you posted there…
Well, Ed, have you considered any new ways of viewing God as he or she is in his or her own nature? Have you considered anything beyond the classical model of God/ Have you considered the possibility that God is a social-relational being, needs the universe, and is continually changing? Have you considered the possibility that creation is God’s own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness, personality, and self-actualization? Those are intriguing possibilities I am interested in.
Thanks for reminding me, Ed. Now what? Where do you want to go with this? Why are you bringing it up?
Hi hoghead,
Why do you feel personally attacked when your ideas are proven facile by scripture?
Perhaps your heart should not grasp so closely man’s speculations?
Dear Hoghead,
I never accused you of accusing Calvin or Augustine and it was I that brought out the fact that Augustine had to lean on modalism in his examples to support the trinity as many trins still unknowingly do today. But most trins who actually argue about this would not go so far to speak as you do which is clearly modalism.They know better.
I’ve studied and listened to debates between modalists and trinitarians. And from what you say you would clearly be on the modalist side.
Idk Calvin’s thoughts on it and don’t even care that much.I don’t worship Calvin or the bible as I know you don’t either. Scripture is not God to me.It’s all semantics and interpretation.
But do you somehow take offense at me pointing out the fact that you are a modalist and not a trinitarian? Don’t worry I won’t tell your church and I doubt they would care anyway.
Dear T8,
Don’t you think that you you are taking it a little far by saying
“The verse is simple and clear. I do not even need to explain it.
You seem to preach an opposite meaning by saying that there is one God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
A child can read it as saying, there is one God the Father, and that Jesus the messiah was sent by this God who is his Father.
Further, these words are eternal life, so not to be interpreted lightly. Eternal life is the reason salvation is offered to man.” ?
Are you intimating here that a trin cannot be currently saved? have you not have told me you were saved in a trin church and formerly believed in trinity too? and that you believe you were actually saved before you came to your current belief? oh but maybe God then excused your ignorance?
And what of your favourite modern day prophet Rick Joyner who is undoubtedly trinitarian and has had conversations with those in heaven?-some of whom were trins. Is he doomed for eternal death? Surely he should know better by now if it were so important.
Perhaps it just goes to show that God knows our true hearts and He isn’t so prejudice about our “true” doctrines.?
Hello, Andrew,
My response to your post is a big “Huh?” I’m not at all uptight abut being labeled a modalist. Never was. More than one major contemporary theologian is a modalist. Granted, some contemporary Trinitarians will get up in arms about this and shout “heresy.” Let’em. FYI: I am a member of four different churches. Quite honestly, you are right. They wouldn’t care a hoot. On the positive side, this is due to churches trying to be tolerant and flexible about doctrine. On the negative side, it is also because many churches are really interested in being more of a glorified social club or charity than a place of theological education. My church membership is contingent upon what my relationship is with that church. Membership means you can vote. If I sense I am going to be there for a long stay, might as well go ahead and join and then have a say in whatever comes along. So I am PCUSA (home church , Methodist, Salvationist, and now Unitarian. I joined teh Methodist church because the one I was affiliated with had one of the last fully functioning concert bands that played every Sunday, as well as a repertoire of about 4000 scores collected over an 80-year period. I figured that I might as well join as I am going to be there every Sunday for a long while and did until I moved elsewhere. Then, a fellow brass player, a Salvationalist, got me interested in playing the Salvation Army services every Sunday. The major asked me to join. I said I couldn’t become a member because I could not sign their temperance pledge, which I firmly do not believe in. He said it was just pro forma anyway, just go ahead and sign, so I signed and got on their membership rolls. I am now Unitarian. The local church is the most intellectual in my community. We have all sorts of lectures, classes, etc. According to the minister, I am officially their “theologian in residence,” at least for the time being. (Too bad they don’t pay.) I’ve already taught one course, and the minister and I am planning a biggy for the fall, which will cover the Trinity, classical theism, neo-classical theism, mysticism. So you probably couldn’t tell any of my churches anything they don’t already know about me. If I have a grope about the way churches have treated me because of my theology, it is simply that nobody was really interested in theology, period.
Hoghead,
I got the feeling you did not like being called a modalist in view of your sometimes staunch view of trinity,but of course not a matter of life or death.And tbh I’ve come to the point also that love and fellowship matters more than doctrine.I do pray and care no matter what. If there be a god who damns me for that then so be it then.
HI, Andrew,
I don’t think you quite get the picture. I’ll try and be clearer. Modalism is a major way of explicating the Trinity. As far as I and many other Trinitarians are concerned, it is The way. And yes, there are other Trinitarians who object to modalism. But I am prepared to deal with that.
Hi again, Andrew,
There is a great deal of truth to that concept. Too often, faith has been allowed to collapse into intellectual ascent to doctrine. God really isn’t that interested in how you live, just in what doctrines you profess. This has led to what is sometimes called Christian Imperialism, the notion that only Bible-believing Christians are saved. I operate from a much more liberal standpoint. I believe God considers it far more important how you live than what religious ideas you profess. As long as people try and do what is loving and build a more beautiful world, God is happy with them. Also, I believe universal salvation.
Hi hoghead,
Yes a belief in universal salvation would be very handy if you think God does not mind you ignoring His Word.
Hi hoghead1:
You write:
Hello, Marty,
It seems you are appealing to biblical passages that suggest subrodinationism among the Father, Son, and Spirit. As such, they do appear to contradict the Trinity; what appears to be the case is that the Son and Spirit are lesser lieutenants sent to do the Father’s bidding, the latter alone being the Boss of bosses, God, strictly speaking.
(Jesus stated in many ways that he is subordinate to the Father, he stated that his Father was greater than he (John 14:28), he stated that he was sent by the Father, that he did only what the Father showed him, and spoke what the Father commanded (John 12:43-50, John 5:19), he said that no one knows the time that he will come for the church except the Father(Matt 24:35-39), and so, based on these verses of scripture they are not co-equal, but all power over heaven and earth has been given unto him by the Father. We are subjected to the Father through him. But I am not saying that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father. The Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit, not a “Third person”. The Holy Spirit reveals the mind of God, and does not operate independently from the mind of God. (1 Co. 2:7-13)
Ephesians 4:
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Love in Christ,
MartyHi, Marty,
Yes, those biblical passages you cite do profess subrodinationism. That touches on my earlier point that the Bible is not a book of systematic metaphysics, gives but conflicting snap shots of how God is actually built. Here, Chris seems to be portrayed as one personality subordinate to the commands of the Father, who alone appears then to be the Boss of all bosses, God, strictly speaking. However, in other passages, such as the prologue to Jn., Chr9ist is identified with God, is God. The problem for the later Trinitarian formulations is how to piece these seemingly conflicting portrayals together.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
