-
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.
S
Scott did; and it was only dormant for a week. It's a timeless
topic... unless Trinitarians want to assent to truth and recant their error.
topic... unless Trinitarians want to assent to truth and recant their error.
You were not in error when you were a Trinitarian.
Basic Trinitarianism is orthodox.
However, one must also be specific that Filioque is a false doctrine that preaches a distorted view of the
Trinity.
Thus, while one must specifically be Trinitarian to believe "the faith once delivered unto the saints" (Jude
3), "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God."
The people who say "and the Son" FILIOQUE fail to live by every word of God, they fail to understand
this verse John 15:26.
I gather you were once
Calvinist
Trinitarian
Filioquist
believed in original sin
believed in sola Scriptura
believed in double predestination
believed in Filioquism double procession of the Spirit
were, basically, an Augustinian
now you are no longer Calvinist, nor Arminian
you are no longer Trinitarian
you are no longer Filioquist
you no longer believe the dogma of original sin
you no longer believe in double predestination (since you're not Calvinist)
you no longer believe in sola Scriptura
I was
Lutheran
single predestination
Trinitarian
Filioquist
believed in the dogma of original sin
believed in sola Scriptura
believed in sola fide
believed in Pentecostalism (glossolalia, baptism in the Holy Spirit)
believed in dispensationalism pre tribulation rapture eschatology
was Augustinian
I am no longer Augustinian
no longer Lutheran
no longer Filioquist
no longer believe in the dogma of original sin
no longer believe in sola Scriptura
no longer believe in sola fide
no longer believe in Pentecostalism
no longer believe in dispensationalism (no more pre tribulation rapture) eschatlogy
I am still Trinitarian -- non FIlioquist
still single predestination
affirm free will of human beings
I am not longer Augustinian
In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington
Yes, I was a Filioque Trinitarian, F-S-HS Baptism, Arminian-turned-Amyraldist (4pt Calvi), Dispensationalist, Multi-Sola, Original-Sin, Cessationist Non-Pentecostal.
I was lost. Now I have true salvific faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now I'm a Non-Filioque, Non-Trinitarian, Jesus' Name Baptism, Non-Calvinist, Non-Arminian, Non-Dispensationalist, Semi-Sola, Non-Original-Sin, Non-Cessationist, Semi-Pentecostal.
Though you don't yet know exactly where I stand, you know I stand against Trinity "persons" as unbiblical doctrine of men. I don't recognize Jude 1:3 as pertaining to subsequent formulated doctrine. I reject the orthodox concept of the Church.
We've been around this mountain. I don't want to spend time on prove-the-negative double standards and other discussion methods that I feel are invalid. No matter what Scripture with exegesis or historical evidence was presented, you have made your choice for GOC tradition and will consider nothing else. I'm fine with that.
Of all the people in history, I think I would least want to be Augustine on Judgement Day.
I was lost. Now I have true salvific faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now I'm a Non-Filioque, Non-Trinitarian, Jesus' Name Baptism, Non-Calvinist, Non-Arminian, Non-Dispensationalist, Semi-Sola, Non-Original-Sin, Non-Cessationist, Semi-Pentecostal.
Though you don't yet know exactly where I stand, you know I stand against Trinity "persons" as unbiblical doctrine of men. I don't recognize Jude 1:3 as pertaining to subsequent formulated doctrine. I reject the orthodox concept of the Church.
We've been around this mountain. I don't want to spend time on prove-the-negative double standards and other discussion methods that I feel are invalid. No matter what Scripture with exegesis or historical evidence was presented, you have made your choice for GOC tradition and will consider nothing else. I'm fine with that.
Of all the people in history, I think I would least want to be Augustine on Judgement Day.
Last edited:
S
Dear pneumapsuchesoma, Just as faithful Shem covered the nakedness of Noah his
father, so we should cover the nakedness of any of the Church Fathers who sometimes
err. We need to remember that valid disciples and apostles of Christ sometimes erred.
St. Peter had to be corrected by St. Paul regarding St. Peter's requirement of circumcision
from Gentile converts to Christ. St. Paul, when he was Saul, was consenting unto St.
Stephen's death. And that was a very bad thing. So, with Blessed Augustine of Hippo, we
need to be forgiving. He made a few mistakes, and these have had disastrous
consequences for the Western Church's Christian theology. But there is some or much
good in the areas where St. Augustine did not err.
See, for example: Rose, Fr. Hieromonk Seraphim. (1983). The Place of Blessed Augustine
in the Orthodox Church. Orthodox Theological Text No. 3. Platina, CA: St. Herman of
Alaska Brotherhood.
Dear scholar, What do you mean by your semi-sola position? Are you semi-Sola Scriptura,
and what does that mean? How can you be semi? Are you "mainly Scripture" then, and
some extrabiblical tradition? And, then, which extrabiblical tradition? Where does your
tradition come from? Or are you semi Reformation solas?
What about sola fide? What do you think of Luther's adding the word "alone" to Romans
3:28, thus making the verse in St. Paul contradict St. James in James 2:24? Luther
wanted to delete James from the NT! Go figure. In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington
PS What is semi-Pentecostal? Were you ever a member of an Assemblies of God or other
Pentecostal denomination? I was Assembly of God for a few years. What do you mean by
non-cessationist? I guess the effects of the glossolalia makes me a semi-Pentecostal. I
no longer believe in speaking in tongues, but it is a psychological side effect of my sin and
mental illness, I think. I don't view it with suspicion, but I don't trust it. I don't
understand it. I think it's a kind of weakness. It is better to be silent and live a quiet,
godly life, than to babble unintelligibly in some unknown tongue. For no good purpose.
I think the charismatic renewal is something of an emotional baggage I don't quite
understand what to do with. I think I have struggled with bad thoughts as early as 10 to
12 years or maybe mostly starting when I was 14. I was depressed and anxious since
then. Under medication, I am healing, slowly.
I see. So Arius was a despicable heretic who got what he deserved when his bowels burst en route to the Synod, but Augustine "erred"? Sabellius had the spirit of anti-christ and deserved exile, but Augustine "made a few mistakes"? What of the plethora of others, like Apollinarius? I judge none of them, but refuse to follow their teachings; just as I refuse the philosophy-derived error of Trinity as a doctrine of men.
Semi-Sola means I understand and agree with the original intent of the Solas AND recognize their limitations.
Scripture trumps tradition where they conflict; and Sola Scriptura isn't in scripture, which is paradoxical. Scripture doesn't deal with issues and areas of modern ethics, so Sola Scriptura doesn't trump the spirit of his mouth. Faith without works is dead, but works aren't salvific. The Solas served their purpose of contrast to Papal corruption and doctrines of indulgences. In all honesty, the Sola issue is semantics and false dichotomies.
I understand his overall motive and purpose, but I disagree with his methods and many doctrinal changes. None of these men are MY servants, so I will leave both judgement and mercy to their Lord. I will follow the Word and the Spirit, led as a son of God.
Semi-Pentecostal means I recognize the gifts continue but aren't centered around the unknown tongue and the widespread misunderstanding and abuse of it. Since being added to the Church by the Lord Jesus Christ, I don't maintain "membership" in a denomination or local fellowship. I've never been AoG, though I serve in extended Pastoral Recovery ministry through an Apostolic (Oneness) fellowship, which is closest to the truth.
"That which is perfect (teleios)" hasn't come, so the gifts have not ceased. (1Cor. 13). They won't cease until we behold him prosopon to prosopon (sound familiar?).
That's between you and God.
Last edited:
S
Arius taught error as dogma. When Augustine erred, he
wasn't explicating dogma, just exercising theologoumena.
Theological opinion. He didn't say you have to believe in
Filioque "and the Son", in order to be saved. He didn't go as
far into error as Thomas Aquinas, who said believing in the
Filioque is necessary to salvation. Aquinas also believes
submission to the pope of Rome is necessary to salvation. He
says all these things in his "Contra Errores Graecorum".
Augustine had a lot of good about him in some of his
teachings. I believe his best work may be his work, "City of
God."
He just erred for a time, but he may have changed his mind,
about Manichaeism, double predestination, double
procession, original sin. He seems not to have changed his
mind about original sin, which is his biggest doctrinal error,
along, of course, with double predestination. Anyway,
officially Augustine has not been declared a heretic by an
ecumenical council. It takes an official church council before
a person can be anathematized as a heretic. Those who are
heretics are given time to repent and recant their heresies,
and then they can be forgiven. I guess, according to you, the
persons and Trinity doctrines are heresy. But that's not what
the Church says. I guess you abjure and reject the teachings
of Sabellius, which is good that you do. But I think you are
on subjective ground for rejecting Trinity. Your subjectivity
and lack of perspective on what Trinity really amounts to,
shows through in your sarcasm, and you occasional lapses into
ad hominem arguments. You may not be a Calvinist
anymore, but ad hominem tactics is something some
Calvinists sometimes do. Take care. God bless you! In Erie
PA Scott R. Harrington PS It is good that you say Scripture
trumps tradition where they conflict. I think your non-Trinity
tradition contradicts the intention and spirit of the letter of
the Scriptures. God is not One Person. He is Three Persons.
Take care!
I think that both terms are incorrect. How can we describe God? Is He three, or is He one, or is He three in one, or one in three. Either way, we will know better when we see Him, but until then we might be better off not making confident assertions about something we truly do not know about.
In Christ,
In Christ,
C
yep, and what you just said was Trinity one = three they can be both......i agree
And i think i know what pheama is saying, that they are God but yet there is no distinction,,,,as in Jesus turns to the Father and the Father turns into the HS.....but i thought at this moment Christ is in His throne while the HS is here on earth and the Father in heaven,,,,so it looks like a distinction, i could be wrong but that is how i see it.
And i think i know what pheama is saying, that they are God but yet there is no distinction,,,,as in Jesus turns to the Father and the Father turns into the HS.....but i thought at this moment Christ is in His throne while the HS is here on earth and the Father in heaven,,,,so it looks like a distinction, i could be wrong but that is how i see it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Too late. Trinity is already default orthodoxy that has anathematized the rest of the world. Declaring "unknowable mystery" at this point is unacceptable. Shoulda thought of that before the formulation process and all the elitist dominion of Christendom. At this point, it's a cop-out.
I notice you say nothing about rescinding or recanting this doctrine that erroneously taken over Christianity and alienated others who dissent to God as three "persons".
This is what ALWAYS happens. Trinis fight and posture and post inference scripture and opinion and argue and insist and wiggle and squirm... then declare the "unknowable mystery of God"... AFTER they have given their best shot at explaining a doctrine of men that purports to reveal that mystery.
THAT's the problem. Extensively defining God and then declaring He is undefinable. Truth is... God came to reveal Himself in the prosopon of Jesus, not conceal Himself. He IS knowable. The mystery that hath been hid from ages and from generations... is revealed. It's just NOT Trinity of three "persons" and everyone is blinded by the intimidation and indoctrination of that default orthodoxized inferred deduction by the reason of men.
Trinitarians adamantly declare who God is by constitution in great detail; then, when challenged to the perimeter of their feeble indoctrination, they declare all that posturing of detail "the unknowable mystery of God". It is the King Mamba Mama of ALL double standards!!!! Prove or recant...
I take it by you saying "persons" is insufficient that you're recanting Trinity.
No. They are distinct, but not discrete "persons". Not even close.
I notice you say nothing about rescinding or recanting this doctrine that erroneously taken over Christianity and alienated others who dissent to God as three "persons".
This is what ALWAYS happens. Trinis fight and posture and post inference scripture and opinion and argue and insist and wiggle and squirm... then declare the "unknowable mystery of God"... AFTER they have given their best shot at explaining a doctrine of men that purports to reveal that mystery.
THAT's the problem. Extensively defining God and then declaring He is undefinable. Truth is... God came to reveal Himself in the prosopon of Jesus, not conceal Himself. He IS knowable. The mystery that hath been hid from ages and from generations... is revealed. It's just NOT Trinity of three "persons" and everyone is blinded by the intimidation and indoctrination of that default orthodoxized inferred deduction by the reason of men.
Trinitarians adamantly declare who God is by constitution in great detail; then, when challenged to the perimeter of their feeble indoctrination, they declare all that posturing of detail "the unknowable mystery of God". It is the King Mamba Mama of ALL double standards!!!! Prove or recant...
I take it by you saying "persons" is insufficient that you're recanting Trinity.
yep, and what you just said was Trinity one = three they can be both......i agree
And i think i know what pheama is saying, that they are God but yet there is no distinction,,,,as in Jesus turns to the Father and the Father turns into the HS.....but i thought at this moment Christ is in His throne while the HS is here on earth and the Father in heaven,,,,so it looks like a distinction, i could be wrong but that is how i see it.
And i think i know what pheama is saying, that they are God but yet there is no distinction,,,,as in Jesus turns to the Father and the Father turns into the HS.....but i thought at this moment Christ is in His throne while the HS is here on earth and the Father in heaven,,,,so it looks like a distinction, i could be wrong but that is how i see it.
Seeing as I am not a member of those orthodoxies it is rather pointless to make these kind of statements to me. I have nothing to do with them, and will not in the future.
What basis do you have for calling me anything? It should be obvious that I believe in neither.
In fact, the world does not care what we call God, as they do not want to know Him anyway. If we are going to do as He commands, we will show them God in us.
You are way off base.
What basis do you have for calling me anything? It should be obvious that I believe in neither.
In fact, the world does not care what we call God, as they do not want to know Him anyway. If we are going to do as He commands, we will show them God in us.
You are way off base.
Fair enough, then. You're not Trinitarian, and I didn't know that. Be blessed.
In case you have not figured it out yet, I ain't oneness either.
And fellowship cannot be based on the fact that we have the same doctrines. Fellowship can only be based upon the fact that we have the same Spirit, the same Lord, the same Father.
In Christ,
You separate God's inspired word that we have in the scriptures, from who He is, and that is a terrible mistake that you make and the reason you come up with some very strange doctrine and misunderstandings and why you put certain kinds of emphasis on the Spirit. You are not balanced and I know you hate that word but you are a living example of it in what you express on this site.
S
Pneumapsuchesoma, If you are not Oneness what are
you? And why is Sabellius wrong? Do you view him as a
heretic, or just mistaken or incomplete?
What about the Trinity?
Here is a verse that proves the Trinity: "And I heard the
voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who
will go for us?" Then said I, "Here am I; send me."
Isaiah 6:8 KJV.
Dear pneumapsuchesoma, If you were Arminian, what
changed you from Arminian to Amyraldist (4 point
Calvinist)? Also, is it possible to be a four point
Calvinist? ISTM we either accept them all, or reject all 5
points of Calvinism. ISTM the "T" and the "L" parts of
Calvinism are false. But I may be wrong. Maybe we
could accept just one point of the TULIP, but not accept
them all. It seems like the "P" part makes the most
sense. Anyway, I think this is beyond my capability at
understanding. Anyway, what is an Amyraldist, and
why are you no longer that? Or are you that? What is
your Scripture-based doctrine on these matters?
You reject double election (predestination) now? And
election in Christ is based on foreknowledge of foreseen
faith? ISTM Calvinism is a more controversial subject
than even the Trinity. Take care.
PS If you are preaching some doctrine, does your
church or fellowship/denomination have a catechism?
A catechism is the best way to sum up a church's or
assembly's doctrines. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
S
Dear Trinitarian friends, See Catholic Answers: Catholic Apologetics, Catholic Evangelization, Catholic Teachings, Catholic Radio, Catholic Publishing, Catholic Truth Trinity
Trinity is in the early Christian document, The Didache. It is
there since Matthew 28:19. It is there early, in 181 AD, in
Theophilus of Antioch. It did not take until 325 AD for the
word Trinity to be used. The concept of one God in Three
Persons is there from day when when Christ speaks in Matthew
28:19. Take care. In Erie PA See ISAIAH 6:8 KJV
Scott R. Harrington