Why I'm not a trinitarian

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
This is a fair argument on face value, but I think all of your concerns were answered in how you responded to @stiggy wiggy
I'm not sure what you mean.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Do you see the confusion you have?
I was asking what Stiggy meant by "He is one". I understand what trinitarians mean by that but not what Stiggy means by it. I've never discussed this subject with him and not every trinitarian has a full understanding of trinitarianism.

My point was the very confusion expressed in the question "meant by 'He is one'" answered your question as to why God didn't just teach the Trinity of God plainly on day one. Such a revelation requires time.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
The Trinity isn't a simplistic concept for a human to accept in a vacuum...
I agree that God kept some things secret until his incarnation and that there was a progression of revelation which was revealed in the last days by the Jesus and the apostles. I will continue to argue that the way God presented himself as one person to his chosen people, the Israelites and their fathers, was a true representation of himself, who he is. The only thing that changed upon his incarnation was that he began to exist as a man and at the same time remained as he always had been transcendent to his incarnation. I use the kenotic theory to explain it.

If "God kept some things secret until his incarnation and that there was a progression of revelation", then your overarching argument questioning why Scripture presents God as singular, allowing for the misunderstanding of unitarianism, is answered. The truth of the Trinity was something kept "secret until his incarnation" only to be revealed later upon "a progression of revelation".

Did God present
"himself as one person to his chosen people"? Or did he present himself as a singular God, and you just assumed that only one person was that singular God? BTW, your explanation that things changed upon his incarnation makes sense until one carefully studies the OT. The use of "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26, YHWH calling down fire from YHWH out of heaven in Genesis 19:24, a man, who was God, wresting with Jacob in Genesis 32:30, and the commander of the Armies of YHWH meeting with Joshua in Joshua 5:13-15 in the context of knowing "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." John 1:18 clarifies that this personal distinction existed prior to the incarnation as well. Not to mention verses like John 17:5 which teaches that Jesus shared Glory with the Father before the world was: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." You can't have "I had with you before the world existed." unless the I and the you designates two persons before the world was, while still recognizing that Jesus is God and that there is only one God.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
FYI, you really should drop the whole 300 years nonsense....
I've read some of the ECFs. I've read Against Praxeas by Tertullian a few times. He wrote it ~ 210. He was the first to coin the term, the Trinity. If you have read it, you would see that his explanation of the trinity is different than that of today in how he explains the development of the Son, the Word, and the inequality of the three persons.
I've read a book on the trinity by Roger Olson and Christopher Hall and the sections concerning the development of the Trinity in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by Moreland and Craig and discussed it for hours online. The doctrine developed slowly over time and became fully expressed at the council of Nicea in 325 AD.

You forgot about Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, his Word (Logos) and his Wisdom (Sophia)[ in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation, following the early Christian practice of identifying the Holy Spirit as the Wisdom of God. He died in 182ad. He coined the term in Greek. Are you really squabbling over 10 years with Tertullian who wrote the first defense of the doctrine of the Trinity in Latin when your still over 120 years earlier than your 300 year number? Say 200 years at least, at least then your trying to be historically honest. BTY, there is no justification for claiming the doctrine of the Trinity was "fully expressed at the council of Nicea in 325 AD." The Trinity proper wasn't even the primary topic under discussion at Nicea. They were primarily focused on Chirstology and denying the heresy of Arianism. All the arguments rejecting the various types of Oneness were hammered out over the previous 100 years. The difference at Nicea was that the bishops had political protection in 325 to meet in an "ecumenical" council. Prior to this, regional councils and written theological debate answered these concerns as evidenced by Tertullian. Also, that "He was the first to coin the term, the Trinity." in writing in Latin and that "his explanation of the trinity is different than that of today" is inconsequential to justifying when the doctrine of the Trinity was coined. It still existed in the writing of Ignatius of Antioch who refers to "all three persons around AD 110, exhorting obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit"". It still existed "towards the end of the first century, where Clement of Rome rhetorically asks in his epistle as to why corruption exists among some in the Christian community; "Do we not have one God, and one Christ, and one gracious Spirit that has been poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ?" (1 Clement 46:6)." (cf Wikipedia's essay on the Trinity).

The apostles didn't teach the doctrine of the trinity, imo. The doctrine of the trinity would have been foreign to them as Jews. If they truly thought that God was a trinity, they would have openly taught that doctrine since it would have been a new revelation given to them by Jesus or the Holy Spirit. They would have shared it with the church. A truth like that which revealed the nature of God as a trinity would have been taught more clearly. It would have been a foundational doctrine. The apostles revealed secrets that were kept hidden by God from the foundation of the world. The doctrine of the trinity was not one of them.

This is a claim easily justified or refuted by going to Scripture itself to see what it teaches. I always wonder why people think general proclamations like this are meaningful when they could just make their case Biblically. I've already presented some Biblical justification for my perspective. Until you choose to go to Scripture to justify this claim, I choose to ignore it as simply an expression of your opinion.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Likewise, if one person in the Trinity speaks,...
The scripture does not have to deny multiple persons when, in reality, there are none.

This is a declaration of your opinion. Nothing more. Again, I've already presented some Biblical justification for my perspective. Until you choose to go to Scripture to justify this claim, I choose to ignore it as simply an expression of your opinion.

God Bless
 

Andreas

Active member
You forgot about Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, his Word (Logos) and his Wisdom (Sophia)[ in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation, following the early Christian practice of identifying the Holy Spirit as the Wisdom of God. He died in 182ad. He coined the term in Greek. Are you really squabbling over 10 years with Tertullian who wrote the first defense of the doctrine of the Trinity in Latin when your still over 120 years earlier than your 300 year number? Say 200 years at least, at least then your trying to be historically honest. BTY, there is no justification for claiming the doctrine of the Trinity was "fully expressed at the council of Nicea in 325 AD." The Trinity proper wasn't even the primary topic under discussion at Nicea. They were primarily focused on Chirstology and denying the heresy of Arianism. All the arguments rejecting the various types of Oneness were hammered out over the previous 100 years. The difference at Nicea was that the bishops had political protection in 325 to meet in an "ecumenical" council. Prior to this, regional councils and written theological debate answered these concerns as evidenced by Tertullian. Also, that "He was the first to coin the term, the Trinity." in writing in Latin and that "his explanation of the trinity is different than that of today" is inconsequential to justifying when the doctrine of the Trinity was coined. It still existed in the writing of Ignatius of Antioch who refers to "all three persons around AD 110, exhorting obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit"". It still existed "towards the end of the first century, where Clement of Rome rhetorically asks in his epistle as to why corruption exists among some in the Christian community; "Do we not have one God, and one Christ, and one gracious Spirit that has been poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ?" (1 Clement 46:6)." (cf Wikipedia's essay on the Trinity).



This is a claim easily justified or refuted by going to Scripture itself to see what it teaches. I always wonder why people think general proclamations like this are meaningful when they could just make their case Biblically. I've already presented some Biblical justification for my perspective. Until you choose to go to Scripture to justify this claim, I choose to ignore it as simply an expression of your opinion.



This is a declaration of your opinion. Nothing more. Again, I've already presented some Biblical justification for my perspective. Until you choose to go to Scripture to justify this claim, I choose to ignore it as simply an expression of your opinion.

God Bless

References by the Bible and early post apostolic writers about Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are being read by you through Trinitarian lenses. Even the statement by a main Oneness organization can be twisted into a Trinity if you really want to. It reads quote,

"There is one God, who has revealed Himself as Father; through His Son, in redemption; and as the Holy Spirit, by emanation. Jesus Christ is God manifested in flesh. He is both God and man. (See Deuteronomy 6:4; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 2:9; I Timothy 3:16.)"

The major Trinitarian Creed, named the "Athanasian Creed" written sometime after 435AD is alien in its wording compared to the New Testament. Consider the time between this creed and the Apostle John's death to be about as long as it has been since the Pilgrims arrived in America! That it fulfills Paul's warning in Colossians 2:8 is not appreciated by modern Trinitarians. Here is the creed:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

To this Paul would wonder why in the world they would say all these things "for all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily".
 

Andreas

Active member
This is a fair argument on face value, but I think all of your concerns were answered in how you responded to @stiggy wiggy



Do you see the confusion you have? The Trinity isn't a simplistic concept for a human to accept in a vacuum. It requires contemplation of multiple passages to start comprehend. So, if the Trinity is true, and if it is be difficult to explain to men while minimizing the errors of Oneness, Arianism, and Polytheism, how would God reveal this reality about himself to men? He would introduce the topic in types and shadows. He would allow the ignorance of his people in the short term as he raised them up to point where they could understand the Truth of the Trinity. And with the incarnation of Christ, God fully revealed this true.

FYI, you really should drop the whole 300 years nonsense. It's historically niave at best. It has great rhetorical value, but to anyone familiar with the actual history, you couldn't sound more ignorant. The term was coined in like 170 ad in Greek and like 200 in Latin. That's 140-170 years, not 300. Not to mention all the Church fathers who taught all the tenets of Trinitarianism from the beginning of the 2nd century. Prior to that, you only have Scripture. History supports the Trinitarian narrative: The apostles taught the specifics of the Trinity without a name for said doctrine. The early Church Father's continued to teach it. After a while, while arguing with various heretics, the doctrine was named.

Likewise, if one person in the Trinity speaks, it makes perfect sense for him to refer to himself using the first person singular. It is also interesting that not a single passage in all of Scripture denies multiple persons being the one God, but Scripture does present a plethora of evidence for the Trinity as evidenced by all these discussions.

God Bless

"The Trinity isn't a simplistic concept for a human to accept in a vacuum".

That is mischaracterizing the problem. Early Trinitarians tried to expand on the NT theology by forcing the Godhead into human-like categories. This is why the term "persons" is stressed so much. It seems like everything hangs on that category term for which even Trinitarians admit is problematic. See Matt Slicks Trinitarian article as an example.

Having attempted to force Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be human-like in the "persons" category they achieved their goal of simplifying a view of God that even a little child can understand. "I know my Daddy, my Mama, and my brother... three persons. Got it". They could simultaneously, boost their ego's as "elite" because the mysterious details are left up to the big dogs. It was a clever strategy for manipulation and political control and it worked.

Superficially.

Stress on the term SUPERFICIALLY.

However, with that human term fully in hand, it became impossible to logically reconcile with the theology of the Bible. Trinitarian later attempts to bring in other terms like co-eternal, co-equal, eternally begotten, or begotten before the worlds tried to patch up the huge category error and mischaracterization that the concept of three persons in the Godhead brought. "Eternally begotten" is not even a concept but a contradiction. It is not just a hard concept for humans to accept, it is nonsense. In order for something to be a concept, it must be conceived of. Advanced Trigonometry is complex, but a hot empty cup full of ice water is nonsense.



The Trinitarian model of Three persons in the Godhead and then each manifest themselves distinctly is a problem Biblically and rationally.

The Oneness model of One God who manifests Himself distinctly but simultaneously maintains normal monotheism, while providing clear teaching on the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. There are no problems Biblical or rationally with Oneness theology if one accepts that there is one God who is truly unique and omnipotent.

The two main objections to Oneness theology is summed up as "who did Jesus pray to, Himself?" is answered by accepting that when God when manifested in the flesh, he was a genuine man and perceived and functioned as a real man. You've never told me why you don't accept this.

The second main objection is Jesus' references to his being with the Father before the world. This is answered by accepting that Jesus was not just man, but God and specifically as God expressed (the Logos) in the flesh. That the glory that was with the Father would ultimately be expressed in flesh is the Logos. We can talk about the complexities of that and maybe I can become better at understanding and explaining that concept, but it is not a contradiction.

In sum, these two areas of Oneness doctrine maybe difficult to understand but they are rational and Biblical, unlike the Trinitarian internal contractions. I see Oneness and Trinitarian theology in two categories. The first has some difficult concepts because we as humans can't relate by our experience to the experiences of the omnipotent God. The second, in a vain attempt to bring God into human philosophy, came up with an easy to understand but superficial explanation and then fails miserably both biblically and rationally. Thus, is fulfills Paul's Colossians 2:8 prophetic warning about empty philosophy, nonsense and using the fundamentals of the earthly to describe God.
 
Last edited:

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
References by the Bible and early post apostolic writers about Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are being read by you through Trinitarian lenses. Even the statement by a main Oneness organization can be twisted into a Trinity if you really want to. It reads quote,

"There is one God, who has revealed Himself as Father; through His Son, in redemption; and as the Holy Spirit, by emanation. Jesus Christ is God manifested in flesh. He is both God and man. (See Deuteronomy 6:4; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 2:9; I Timothy 3:16.)"

What are you quoting?

That being said, and you read biblical passages and early post apostolic writers through Oneness lens. The difference is how much thinker and heavily colored one's lens must be to think these statements support Oneness dogma. Justify the Didache saying "But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit." Try justifying
But the Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, and that not from himself, but from the Lord; even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received from the Father. For, says He, “the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father’s, who sent Me.” And says He of the Holy Spirit, “He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever things He shall hear from Me.” And He says of Himself to the Father, “I have,” says He, “glorified Thee upon the earth; I have finished the work which, Thou gavest Me; I have manifested Thy name to men.” And of the Holy Ghost, “He shall glorify Me, for He receives of Mine.”
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Chapter IX
When was the last time you saw a Oneness baptize in "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spiriit" while dunking three times or pouring water on the head three times? When has a Oneness speaker ever refer to the Holy Spirit as his one distinct from the Christ: "and that not from himself, but from the Lord"? So, the writer of the Didache and Ignatius writing at the turn of the 2nd century didn't believe anything close to Oneness while the same can't be said of Trinitarianism.

The major Trinitarian Creed, named the "Athanasian Creed" written sometime after 435AD is alien in its wording compared to the New Testament. Consider the time between this creed and the Apostle John's death to be about as long as it has been since the Pilgrims arrived in America! That it fulfills Paul's warning in Colossians 2:8 is not appreciated by modern Trinitarians. Here is the creed:

To this Paul would wonder why in the world they would say all these things "for all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily".

Yeah, that's a meaningful argument: Not!!! You claim the creed is alien in it's wording. And? I'm wondering what's the issue? Who seriously cares what wording is used as long as the content communicated by that wording is Biblical? In reality, heretics commonly hide behind the wording of one passage while making excuses for another. So to end this game, Christians wrote out the truth using different words that undermined how heretics twist Scripture. Now, the issues of difference are easier for all to assess. If Paul wondered why they would say all these things, one would simply point to how heretics like Oneness, Arians, Nestorians, etc twist Paul's words into error. He definitely wouldn't reject the creed given it's biblical foundation.

God Bless
 

Andreas

Active member
What are you quoting?

That being said, and you read biblical passages and early post apostolic writers through Oneness lens. The difference is how much thinker and heavily colored one's lens must be to think these statements support Oneness dogma. Justify the Didache saying "But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit." Try justifying
But the Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, and that not from himself, but from the Lord; even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received from the Father. For, says He, “the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father’s, who sent Me.” And says He of the Holy Spirit, “He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever things He shall hear from Me.” And He says of Himself to the Father, “I have,” says He, “glorified Thee upon the earth; I have finished the work which, Thou gavest Me; I have manifested Thy name to men.” And of the Holy Ghost, “He shall glorify Me, for He receives of Mine.”
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Chapter IX
When was the last time you saw a Oneness baptize in "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spiriit" while dunking three times or pouring water on the head three times? When has a Oneness speaker ever refer to the Holy Spirit as his one distinct from the Christ: "and that not from himself, but from the Lord"? So, the writer of the Didache and Ignatius writing at the turn of the 2nd century didn't believe anything close to Oneness while the same can't be said of Trinitarianism.



Yeah, that's a meaningful argument: Not!!! You claim the creed is alien in it's wording. And? I'm wondering what's the issue? Who seriously cares what wording is used as long as the content communicated by that wording is Biblical? In reality, heretics commonly hide behind the wording of one passage while making excuses for another. So to end this game, Christians wrote out the truth using different words that undermined how heretics twist Scripture. Now, the issues of difference are easier for all to assess. If Paul wondered why they would say all these things, one would simply point to how heretics like Oneness, Arians, Nestorians, etc twist Paul's words into error. He definitely wouldn't reject the creed given it's biblical foundation.

God Bless

It is commonly known that at least some texts of the Didache, if not most, were added or tweaked many centuries later. Pouring three times is so far removed from the book of Acts that it is opposite sides of the world. That must have come much later because it defies the entire meaning of baptizo (immerse, dip) and buried with Christ (Romans 6). Totally nuts. It's like telling someone to go swimming and hand them a spray bottle. Nuts.

I'm holding the letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians in my hands. What are you quoting exactly?

You can quote Jesus about the Holy Spirit in John, but then it's not right to ignore the rest of the Bible. Trinitarians ripped the words of Jesus out of context and applied their narrative to it. What about the references that Jesus said, He would be in them? What about Romans 8 and the Holy Spirit equated with Christ? I don't think those passages should be chucked out. Jesus is speaking as a genuine man and he told them he would not leave them as orphans (or comfortless) but would manifest himself by abiding in them. That the Holy Spirit is Christ coming in the form of God as Spirit and not man is the Oneness explanation. The Trinitarian explanation? Sometimes Spirit means Holy Spirit and other times not and there that Christ abides in the believer is not within the Trinitarian toolkit to even begin to explain coherently.

The creed itself says to believe the words or go to hell. You say to say the words that the Apostles didn't use or you're a heretic. You're playing passive aggressive.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
It is commonly known that at least some texts of the Didache, if not most, were added or tweaked many centuries later. Pouring three times is so far removed from the book of Acts that it is opposite sides of the world. That must have come much later because it defies the entire meaning of baptizo (immerse, dip) and buried with Christ (Romans 6). Totally nuts. It's like telling someone to go swimming and hand them a spray bottle. Nuts.

Interesting response. Instead of interacting with the more devastating text, attack the other by questioning its authenticity by asserting without evidence that it has been altered. That's called speculation. You say "It is commonly known", but this claim can't even be easily verified by a google search. It might be "commonly known" by Oneness preachers who are expressing their skepticism, but if your going to make a claim like this, then it should be easily verified online or justified with something more than a claim.

Have you read the chapter in the Didache on baptism? It states "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither..." That's were the previous quotation starts off. This is not a condemnation of baptism in
water, but an instruction of what to do when there is not enough water for full immersion. The point is that Christians in the early 2nd century were using the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19-20 in stylized Trinitarian ways. They could have been wrong, aka. "opposite sides of the world", from the Biblical mandate, as you see it, but either way, it shows that Trinitarian thought existed that early, not just three hundred years after the start of Christianity. And if you haven't noticed, I'm not arguing that the Trinity must be true because of the teachings of the Didache; I'm arguing that the claim that the Trinity was created 300 years after the fact is factually inaccurate. That narrative is false, and you should update your rhetorical arsenal.

I'm holding the letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians in my hands. What are you quoting exactly?

It's the longer version. Here is a link:

You can quote Jesus about the Holy Spirit in John, but then it's not right to ignore the rest of the Bible. Trinitarians ripped the words of Jesus out of context and applied their narrative to it. What about the references that Jesus said, He would be in them? What about Romans 8 and the Holy Spirit equated with Christ? I don't think those passages should be chucked out. Jesus is speaking as a genuine man and he told them he would not leave them as orphans (or comfortless) but would manifest himself by abiding in them. That the Holy Spirit is Christ coming in the form of God as Spirit and not man is the Oneness explanation. The Trinitarian explanation? Sometimes Spirit means Holy Spirit and other times not and there that Christ abides in the believer is not within the Trinitarian toolkit to even begin to explain coherently.

"it's not right to ignore the rest of the Bible"-Correct, but I'm not ignoring the rest of the Bible while Oneness believers continually ignore John 14:16-17, 26 and 17:5. The sword cuts both ways. The accusation "Trinitarians ripped the words of Jesus out of context" can be flipped on its head accusing Oneness of the same. You need to do more than make accusations. Wouldn't it have been more rhetorically powerful to ask your questions first as grounding for why you see Trinitarians as taking Jesus' words out of context? It was refreshing to hear you ask "What about the references that Jesus said, He would be in them?" So, I'll answer your questions even though this is not the original topic of discussion:

What about the references that Jesus said, He would be in them?


Trinitarians believe Jesus is still with us. The Spirit indwells us and is active in us. The Father and the Son are in us also being that they are the same God. That doesn't mean we simply ignore the clear distinction made in John 14:16-17 between the Father, Son and Spirit because v18 can be read to say Jesus is the person who is indwelling us, even though it doesn't say this directly. Like normally, we believe both/and while Oneness and others assert an either/or mentality. But the worse part is that Oneness don't even attempt to dig into John 14:16-17 at all. If Jesus is this Comforter, then who is the other one? Because John 14:16 clearly uses the term "another" implying two Comforters.

What about Romans 8 and the Holy Spirit equated with Christ?

Is the Holy Spirit equated with Christ, or is the Spirit that indwells us equally shared by the Father, Son and Spirit? In fact, Romans 8:11 states "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you." Paul clearly present a personal distinction between the him who raised Jesus, Jesus, and "his Spirit whom" in this passage after the incarnation. Not only that, Romans 8:9 names this same Spirit as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. How can recognizing that this Spirit is owned by all three members of the Trinity be equated with "chucked out" Romans 8? Claim we are misunderstanding it if you must, but we are clearly not chucking out any part of Scripture unlike how Oneness ignore the word "another" in John 14:16.

Note, we do not chuck these verses out. These are very dear passages to us that we study with just as much vigor as everything else in Scripture. We are very familiar with both passages and look to them regularly to encourage us all the more in our walks with Christ.


The creed itself says to believe the words or go to hell. You say to say the words that the Apostles didn't use or you're a heretic. You're playing passive aggressive.

Yes, the creed itself says to believe the words or go to hell, but I do not say "say the words that the Apostles didn't use or you're a heretic." I am not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Unlike Catholics, I don't believe this creed has the authority of Scripture. These words are only as binding as they comport with Scripture. I believe a young, true believer can be confused and hold to a Oneness position for a time. I've even interacted with such who instantly changed their mind upon reading more Scripture. However, a Christian, when he hears the words of his Shepard, will follow. They won't ignore v16 in light of reading v18 in a particular way. For this sin, you need to repent.

God Bless
 

Andreas

Active member
Interesting response. Instead of interacting with the more devastating text, attack the other by questioning its authenticity by asserting without evidence that it has been altered. That's called speculation. You say "It is commonly known", but this claim can't even be easily verified by a google search. It might be "commonly known" by Oneness preachers who are expressing their skepticism, but if your going to make a claim like this, then it should be easily verified online or justified with something more than a claim.

Have you read the chapter in the Didache on baptism? It states "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither..." That's were the previous quotation starts off. This is not a condemnation of baptism in
water, but an instruction of what to do when there is not enough water for full immersion. The point is that Christians in the early 2nd century were using the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19-20 in stylized Trinitarian ways. They could have been wrong, aka. "opposite sides of the world", from the Biblical mandate, as you see it, but either way, it shows that Trinitarian thought existed that early, not just three hundred years after the start of Christianity. And if you haven't noticed, I'm not arguing that the Trinity must be true because of the teachings of the Didache; I'm arguing that the claim that the Trinity was created 300 years after the fact is factually inaccurate. That narrative is false, and you should update your rhetorical arsenal.



It's the longer version. Here is a link:



"it's not right to ignore the rest of the Bible"-Correct, but I'm not ignoring the rest of the Bible while Oneness believers continually ignore John 14:16-17, 26 and 17:5. The sword cuts both ways. The accusation "Trinitarians ripped the words of Jesus out of context" can be flipped on its head accusing Oneness of the same. You need to do more than make accusations. Wouldn't it have been more rhetorically powerful to ask your questions first as grounding for why you see Trinitarians as taking Jesus' words out of context? It was refreshing to hear you ask "What about the references that Jesus said, He would be in them?" So, I'll answer your questions even though this is not the original topic of discussion:

What about the references that Jesus said, He would be in them?

Trinitarians believe Jesus is still with us. The Spirit indwells us and is active in us. The Father and the Son are in us also being that they are the same God. That doesn't mean we simply ignore the clear distinction made in John 14:16-17 between the Father, Son and Spirit because v18 can be read to say Jesus is the person who is indwelling us, even though it doesn't say this directly. Like normally, we believe both/and while Oneness and others assert an either/or mentality. But the worse part is that Oneness don't even attempt to dig into John 14:16-17 at all. If Jesus is this Comforter, then who is the other one? Because John 14:16 clearly uses the term "another" implying two Comforters.


What about Romans 8 and the Holy Spirit equated with Christ?

Is the Holy Spirit equated with Christ, or is the Spirit that indwells us equally shared by the Father, Son and Spirit? In fact, Romans 8:11 states "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you." Paul clearly present a personal distinction between the him who raised Jesus, Jesus, and "his Spirit whom" in this passage after the incarnation. Not only that, Romans 8:9 names this same Spirit as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. How can recognizing that this Spirit is owned by all three members of the Trinity be equated with "chucked out" Romans 8? Claim we are misunderstanding it if you must, but we are clearly not chucking out any part of Scripture unlike how Oneness ignore the word "another" in John 14:16.

Note, we do not chuck these verses out. These are very dear passages to us that we study with just as much vigor as everything else in Scripture. We are very familiar with both passages and look to them regularly to encourage us all the more in our walks with Christ.



Yes, the creed itself says to believe the words or go to hell, but I do not say
"say the words that the Apostles didn't use or you're a heretic." I am not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Unlike Catholics, I don't believe this creed has the authority of Scripture. These words are only as binding as they comport with Scripture. I believe a young, true believer can be confused and hold to a Oneness position for a time. I've even interacted with such who instantly changed their mind upon reading more Scripture. However, a Christian, when he hears the words of his Shepard, will follow. They won't ignore v16 in light of reading v18 in a particular way. For this sin, you need to repent.

God Bless

You're grasping for thin air when you say, "Trinitarian thought existed that early". You've got the earliest around 180 AD, Greek Theophilus of Antioch writing "God's creations on the first three days--light, sky, and vegetation--] are types of the triad, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth [day, the creation of the moon and stars,] is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man."

Doesn't sound anything like your "Trinity".


Then Tertullian in Latin tires to bring in the new term Trinitas, but what he describes of God is not equal to what you say, and he is after 200 AD.

You cling to terms like "Trinity" and "persons" and they weren't even used by the apostles and those that wrote the Bible under inspiration. You are promoting extra-biblical revelation under the authority of third and forth century orthodoxy.

The Didache was lost for a long time and its history is sketchy. The earliest manuscript is not in the same era as the NT. Compare baptism in the NT and how it was performed in Acts with the Didache is like men from Mars. From what I know of it, it is probably a compilation of some 1st/2nd century things but then tweaked and edited over many centuries.

It is interesting how you promote baptism from the Didache because it agrees with your narrative in some ways, but then you completely ignore the rich history of baptism in the book of Acts.

A great example of how the Trinity literally falls apart around the Spirit and the abiding Christ is this whopper from you:

" Spirit is owned by all three members of the Trinity"

I don't have time right now to deal with that abomination of concept. Nuts.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
You're grasping for thin air when you say, "Trinitarian thought existed that early". You've got the earliest around 180 AD, Greek Theophilus of Antioch writing "God's creations on the first three days--light, sky, and vegetation--] are types of the triad, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth [day, the creation of the moon and stars,] is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man."
Doesn't sound anything like your "Trinity".

Do you like telling yourself these narratives? I'm presenting evidence that "Trinitarian thought existed that early", while you present a response devoid of any historical evidence. I got the earliest coining of the term trinity in Greek by Theophilus of Antioch, but Trinitarian thought clearly existed in the quotation of Ignatius which you conveniently ignored in this response. How deceptive is it to choose a translation that downplays what Theophilus said? That term "triad" is the Greek word for Trinity. The exact same word translated Trinity in the creed you quoted. How Trinitarian does it sound when we correct the translation: "God's creations on the first three days--light, sky, and vegetation--] are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth [day, the creation of the moon and stars,] is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man." Wow, it sounds exactly like my Trinity.

Then Tertullian in Latin tires to bring in the new term Trinitas, but what he describes of God is not equal to what you say, and he is after 200 AD.

And, there is another claim unjustified by anything: "what he describes of God is not equal to what you say". Is your entire faith based upon such unsubstantiated assertions? Why don't you actually justify your claims instead of writing pretty stories to indoctrinate Oneness believers?

You cling to terms like "Trinity" and "persons" and they weren't even used by the apostles and those that wrote the Bible under inspiration. You are promoting extra-biblical revelation under the authority of third and forth century orthodoxy.

Yeah, we coin terms to clarify theological discussion and somehow that's wrong while it's okay for you ignore whole passages of Scripture. I presented evidence, both biblical and historical, and this is how you respond? Shame on you.

Last time, I answered your questions like this:

What about the references that Jesus said, He would be in them?

Trinitarians believe Jesus is still with us. The Spirit indwells us and is active in us. The Father and the Son are in us also being that they are the same God. That doesn't mean we simply ignore the clear distinction made in John 14:16-17 between the Father, Son and Spirit because v18 can be read to say Jesus is the person who is indwelling us, even though it doesn't say this directly. Like normally, we believe both/and while Oneness and others assert an either/or mentality. But the worse part is that Oneness don't even attempt to dig into John 14:16-17 at all. If Jesus is this Comforter, then who is the other one? Because John 14:16 clearly uses the term "another"implying two Comforters.

What about Romans 8 and the Holy Spirit equated with Christ?

Is the Holy Spirit equated with Christ, or is the Spirit that indwells us equally shared by the Father, Son and Spirit? In fact, Romans 8:11 states "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you." Paul clearly present a personal distinction between the him who raised Jesus, Jesus, and "his Spirit whom" in this passage after the incarnation. Not only that, Romans 8:9 names this same Spirit as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. How can recognizing that this Spirit is owned by all three members of the Trinity be equated with "chucked out" Romans 8? Claim we are misunderstanding it if you must, but we are clearly not chucking out any part of Scripture unlike how Oneness ignore the word "another" in John 14:16.

For one who claims to use the apostles, why don't you? Oh yeah, you don't have a response outside of painting a narrative of superiority. Go to the text to prove me wrong, or stop claiming apostolic authority because this game your playing is insulting to the name Christian.

The Didache was lost for a long time and its history is sketchy. The earliest manuscript is not in the same era as the NT. Compare baptism in the NT and how it was performed in Acts with the Didache is like men from Mars. From what I know of it, it is probably a compilation of some 1st/2nd century things but then tweaked and edited over many centuries.

I don't even think you took two seconds to consider what I said last time before replying. The empty sckeptism expressed above isn't worth two cents.

It is interesting how you promote baptism from the Didache because it agrees with your narrative in some ways, but then you completely ignore the rich history of baptism in the book of Acts.

Did I say I "promote baptism from the Didache", or are you putting words in my mouth? Just because you leaped onto an antibibical interpretation of four—that's it, four—passages doesn't imply I ignore baptism in the book of Acts. More empty rhetoric that is the bedrock of Oneness apologetics. I promote baptizing as Jesus instructed in Matthew 28:19-20, and I see baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as baptizing in the name of Jesus. Maybe, just maybe, you can learn to actually argue against my actual position as opposed to playing this narrative game.

A great example of how the Trinity literally falls apart around the Spirit and the abiding Christ is this whopper from you:
" Spirit is owned by all three members of the Trinity"
I don't have time right now to deal with that abomination of concept. Nuts.

Yep, you can't handle the Truth; you can't deal with our actual position; so, you play these games and run away like all those who reject the Truth of Scripture.

God Bless
 

Andreas

Active member
A great example of how the Trinity literally falls apart around the Spirit and the abiding Christ is this whopper from you:
" Spirit is owned by all three members of the Trinity"
I don't have time right now to deal with that abomination of concept. Nuts.

GoGB said, "Yep, you can't handle the Truth; you can't deal with our actual position; so, you play these games and run away like all those who reject the Truth of Scripture."

That you said, "Spirit is owned by all three members of the Trinity" and then didn't see the huge theological error is remarkable. This needs to be its own topic thread and I will open it.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Genesis 1:26

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

And yes, most of the time He expressed Himself in the first person singular. That is because He is One.



John 1:1 "I the beginning he Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God."

There is no way that can be read without evoking two Persons. How can one be with his identical self? The Word (Logos) is Christ Himself, the full expression of God the Father. Scripture teaches the reality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. A belief in the Trinity is not a belief in their identity, but rather in the divinity of the three Persons. True, the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but neither is the word "rapture," but the content of both are taught. As far as Jesus not teaching the CONCEPT of the Trinity to His disciples, He did tell them that when they had seen Him they had seen the Father, yet that obviously was not tantamount to saying He and the Father were indistinguishable, but rather that they were both divine.

Paul's epistle's have invocations for his readers to pray to both the Father and Jesus. Surely you don't think he was encouraging believers to pray to someone other than God.

Who then is the I, ME, MYSELF of the OT Scriptures?
 
Top