Trinitarians are NEVER confused by the doctrine of The Trinity.

Yahchristian

Well-known member
Trinitarians are NEVER confused by the doctrine of The Trinity.

Well the doctrine of the Trinity says...
Catholic Catechism 462 said:
"What he was, he remained and what he was not, he assumed"

Whereas a confused Trinitarian might say...
Jesus WAS in the form of God BEFORE He became a man, NOT after.

I am curious what the rest of the TRINITARIANS on this forum believe...

1) Do you agree with this statement?
“Jesus WAS in the form of God BEFORE He became a man, NOT after.“

2) Or, do you agree with this statement?
“Jesus WAS in the form of God BEFORE He ALSO became a man, AND after.”

3) In other words, do you agree with this statement?
“The second Person of the Trinity was also in the form of God in AD 20.”
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
I'd never say Trinitarianism is not confusing, but it's no less confusing than Modalism is.

It's the Bible that is a complicated description of three interacting personalities all with divine attributes, not Trinitarians or Modalists.

So stop demonizing Trinitarians please, it's hypocritical.

I agree more with #1 being a Semi-Kenoticist, however I'm probably not mainstream on that. I think Jesus retained his form of God in some fundamental aspects, and voluntarily did not use them other aspects, which is a real ontological change.
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
I agree more with #1 being a Semi-Kenoticist, however I'm probably not mainstream on that.

I agree the statement by @johnny guitar is not mainstream.

But doesn’t that mean the mainstream Trinitarian scholars would say you are both confused?

Welcome to the club. They would say I am confused as well. 😁

But the point of this thread is to disprove Johnny’s claim that Trinitarians are NEVER confused by the doctrine of The Trinity.

I mean seriously, half of those trying to defend the doctrine of the Trinity believe there is subordination in the Trinity and the other half say there isn’t. I am sure each half says the other half is confused.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
I mean seriously, half of those trying to defend the doctrine of the Trinity believe there is subordination in the Trinity and the other half say there isn’t. I am sure each half says the other half is confused.

Modalists don't all agree either, Unitarians don't all agree either.

Stop acting like it's something uniquely Trinitarian please...
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
Modalists don't all agree either, Unitarians don't all agree either.

Stop acting like it's something uniquely Trinitarian please...

I agree.

But TRINITARIANS are the only ones who claim to believe the one orthodox view.

The Athanasian Creed (and some on this forum) go so far as to say you are not saved if you don’t agree with their view.
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
Nope, you're (still) the only one confused)

So if you are not confused, then you should be able to answer the questions... 😁

1) Do you agree with this statement?
“Jesus WAS in the form of God BEFORE He became a man, NOT after.“

2) Or, do you agree with this statement?
“Jesus WAS in the form of God BEFORE He ALSO became a man, AND after.”

3) In other words, do you agree with this statement?
“The second Person of the Trinity was also in the form of God in AD 20.”
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Well the doctrine of the Trinity says...


Whereas a confused Trinitarian might say...


I am curious what the rest of the TRINITARIANS on this forum believe...

1) Do you agree with this statement?
“Jesus WAS in the form of God BEFORE He became a man, NOT after.“

2) Or, do you agree with this statement?
“Jesus WAS in the form of God BEFORE He ALSO became a man, AND after.”

3) In other words, do you agree with this statement?
“The second Person of the Trinity was also in the form of God in AD 20.”
1) ONLY is correct.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
I agree the statement by @johnny guitar is not mainstream.

But doesn’t that mean the mainstream Trinitarian scholars would say you are both confused?

Welcome to the club. They would say I am confused as well. 😁

But the point of this thread is to disprove Johnny’s claim that Trinitarians are NEVER confused by the doctrine of The Trinity.

I mean seriously, half of those trying to defend the doctrine of the Trinity believe there is subordination in the Trinity and the other half say there isn’t. I am sure each half says the other half is confused.
No one fully comprehends The Trinity.
You are confusing comprehension with confusion, which is a fallacy.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
So if you are not confused, then you should be able to answer the questions... 😁

1) Do you agree with this statement?
“Jesus WAS in the form of God BEFORE He became a man, NOT after.“
This is your false view.
2) Or, do you agree with this statement?
“Jesus WAS in the form of God BEFORE He ALSO became a man, AND after.”
....and still is.
3) In other words, do you agree with this statement?
“The second Person of the Trinity was also in the form of God in AD 20.”
True statement.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
I agree more with #1 being a Semi-Kenoticist, however I'm probably not mainstream on that. I think Jesus retained his form of God in some fundamental aspects, and voluntarily did not use them other aspects, which is a real ontological change.
Would you explain what you mean by 1?

“Jesus WAS in the form of God BEFORE He became a man, NOT after.“

What is the form of God?
Why is Jesus no longer in the form of God after he became a man?
What is the real ontological change?
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
I'd never say Trinitarianism is not confusing, but it's no less confusing than Modalism is.
I agree.
It's the Bible that is a complicated description of three interacting personalities all with divine attributes, not Trinitarians or Modalists.
We are just trying to explain what we read and how it best fits together.

Here's an attempt to explain why Trinitarians and Oneness (modalist) differ.

 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Would you explain what you mean by 1?

“Jesus WAS in the form of God BEFORE He became a man, NOT after.“

What is the form of God?
Why is Jesus no longer in the form of God after he became a man?
What is the real ontological change?

Because the Bible says Jesus came down from heaven.
Because the Bible says Jesus became flesh.
Because the Bible says Jesus became poor.
Because the Bible says Jesus emptied himself.
Because the Bible says Jesus shared, past tense, glory with the Father.
And many, many more descriptions of change.

And on and on.... now what people do who say Jesus retained ALL of his divine attributes and merely ADDED (not subtracted—that's important), a NON-PERSONAL human nature ASSOCIATED with his divine person that thereby "counted" as an incarnation, what they do is say that all the above don't really mean what they say in any sense that correlates to our normal understanding of the terms—Jesus did not "leave" anything, he did not "become" anything, he did not "empty" anything, he did not have a past tense "sharing" of anything, because if Jesus has the entire Divine Nature along with the incarnation, Jesus is not poor, Jesus is in no sense empty, Jesus is currently fully sharing all glory, Jesus is currently entirely in heaven, Jesus did not "give up" anything whatsoever, Jesus just had a human nature "tacked on" and "associated" with him.

If I believe the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, I can't then deny the Word is the real Person of Christ and had no actual change to his Person. What that change is, is granted to be the most mysterious thing in all of existence—but the Divine Nature of Christ must have been in some way altered (without being eliminated, he is still God), for him to have a legitimate human experience.

Peace.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Because the Bible says Jesus came down from heaven.
Because the Bible says Jesus became flesh.
Because the Bible says Jesus became poor.
Because the Bible says Jesus emptied himself.
Because the Bible says Jesus shared, past tense, glory with the Father.
And many, many more descriptions of change.
So some of the things Jesus had before he became man, he no longer had after he was a man.

Does that mean that Jesus wasn't transcendent to his incarnation?
And on and on.... now what people do who say Jesus retained ALL of his divine attributes and merely ADDED (not subtracted—that's important), a NON-PERSONAL human nature ASSOCIATED with his divine person that thereby "counted" as an incarnation, what they do is say that all the above don't really mean what they say in any sense that correlates to our normal understanding of the terms—Jesus did not "leave" anything, he did not "become" anything, he did not "empty" anything, he did not have a past tense "sharing" of anything, because if Jesus has the entire Divine Nature along with the incarnation, Jesus is not poor, Jesus is in no sense empty, Jesus is currently fully sharing all glory, Jesus is currently entirely in heaven, Jesus did not "give up" anything whatsoever, Jesus just had a human nature "tacked on" and "associated" with him.
I agree, fully. :)

Jesus would be living a contradictory existence if the hypostatic union was true.
He would have glory and be praying for that same glory that he once had at the same time
He would know all things and not know all things at the same time.
He could give wisdom and grow in wisdom (lack wisdom) at the same time.
If I believe the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, I can't then deny the Word is the real Person of Christ and had no actual change to his Person. What that change is, is granted to be the most mysterious thing in all of existence—but the Divine Nature of Christ must have been in some way altered (without being eliminated, he is still God), for him to have a legitimate human experience.
I agree.

I likely take the kenosis a bit further than you do. I would whatever it means to be human is what Jesus became otherwise he would not be human.

For a trinitarian the kenotic explanation destroys the trinity. It fractures the perichoretic unity that the 3 persons enjoy in each other's presence.
For a Oneness (Modalist) the kenotic explanation seems to divide God into two.

But the result of God truly existing as a human without his supernatural powers is much more satisfying in allowing us to identify with him. It also represents the Jesus we read about in the Gospel stories more accurately in my opinion.

Heb 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. NIV
 
Top