-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Christ is not "made" Lord and Christ. He IS Lord and Christ. God didn't make Him that. He is that. Christ is "begotten, not made (created)", according to the Nicene Creed. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
And I didn't even hint He was created. You constantly ignore my extensive affirmations.
S
Mommy said trinity so there is a trinity........BUT AS FOR ME AND MY HOUSE WE SHALL SERVE THE ONE TRUE GOD....HIS NAME IS JESUS !!
I will follow GOD'S WORD and there is no trinty anywhere in it!!!
I will follow GOD'S WORD and there is no trinty anywhere in it!!!
PS Yes, The One True God is Jesus. Jesus is the second Person of the Holy Trinity: God is the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
S
Scott... You might want to put aside the avalanche of publications for Orthodox indoctrination and read Acts 2:36. Have you never read Acts 2:36?
And I didn't even hint He was created. You constantly ignore my extensive affirmations.
And I didn't even hint He was created. You constantly ignore my extensive affirmations.
Okay. So it does say made. But that wasn't my point. Christ is Lord. What this means is that God caused Christ. That is Orthodox doctrine. The cause of the Son and the Spirit is the Father. They exist because the Father exists. But they always existed. They are not made. So my point is correct. Acts 2:36 does not teach there was a time when Christ was not the Lord, but the Father had to make Him Lord and Christ before He became Christ. He was always Christ. You believe this, yes. That is not what Acts 2:36 is saying. It means Christ is eternally begotten of the Father before all the ages. Take care.
Okay. So it does say made. But that wasn't my point. Christ is Lord. What this means is that God caused Christ. That is Orthodox doctrine. The cause of the Son and the Spirit is the Father. They exist because the Father exists. But they always existed. They are not made. So my point is correct. Acts 2:36 does not teach there was a time when Christ was not the Lord, but the Father had to make Him Lord and Christ before He became Christ. He was always Christ. You believe this, yes. That is not what Acts 2:36 is saying. It means Christ is eternally begotten of the Father before all the ages. Take care.
Your inference is not my implication. Just like Trinity inference is not Scriptural implication.
S
Where in the Bible does the terms "God the son and God the spirit ever used? NEVER ....THIS IS ANOTHER MADE UP TERM OF SATAT AND THE TRINITARIANS....!! Also in Matt.28:19 the Word says to baptize in the NAME (SINGULAR) OF THESE 3 TITLES..... LOOK AT IS. 9:6
If you deny the term persons, you would also have to deny the term titles. As it is, persons is in sacred tradition. Titles is not in sacred tradition. We need sacred tradition in order to properly interpret Scripture. Scripture alone does not interpret itself; it comes down to us through the oral and written traditions of the apostles of the OC. Take care.
S
I've never said differently, and wasn't addressing you when I said it. You took occasion to misunderstand and pounce, in spite of my consistence and extensive affirmations.
Your inference is not my implication. Just like Trinity inference is not Scriptural implication.
Your inference is not my implication. Just like Trinity inference is not Scriptural implication.
You still haven't said what the Father is what the Son is what the Spirit. You say they are God. Good! Great! So do I. So does the OC. But the Church says persons. Why can't you say these are persons?
What oral or written tradition from the first 400 years of Christian history will you use to find your view, which denies personhood or personality for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? You just delay giving an answer: that is odd. Maybe you just don't know what you are trying to say. Or maybe you just don't have a valid substitute for the perfectly acceptable word (term) persons. Take care.
You still haven't said what the Father is what the Son is what the Spirit. You say they are God. Good! Great! So do I. So does the OC. But the Church says persons. Why can't you say these are persons?
What oral or written tradition from the first 400 years of Christian history will you use to find your view, which denies personhood or personality for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? You just delay giving an answer: that is odd. Maybe you just don't know what you are trying to say. Or maybe you just don't have a valid substitute for the perfectly acceptable word (term) persons. Take care.
S
Persons IS the substitute. I had fully intended to disclose the truth, but haven't felt the freedom to do so. When determining guidelines for God's attributes, a now-rescinded tenet that intended to guard against Triadism obscurred the truth from ever being considered. Once formulated, orthodox doctrine never looked back to consider anything but it's neo-Platonic roots and Stoic influences of God as three eternally-distinct persons. Though the Church has anathematized every other formulation known to man, this truth was not addressed. The thorough exegesis itself is virtually irrefutable; but, of course, that doesn't matter to those who are indoctrinated.
S
[quote=PneumaPsucheSoma;397745]God's OWN Spirit! Not a 3rd "person". (But you knew that.)[/quote]
We're still waiting for you to find one of the writings of one early Christian who denied the term "persons". Which Church father spoke against it? But, what is keeping you from being free to share "the truth"? If denying "persons" is "the truth", you should have written tradition from the 1st century. What did the first commentators say on this? But oh, you say "the oral tradition is lost". Well, if it's lost, then you do not know that they didn't believe in persons, do you? We did find out from your research (thank you! God bless you!) that some of the ANF used the terms Trinity and persons. Good! That means it's part of Christ's Church to believe in Trinity and persons. It's not with the Church to deny the use of these words. Take care.
We're still waiting for you to find one of the writings of one early Christian who denied the term "persons". Which Church father spoke against it? But, what is keeping you from being free to share "the truth"? If denying "persons" is "the truth", you should have written tradition from the 1st century. What did the first commentators say on this? But oh, you say "the oral tradition is lost". Well, if it's lost, then you do not know that they didn't believe in persons, do you? We did find out from your research (thank you! God bless you!) that some of the ANF used the terms Trinity and persons. Good! That means it's part of Christ's Church to believe in Trinity and persons. It's not with the Church to deny the use of these words. Take care.
So you acknowledge the word "Church".
Yes, but I don't employ its use in the restrictive, elitist manner you do as pertaining to the GOC/EOC; and being some separate entity from saints at large.
What do you think happened to the Church of Matthew 16:18? Did it fall into error?
If you are correcting the word persons by your doctrine, you will have to believe there was no true Church on earth for thousands of years.
And for approximately 2000 years, the Church has used the word "persons" in reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Church hides nothing.
If you have a truth that comes from God, why don't you feel you have the freedom to reveal it? That doesn't sound quite right here. The Gospel is not hidden. It is available to anyone, anyone who seeks God will find Him, if that anyone receives grace from God in Christ.
Prove Trinity persons isn't creedal instead of Scriptural; build your case from the Word, and without whining that I'm Sola Scriptura. You present a thorough exegetic apology for Trinity, and I will gladly rebut with mine. Orthodoxy should go first since it's so "substantial". Tell HOW the HS proceedeth from the Father, not just THAT He does so. Same for sent. Same for the Word becoming flesh. Tell HOW Jesus proceeded*forth and came. Bring friends, even.
You hesitate to share what you think is the truth because you don't have a better word than "persons" to share with us here in this forum.
Christ has called us to freedom, not hesitation.
I'm not trying to "indoctrinate" anyone, in your sense of preaching error. See how you misuse words to slander the teachings of the Church.
You say you know what the ANF taught re: persons, but you don't explain what you think was the real Church in that era. Who rejected the term persons, and what true teacher from the first 200 years AD will you use to support your rejection of the word persons? Where is your source in early Christian history for your teaching
The hinge-point is ekporeuomai in John 15:26. That should say something to you.
S
Yes, but I don't employ its use in the restrictive, elitist manner you do as pertaining to the GOC/EOC; and being some separate entity from saints at large.
During its early growth, it reached a diluted compromise of Godhead doctrine while trying to fit God to a pre-conceived formula by deduction. If you had any knowledge of Nicea whatsoever, you'd know it was a process of deductive reasoning while opposing Arianism and others. We have inherited this incomplete formulation. The powerful, sharp, two-edged sword of the word (spoken by the Word Incarnate) wasn't used to delineate F-S-HS. THE word was supplanted by A word... person(s); thus making God three centers of sentient consciousnesses, when God only has one mind-will.
During its early growth, it reached a diluted compromise of Godhead doctrine while trying to fit God to a pre-conceived formula by deduction. If you had any knowledge of Nicea whatsoever, you'd know it was a process of deductive reasoning while opposing Arianism and others. We have inherited this incomplete formulation. The powerful, sharp, two-edged sword of the word (spoken by the Word Incarnate) wasn't used to delineate F-S-HS. THE word was supplanted by A word... person(s); thus making God three centers of sentient consciousnesses, when God only has one mind-will.
Nonsense. False dichotomy. The Church isn't limited to the GOC and scattered individuals. The Church is those betrothed to Jesus by faith.
Everyone who has challenged it has been anathematized. Your disdain for modern Oneness reaffirms this. And it's been 1800 years. That first 200 is minimized and glossed over, which you will continue to do as your fallacious "Apostolic Trinity bridge".
Everyone here has already "received" something they adamantly believe, and few have ears to hear. There are teenagers adamantly declaring doctrine they can't back up; and there are more goofy beliefs here than I've seen before in any one place. You sure aren't looking any deeper, and all you do is tout orthodox doctrine without exegesis or apologetic. My extensive affirmations list and disaffirmations should build credibility; as should my brief exegesis of John 15:26 against Filioque error.
Prove Trinity persons isn't creedal instead of Scriptural; build your case from the Word, and without whining that I'm Sola Scriptura. You present a thorough exegetic apology for Trinity, and I will gladly rebut with mine. Orthodoxy should go first since it's so "substantial". Tell HOW the HS proceedeth from the Father, not just THAT He does so. Same for sent. Same for the Word becoming flesh. Tell HOW Jesus proceeded*forth and came. Bring friends, even.
FALSE DICHOTOMY. THE CREED OF 381 AD IS SCRIPTURAL. IN ERIE PA SCOTT R. HARRINGTON
A word doesn't replace "persons", "persons" was a substitute for the truth because they didn't find it in Isaiah, Matthew, 2Peter, John, 1John, Hebrews, 1Thessalonians, Colossians, Philippians, Revelation, and Acts. Tell me... how did the Holy Spirit appear at Pentecost to be received?
YOU SAY YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN "SOLA SCRIPTURA", BUT YOU INSIST ON APPEALING TO THE SCRIPTURA ALONE. SAME DIFFERENCE. YOU HAVEN'T PRODUCED ONE SCRIPTURE THAT TEACHES "BY SCRIPTURE ALONE".
Christ has called us to obedience and love and faith with good works. I'm not hesitating; I'm waiting for the sound of the going in the mulberries.
SAY WHAT? "HERE WE GO AROUND THE MULLBERRY BUSH", SO EARLY IN THE MORNING?
CONFUSED THINKING HERE. SORRY! I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR OBJECTIONS TO TRINITY. YOU'RE SOUNDING IRRATIONAL TO ME.
I slander no one. I challenge incomplete truth and default indoctrination of assent by affiliation.
You continue to miss the entire point. The early fathers [I[overlooked[/i] the truth; I never said it was malicious. The remainder was predominantly fine. I've read of many who considered the truth through the centuries, but none could tie it together, and nobody wanted to challenge orthodoxy; so... it remained an undeveloped possibility.
The hinge-point is ekporeuomai in John 15:26. That should say something to you.
JOHN 15:26 does teach me something. The OC teaches this verse, and shows me they go by the true Gospel of God in Christ, in rejecting the Filioque and in accepting the Trinity (persons) teaching.
That is where you make an error. You say the arly fathers overlooked the truth. Not at all! The early fathers didn't overlook the truth. They taught the same faith the apostles taught. You say you have knowledge of the truth, but you don't feel free to disclose what it is. You offer nothing that is better than the term "persons". And you refer to the Scriptures not saying the word "persons", but protest that you are not "sola Scriptura". You seem double-minded on this. You insist on NT exegesis before you will use the term persons. Again, you don't feel free to say what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19 if they are not persons? As for John 15:26, to understand why the Filioque is wrong, this has been explained already by the Church. See:
Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. St. Photios. On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers, 1983.
Joseph P. Farrell, translator. St. Photios. The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1987.
See also: Siecienski, A. Edward. (2010). The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press.
If the Filioque is wrong, the Trinity is right, because the Filioque is ditheism. Bitheism. Binitarianism. And, by implication, polytheism. Filioque confuses and merges the two persons of the Father and Son together. Take care. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
[quote=PneumaPsucheSoma;397745]We're still waiting for you to find one of the writings of one early Christian who denied the term "persons".
Another false dichotomy... There wasn't a "persons" term to deny for nearly 200 years. I've never represented that anyone did such a thing. Nobody said God wasn't a pink elephant, either. The key is... nobody affirmed Trinity or persons for 200 years. There is no written source that says, "I disaffirm the future term "persons" for doctrinal formulation 'til 200AD."
Which Church father spoke against it?
But, what is keeping you from being free to share "the truth"?
If denying "persons" is "the truth", you should have written tradition from the 1st century.
What did the first commentators say on this? But oh, you say "the oral tradition is lost".
Well, if it's lost, then you do not know that they didn't believe in persons, do you?
We did find out from your research (thank you! God bless you!) that some of the ANF used the terms Trinity and persons.
Good! That means it's part of Christ's Church to believe in Trinity and persons. It's not with the Church to deny the use of these words. Take care.
Yes, but I don't employ its use in the restrictive, elitist manner you do as pertaining to the GOC/EOC; and being some separate entity from saints at large.
During its early growth, it reached a diluted compromise of Godhead doctrine while trying to fit God to a pre-conceived formula by deduction. If you had any knowledge of Nicea whatsoever, you'd know it was a process of deductive reasoning while opposing Arianism and others. We have inherited this incomplete formulation. The powerful, sharp, two-edged sword of the word (spoken by the Word Incarnate) wasn't used to delineate F-S-HS. THE word was supplanted by A word... person(s); thus making God three centers of sentient consciousnesses, when God only has one mind-will.
During its early growth, it reached a diluted compromise of Godhead doctrine while trying to fit God to a pre-conceived formula by deduction. If you had any knowledge of Nicea whatsoever, you'd know it was a process of deductive reasoning while opposing Arianism and others. We have inherited this incomplete formulation. The powerful, sharp, two-edged sword of the word (spoken by the Word Incarnate) wasn't used to delineate F-S-HS. THE word was supplanted by A word... person(s); thus making God three centers of sentient consciousnesses, when God only has one mind-will.
Nonsense. False dichotomy. The Church isn't limited to the GOC and scattered individuals. The Church is those betrothed to Jesus by faith.
Everyone who has challenged it has been anathematized. Your disdain for modern Oneness reaffirms this. And it's been 1800 years. That first 200 is minimized and glossed over, which you will continue to do as your fallacious "Apostolic Trinity bridge".
Everyone here has already "received" something they adamantly believe, and few have ears to hear. There are teenagers adamantly declaring doctrine they can't back up; and there are more goofy beliefs here than I've seen before in any one place. You sure aren't looking any deeper, and all you do is tout orthodox doctrine without exegesis or apologetic. My extensive affirmations list and disaffirmations should build credibility; as should my brief exegesis of John 15:26 against Filioque error.
Prove Trinity persons isn't creedal instead of Scriptural; build your case from the Word, and without whining that I'm Sola Scriptura. You present a thorough exegetic apology for Trinity, and I will gladly rebut with mine. Orthodoxy should go first since it's so "substantial". Tell HOW the HS proceedeth from the Father, not just THAT He does so. Same for sent. Same for the Word becoming flesh. Tell HOW Jesus proceeded*forth and came. Bring friends, even.
FALSE DICHOTOMY. THE CREED OF 381 AD IS SCRIPTURAL. IN ERIE PA SCOTT R. HARRINGTON
A word doesn't replace "persons", "persons" was a substitute for the truth because they didn't find it in Isaiah, Matthew, 2Peter, John, 1John, Hebrews, 1Thessalonians, Colossians, Philippians, Revelation, and Acts. Tell me... how did the Holy Spirit appear at Pentecost to be received?
YOU SAY YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN "SOLA SCRIPTURA", BUT YOU INSIST ON APPEALING TO THE SCRIPTURA ALONE. SAME DIFFERENCE. YOU HAVEN'T PRODUCED ONE SCRIPTURE THAT TEACHES "BY SCRIPTURE ALONE".
Christ has called us to obedience and love and faith with good works. I'm not hesitating; I'm waiting for the sound of the going in the mulberries.
SAY WHAT? "HERE WE GO AROUND THE MULLBERRY BUSH", SO EARLY IN THE MORNING?
CONFUSED THINKING HERE. SORRY! I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR OBJECTIONS TO TRINITY. YOU'RE SOUNDING IRRATIONAL TO ME.
I slander no one. I challenge incomplete truth and default indoctrination of assent by affiliation.
You continue to miss the entire point. The early fathers [I[overlooked[/i] the truth; I never said it was malicious. The remainder was predominantly fine. I've read of many who considered the truth through the centuries, but none could tie it together, and nobody wanted to challenge orthodoxy; so... it remained an undeveloped possibility.
The hinge-point is ekporeuomai in John 15:26. That should say something to you.
JOHN 15:26 does teach me something. The OC teaches this verse, and shows me they go by the true Gospel of God in Christ, in rejecting the Filioque and in accepting the Trinity (persons) teaching.
That is where you make an error. You say the arly fathers overlooked the truth. Not at all! The early fathers didn't overlook the truth. They taught the same faith the apostles taught. You say you have knowledge of the truth, but you don't feel free to disclose what it is. You offer nothing that is better than the term "persons". And you refer to the Scriptures not saying the word "persons", but protest that you are not "sola Scriptura". You seem double-minded on this. You insist on NT exegesis before you will use the term persons. Again, you don't feel free to say what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19 if they are not persons? As for John 15:26, to understand why the Filioque is wrong, this has been explained already by the Church. See:
Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. St. Photios. On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers, 1983.
Joseph P. Farrell, translator. St. Photios. The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1987.
See also: Siecienski, A. Edward. (2010). The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press.
If the Filioque is wrong, the Trinity is right, because the Filioque is ditheism. Bitheism. Binitarianism. And, by implication, polytheism. Filioque confuses and merges the two persons of the Father and Son together. Take care. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
A couple of things...
You need to learn what a false dichotomy is. And you need to read the OT about David and his men waiting for the sound of the wind in the mulberry trees.
You're Sola Creedola and Anti Scriptura, while accusing me AGAIN of Sola Scriptura. You can't contend for your faith from Scripture, and must resort to a Creed (381AD) and prepared writings.
No sense continuing with you. You won't consider anything beyond a GOC pamphlet. If you ever figure out HOW the HS proceedeth and HOW the HS appeared at Pentecost, you might have a clue why the HS isn't a 3rd "person".
I may end up reverting to Sola Scriptura if you represent the alternative.