-
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.
C
???
Not understanding friend..........I believe the Godhead the Trinity, what are you trying to bring......sorry but a little confused????
I understand Jesus is Jesus and the Father is the Father and the Spirit is the Spirit but they are three distinctive persons of one God......Yeah if you do not understand me then i might be talking gibberish....usually people do not understand me.........Messed up english is how i roll....and believe me you are the ones to see it and explain
Not understanding friend..........I believe the Godhead the Trinity, what are you trying to bring......sorry but a little confused????
I understand Jesus is Jesus and the Father is the Father and the Spirit is the Spirit but they are three distinctive persons of one God......Yeah if you do not understand me then i might be talking gibberish....usually people do not understand me.........Messed up english is how i roll....and believe me you are the ones to see it and explain
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope everyone realizes that all the various God-models were originally "formulated" in an attempt to maintain Monotheism of Judaism while including the Lord Jesus Christ. This began through the latter 1st century and into the 2nd century when a thorough Christian system of apologetics became necessary to oppose various forms of Polytheism and Gnosticism, etc. The Ante-Nicene Fathers (and others not ultimately considered ANFs) developed conflicting understandings between the death of Christ and the First Ecumenical Council in 325AD. There were multiple formulations, with little expanded emphasis on Christology; and virtually no emphasis on Pneumatology until after Nicea and progressing through the succeeding Councils. Primarily, these were:
• Unitarianism
• Binitarianism
• Trinitarianism
• Tritheism
• Arianism
• Sabellianism/Monarchianism/Patripassianism
All were well-developed by about 180AD-212AD. Triad was first mentioned by Theophilus in 180AD, referring to God, His Word, and His Wisdom; and between then and 212AD, Tertullian introduced the term trinitas to refute a well-established teaching of Monarchianism shortly before he became a Montanist. There was no written or oral Apostolic tradition handed down in the specific apologetic-format of the eventually-emergent God-models. Though there was a process of developing orthodox doctrines including the "Godhead", that process was not as cohesive and singular as most perceive; it was frought with influences and agendas from both within and without the early church. Simply referring to the Church or orthodoxy as the singular authority for absolute truth about the Godhead is an over-simplification. Even orthodoxy was a compromise of opposing views between hundreds of Bishops over a period of hundreds of years.
Perhaps all these God-models are incomplete and need to be reconciled to Christ (the Word).
• Unitarianism
• Binitarianism
• Trinitarianism
• Tritheism
• Arianism
• Sabellianism/Monarchianism/Patripassianism
All were well-developed by about 180AD-212AD. Triad was first mentioned by Theophilus in 180AD, referring to God, His Word, and His Wisdom; and between then and 212AD, Tertullian introduced the term trinitas to refute a well-established teaching of Monarchianism shortly before he became a Montanist. There was no written or oral Apostolic tradition handed down in the specific apologetic-format of the eventually-emergent God-models. Though there was a process of developing orthodox doctrines including the "Godhead", that process was not as cohesive and singular as most perceive; it was frought with influences and agendas from both within and without the early church. Simply referring to the Church or orthodoxy as the singular authority for absolute truth about the Godhead is an over-simplification. Even orthodoxy was a compromise of opposing views between hundreds of Bishops over a period of hundreds of years.
Perhaps all these God-models are incomplete and need to be reconciled to Christ (the Word).
Yes. I didn't break down any variations, whether one includes Filioque under Trinity or elsewhere. (The Filioque clause is non-scriptural according to John 15:26.) I also didn't address the near-infinite variables of Social and Anti-Social Trinity formulations.
There is truly a "Pleroma" of God-models.
Perhaps none are truly complete and sufficient, and there is a reconciliation of them all. The primary differences are whether the virgin birth was a creative or procreative event; and to what degree the Father-Son-Holy Spirit are distinct or discrete and/or of what composition/constitution of substance or essence. (I'm not minimizing these differences, just distilling them for summarization.)
If nothing else, orthodoxy is clouded by its own (man's) doctrine of "Development of Doctrine", where no previously-established doctrine can be rescinded. That's a huge factor in the East-West Filioque debacle, and remains to this day. Godhead theology is the most sacred of all bovine, orthodox or otherwise. The inequities and inconsistencies of each need to be recognized; but long-term multi-generational indoctrination and genuine-but-misplaced reverence have left us with these staunch differences, and each opposing formulation declares all others anathema and heretical... especially orthodoxy. (And I'm NOT contending for any form of universalism; just reconciliation.)
Can anyone take a hard honest look at their own understanding and consider its weaknesses and deficiencies and/or the strengths of another/others? Even considering to do so will be anathematization in many (most) eyes. The vast majority will simply come away from scripture with whatever they take TO scripture. A valid (yet flawed) apologetic can be presented for every major God-model formulation and each one's many potential variations. It's down to interpretation, perception, etc.
ALL the models have "issues" that have been avoided and diverted for nearly two millennia. It would be great to see proponents of any/each view being candid about these specifics and working together to communicate about them for better understanding and possible greater reconciliation. Orthodoxy is the most unyielding, but band-aids are in everyone's medicine cabinets, so to speak.
IF we believe in the same one true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we should be more forthcoming with fellowship to further resolve these difficulties. Declaring personal understanding and then claiming unknowability beyond the precipice OF that personal understanding is as insufficient as all the God-model formulations themselves.
IF, during the course of communication, some determine we are actually believing and worshipping a DIFFERENT God, THEN a discussion of heresy or anathema can begin. Doing all this in love AND fervency would be ideal.
(Perhaps I should request this be made a new thread.)
There is truly a "Pleroma" of God-models.
Perhaps none are truly complete and sufficient, and there is a reconciliation of them all. The primary differences are whether the virgin birth was a creative or procreative event; and to what degree the Father-Son-Holy Spirit are distinct or discrete and/or of what composition/constitution of substance or essence. (I'm not minimizing these differences, just distilling them for summarization.)
If nothing else, orthodoxy is clouded by its own (man's) doctrine of "Development of Doctrine", where no previously-established doctrine can be rescinded. That's a huge factor in the East-West Filioque debacle, and remains to this day. Godhead theology is the most sacred of all bovine, orthodox or otherwise. The inequities and inconsistencies of each need to be recognized; but long-term multi-generational indoctrination and genuine-but-misplaced reverence have left us with these staunch differences, and each opposing formulation declares all others anathema and heretical... especially orthodoxy. (And I'm NOT contending for any form of universalism; just reconciliation.)
Can anyone take a hard honest look at their own understanding and consider its weaknesses and deficiencies and/or the strengths of another/others? Even considering to do so will be anathematization in many (most) eyes. The vast majority will simply come away from scripture with whatever they take TO scripture. A valid (yet flawed) apologetic can be presented for every major God-model formulation and each one's many potential variations. It's down to interpretation, perception, etc.
ALL the models have "issues" that have been avoided and diverted for nearly two millennia. It would be great to see proponents of any/each view being candid about these specifics and working together to communicate about them for better understanding and possible greater reconciliation. Orthodoxy is the most unyielding, but band-aids are in everyone's medicine cabinets, so to speak.
IF we believe in the same one true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we should be more forthcoming with fellowship to further resolve these difficulties. Declaring personal understanding and then claiming unknowability beyond the precipice OF that personal understanding is as insufficient as all the God-model formulations themselves.
IF, during the course of communication, some determine we are actually believing and worshipping a DIFFERENT God, THEN a discussion of heresy or anathema can begin. Doing all this in love AND fervency would be ideal.
(Perhaps I should request this be made a new thread.)
Last edited:
S
Yes. I didn't break down any variations, whether one includes Filioque under Trinity or elsewhere. (The Filioque clause is non-scriptural according to John 15:26.) I also didn't address the near-infinite variables of Social and Anti-Social Trinity formulations.
There is truly a "Pleroma" of God-models.
Perhaps none are truly complete and sufficient, and there is a reconciliation of them all. The primary differences are whether the virgin birth was a creative or procreative event; and to what degree the Father-Son-Holy Spirit are distinct or discrete and/or of what composition/constitution of substance or essence. (I'm not minimizing these differences, just distilling them for summarization.)
If nothing else, orthodoxy is clouded by its own (man's) doctrine of "Development of Doctrine", where no previously-established doctrine can be rescinded. That's a huge factor in the East-West Filioque debacle, and remains to this day. Godhead theology is the most sacred of all bovine, orthodox or otherwise. The inequities and inconsistencies of each need to be recognized; but long-term multi-generational indoctrination and genuine-but-misplaced reverence have left us with these staunch differences, and each opposing formulation declares all others anathema and heretical... especially orthodoxy. (And I'm NOT contending for any form of universalism; just reconciliation.)
Can anyone take a hard honest look at their own understanding and consider its weaknesses and deficiencies and/or the strengths of another/others? Even considering to do so will be anathematization in many (most) eyes. The vast majority will simply come away from scripture with whatever they take TO scripture. A valid (yet flawed) apologetic can be presented for every major God-model formulation and each one's many potential variations. It's down to interpretation, perception, etc.
ALL the models have "issues" that have been avoided and diverted for nearly two millennia. It would be great to see proponents of any/each view being candid about these specifics and working together to communicate about them for better understanding and possible greater reconciliation. Orthodoxy is the most unyielding, but band-aids are in everyone's medicine cabinets, so to speak.
IF we believe in the same one true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we should be more forthcoming with fellowship to further resolve these difficulties. Declaring personal understanding and then claiming unknowability beyond the precipice OF that personal understanding is as insufficient as all the God-model formulations themselves.
IF, during the course of communication, some determine we are actually believing and worshipping a DIFFERENT God, THEN a discussion of heresy or anathema can begin. Doing all this in love AND fervency would be ideal.
(Perhaps I should request this be made a new thread.)
There is truly a "Pleroma" of God-models.
Perhaps none are truly complete and sufficient, and there is a reconciliation of them all. The primary differences are whether the virgin birth was a creative or procreative event; and to what degree the Father-Son-Holy Spirit are distinct or discrete and/or of what composition/constitution of substance or essence. (I'm not minimizing these differences, just distilling them for summarization.)
If nothing else, orthodoxy is clouded by its own (man's) doctrine of "Development of Doctrine", where no previously-established doctrine can be rescinded. That's a huge factor in the East-West Filioque debacle, and remains to this day. Godhead theology is the most sacred of all bovine, orthodox or otherwise. The inequities and inconsistencies of each need to be recognized; but long-term multi-generational indoctrination and genuine-but-misplaced reverence have left us with these staunch differences, and each opposing formulation declares all others anathema and heretical... especially orthodoxy. (And I'm NOT contending for any form of universalism; just reconciliation.)
Can anyone take a hard honest look at their own understanding and consider its weaknesses and deficiencies and/or the strengths of another/others? Even considering to do so will be anathematization in many (most) eyes. The vast majority will simply come away from scripture with whatever they take TO scripture. A valid (yet flawed) apologetic can be presented for every major God-model formulation and each one's many potential variations. It's down to interpretation, perception, etc.
ALL the models have "issues" that have been avoided and diverted for nearly two millennia. It would be great to see proponents of any/each view being candid about these specifics and working together to communicate about them for better understanding and possible greater reconciliation. Orthodoxy is the most unyielding, but band-aids are in everyone's medicine cabinets, so to speak.
IF we believe in the same one true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we should be more forthcoming with fellowship to further resolve these difficulties. Declaring personal understanding and then claiming unknowability beyond the precipice OF that personal understanding is as insufficient as all the God-model formulations themselves.
IF, during the course of communication, some determine we are actually believing and worshipping a DIFFERENT God, THEN a discussion of heresy or anathema can begin. Doing all this in love AND fervency would be ideal.
(Perhaps I should request this be made a new thread.)
Well said. Absolutely true, and I whole-heartedly agree. Doctrine is, nonetheless, our "response" to absolute truth. Being new to this forum, I'm approaching what I perceive to be a diverse membership based on the post-content of this thread. I was trying to present generic inclusive terminology.
I'm simply proposing leaving formulations behind to search the deep things of God. I'm convinced that the majority of both Trinity and Oneness proponents on this thread and in many churches are believers according to the Word. I also believe the deficiencies in the other formulations are ultimately reconcilable to truth in the same areas of misunderstanding that have plagued Trinity and Oneness.
Again, I'm not contending for ANY form of universalism, but Trinity has problems... Oneness has problems. Earnest contention and disputation for one's faith ought not preclude an introspection of one's own understanding. There CAN be a mutual venue for such a search into the mysteries of God. I believe He came to reveal Himself, not conceal Himself. I hope my heart is coming through in these words.
I'm simply proposing leaving formulations behind to search the deep things of God. I'm convinced that the majority of both Trinity and Oneness proponents on this thread and in many churches are believers according to the Word. I also believe the deficiencies in the other formulations are ultimately reconcilable to truth in the same areas of misunderstanding that have plagued Trinity and Oneness.
Again, I'm not contending for ANY form of universalism, but Trinity has problems... Oneness has problems. Earnest contention and disputation for one's faith ought not preclude an introspection of one's own understanding. There CAN be a mutual venue for such a search into the mysteries of God. I believe He came to reveal Himself, not conceal Himself. I hope my heart is coming through in these words.
Scotth1960-
After a bit of reading I now see you are EOC, and I better understand why you responded as you did and then didn't continue to respond.
Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in your response to the following affirmation since you hold that belief in the Trinity is essential for salvation (which is an extra-biblical conditional mandate).
I affirm:
There is One Deity.
The Father is Deity.
The Holy Spirit is Deity.
The Word (Son), Jesus is Deity.
These Three are One Deity.
The Father is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Holy Spirit is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Word is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit nor the Word (Son).
The Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Word (Son).
The Word (Son) is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the Son of God, and is Fully Divine, Begotten of the Father by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the son of man, and is fully human with a Rational Soul, Born of the Virgin.
The Father is Neither Created nor Begotten.
The Holy Spirit is Neither Created nor Begotten.
The Son is not Created, but Begotten.
The Word (Son) proceeded forth and came from God, Sent by the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, Sent by the Father and the Son.
(The Holy Spirit proceedeth NOT from both the Father and the Son.)
Yet...
I am not Trinitarian (Social or Anti-Social) of any variation or formulation. Nor am I any variation or formulation of Unitarian, Binitarian, Tritheism, Arianism, or Sabellianism. I'm also am not JW, LDS, SDA, or any World Religion.
Would someone such as myself be considered by the EOC as anathema and heretical, and therefore without salvation?
Can you provide specific scripture that creedal faith in Trinity is the salvific determinant?
Thanks in advance.
After a bit of reading I now see you are EOC, and I better understand why you responded as you did and then didn't continue to respond.
Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in your response to the following affirmation since you hold that belief in the Trinity is essential for salvation (which is an extra-biblical conditional mandate).
I affirm:
There is One Deity.
The Father is Deity.
The Holy Spirit is Deity.
The Word (Son), Jesus is Deity.
These Three are One Deity.
The Father is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Holy Spirit is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Word is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit nor the Word (Son).
The Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Word (Son).
The Word (Son) is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the Son of God, and is Fully Divine, Begotten of the Father by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the son of man, and is fully human with a Rational Soul, Born of the Virgin.
The Father is Neither Created nor Begotten.
The Holy Spirit is Neither Created nor Begotten.
The Son is not Created, but Begotten.
The Word (Son) proceeded forth and came from God, Sent by the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, Sent by the Father and the Son.
(The Holy Spirit proceedeth NOT from both the Father and the Son.)
Yet...
I am not Trinitarian (Social or Anti-Social) of any variation or formulation. Nor am I any variation or formulation of Unitarian, Binitarian, Tritheism, Arianism, or Sabellianism. I'm also am not JW, LDS, SDA, or any World Religion.
Would someone such as myself be considered by the EOC as anathema and heretical, and therefore without salvation?
Can you provide specific scripture that creedal faith in Trinity is the salvific determinant?
Thanks in advance.
Last edited:
S
Dear friend, First of all and last of all, only God can and will say who is going to be saved. That doesn't mean one can just reject the Trinity with no consequences. Every true Christian will want to believe in the Trinity. All of your affirmations in that list above are Trinitarian. You may not like to call yourself an Trinitarian, but gathered from what you wrote above, I would say you are a Trinitarian. All Christians are Trinitarians; all Trinitarians are Christians. The real question is, is Filioquism a sin against the pure and correct doctrine of the Trinity, does it imply polytheism? Is it therefore anathema? Take care. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
It certainly would appear to most that I am Trinitarian, but I am not; and you would at least partly understand if I expressed the difference. I may disclose more in due time, but I differ in regards to the extra-biblical creedal term "person" being applied to the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Incarnate Word as the Son was scripturally referred to as a person (prosopon G4383) related to Him being the son of man; but God (Deity) is NOT three "persons" or "person(s)" of ANY quantity.
All Christians are not Trinitarian. I know many Oneness believers who are Spirit-filled Christians; in fact, more annointed than most Trinitarians. I affirm an equally substantial portion of Oneness doctrine. The two are reconcilable to the truth.
Filioquism is clear error, but is still based on a Trinity of three "persons". God is not three distinct or discrete "persons", regardless how the Holy Spirit proceeded. The truth would make the error of both "persons" and procession quite clear, among many other things.
Orthodoxy isn't 100% infallible. The content and result of the Councils and creeds isn't Divine inspiration like the scriptures themselves. There was room for individual error from the ANFs/ECFs (like Augustine); and there was room for collective error from the consensus of 300+ Bishops. I clearly affirm 99% of orthodox Godhead doctrine, but am vehemently NOT Trinitarian.
I know God alone judges the heart of man, but I'm just curious to know where I'd stand from the EOC regarding this.
(Don't you find it unusual that a Western Protestant would disaffirm Filioque, Original Sin, and both Calvi/Armi teachings?)
All Christians are not Trinitarian. I know many Oneness believers who are Spirit-filled Christians; in fact, more annointed than most Trinitarians. I affirm an equally substantial portion of Oneness doctrine. The two are reconcilable to the truth.
Filioquism is clear error, but is still based on a Trinity of three "persons". God is not three distinct or discrete "persons", regardless how the Holy Spirit proceeded. The truth would make the error of both "persons" and procession quite clear, among many other things.
Orthodoxy isn't 100% infallible. The content and result of the Councils and creeds isn't Divine inspiration like the scriptures themselves. There was room for individual error from the ANFs/ECFs (like Augustine); and there was room for collective error from the consensus of 300+ Bishops. I clearly affirm 99% of orthodox Godhead doctrine, but am vehemently NOT Trinitarian.
I know God alone judges the heart of man, but I'm just curious to know where I'd stand from the EOC regarding this.
(Don't you find it unusual that a Western Protestant would disaffirm Filioque, Original Sin, and both Calvi/Armi teachings?)
C
Father is God but is not Jesus
Jesus is God but is not the Holy Spirit
Holy Spirit is God but is not the Father
There is three persons in the Trinity but yet there is only one God
So they all are God but not each other. sound crazy right but that i how that system works of believing the Trinity.
even if you do not understand you might later....i understood it before and this guy before explained it and i bring it up again.
This is what the Trinity is......
shalom aleichem
Jesus is God but is not the Holy Spirit
Holy Spirit is God but is not the Father
There is three persons in the Trinity but yet there is only one God
So they all are God but not each other. sound crazy right but that i how that system works of believing the Trinity.
even if you do not understand you might later....i understood it before and this guy before explained it and i bring it up again.
This is what the Trinity is......
shalom aleichem
S
Sorry for your misunderstanding. It is rather sad. All Christians are Trinitarian. If you are not Trinitarian, you are not Christian. You may be a Unitarian or some other doctrinal error, or like other non-Christians, you simply deny that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is the Trinity. Perhaps you are just afraid of the word "Trinity" because it is not found in the Bible. But then you would also logically have to be afraid of the word "Bible", because the word "Bible" is found nowhere in the Bible. But true Christianity is Trinitairan through-and-through. To deny this fact is to deny the true facts of Church history, which has been for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit since they day when Matthew 28:19 was written down. And this verse was true even before it was written. It was true from the moment Christ our Lord God and Saviour said it. "Sanctify them with the truth; Thy Word is truth", as Christ said. Every word Christ says shall remain forever. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall never pass away", said Jesus Christ the Lord. Amen. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington PS May God bless and save you, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
S
I am an ex-Protestant. As for Orthodoxy not being 100 percent infallible, just God ask God whether or not the gates of hell (mouths of heretics) have prevailed against His Church (cf. Matthew 16:19). It seems spurious to question the implications of this verse. Individuals are not infallible, and Orthodox Christians are individuals, so they are not infallible. But the Church in which there are Orthodox Christians is infallible; the Church itself doesn't teach errors. It prevails, or should I say, She prevails, because She is gifted by God's grace with the presence of, the abiding presence of, the Holy Spirit. But even in the Church, as Christ taught, there is wheat and there are tares (weeds). Christ didn't promise to separate the wheat from the tares until He, the LORD of the harvest, returns in glory to judge the living and the dead, of Whose Kingdom there is no end. So, even in Christ's Orthodox Church, there are problems. All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. That doesn't mean the Orthodox Church is fallible. Just that Church members are fallible. There is no Church anyone could join that would make a soul perfect and infallible before God. And incapable of teaching error. The popes of Rome claim the gift of personal infallibility for the successors of St. Peter. But St. Peter himself was not infallible, and was rebuked by St. Paul for at one time insisting on circumcision for Christian converts who were Gentiles. Go figure. Galatians is about this error of St. Peter, the first bishop of Antioch and of Rome. Take care. I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church is preaching the true Gospel from John 15:26 regarding the Filioque, that original sin as original guilt is false doctrine. We are born mortal, but not guilty of Adam's or any other man's sins; we are responsible and guilty only of our own personal sins; and the Calvinist and Arminian debate is futile; neither extreme is the whole Biblical truth. Eastern Orthodoxy is not Arminian or semi-Pelagian, as some people say that it is. They are simply wrong about that. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington May God bless you richly and abundantly in Christ Jesus and have mercy upon you, now and ever and unto the ages of ages; Amen.
Don't be, and it's not sad at all.
That's what I thought this would come to. What a crock.
On the contrary, I affirm the F-S-HS, and went to great lengths to express my affirmations.
Nope. Trinity is man's doctrine to explain God anthropomorphically.
Keep embarassing yourself. Bible is indeed in the Bible over 40 times. There are three Greek words for Bible: biblaridion (G974), biblion (G975), and biblios (G976).
More of that Greek Orthodox infallibility, I suppose. Can't the Greek Orthodoxers read Greek? Credibility crumbling...
Saying that over and over and over like an incantation doesn't change history and make it true. Trinity was formulated over a period of time and adopted by a compromised ecclesio-political process. It wasn't handed down by the Apostles. It is merely an interpretation as a doctrine of man. Produce ONE ANF quotation prior to 180AD that states Trinity.
Don't ignore this. You've made the bold assertion that Trinity was handed down by the Apostles. Provide one source to confirm that. ONE.
The verse is true and the Word is true; but the Trinitarian interpretation is untrue. His word didn't include "persons" in reference to God. You shouldn't put your own word in God's mouth like that.
I did. He says His Church isn't the GOC, but all who believe on His name.
You speak of the Church as some entity which stands apart from the saints.
All this talking down to true believers from your Orthodoxy perch is now making me nauseous. My respect is turning to disdain. Realize it or not, it's blind arrogance.
S
If you affirm the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you are a Trinitarian, and a Christian. Even if you refuse to use the term Trinitarian or Trinity for fear of contradicting the Bible. Your fear however is not needed. God alone judges the heart, and I am not saying you personally are not a Christian. I am only saying that people should believe a Christian is a Trinitarian and a Trinitarian is a Christian. You may be truer to God than your thinking. It's not intellectual assent alone that God favors, but a pure heart and someone who keeps God's commandments. Mere allegiance to correct doctrine is not all that is required, although God will lead us all who are Christians into sound doctrine through His Spirit (John 16:13), into all truth. I really think you and I believe the same faith, you just don't like the term Trinitarian. Go figure.
Since Trinity requires that God is three persons, I am not Triniarian. The heart of the matter is this: God has only one center of Divine consciousness of mind-will, and the Theoanthropos was fully human with a mind-will of His rational soul. The Holy Spirit doesn't have a separate mind-will; and the eternally pre-existent Word (that became flesh) didn't have a separate mind-will. The only distinctly separate mind-will is that of the Theoanthropos during Incarnation. God has one mind-will, and the Word-made-flesh had a human mind-will in subjection to the Divine.
There's no fear in love... I'm not fearful. I'm contending for truth and dismantling untruth.
Untrue. I'm a Christian and a non-Trinitarian. I'm not Oneness, but Oneness believers are Christians and non-Trinitarians. I affirm 95+% of Trinitarian and Oneness doctrine, and can reconcile them both to the Word. The "persons" and "modes" are respectively the same thing when the truth is revealed. That truth also disolves the issues with Unitarianism, Binitarianism, Araianism, and Tritheism; though I don't contend that they are necessarily Christians. That's ultimately up to God's Divine judgement.
My point exactly. Adherance to Trinity doctrine kept me FROM the truth for 28 years.
Possibly. Only God knows. You believe God has three minds-wills in separate persons; I believe God has one mind-will as One Divinity (Divine Person). My belief is not doctrine, but purely my surrender and submission to the Word.
BTW... When's the last time you knew of a non-GOC semi-Protestant that disaffirmed Filioque, Original Sin, Calvinism/Arminianism, and Sola Scriptura?
And I'm holding your feet to the fire on your repeated assertions that Trinity was intact from 30AD-180AD. I insist you document that, or recant that it was the uninterrupted teaching passed down from the Apostles.
O
You are ALL making way too much outta this subject!! Please stop believing what mommy and daddy taught you and look for yourselves. HEAR oh Israel the LORD our God is ONE Lord. dont make Him 3. Jesus is the only person in the Godhead !God is a Spirit . God is Holy, Therefor God is the Holy Spirit unless you are saying the Holy Spirit has a Holy Spirit. !!!! wake up and get rid of these doctrines of man and satan !! If you keep making God 3 persons you are more ignorant than demons for they know there is one God and they tremble !God will not be mocked by you barbarians (trinitarians)