Discussion thread for AMR and God's Truth Trinity Debate.

Status
Not open for further replies.

oatmeal

Well-known member
The trinitarian view is the biblical, historical, orthodox view.

GT has a form of Oneness/modalism despite denying it.

I think Oneness can still be Christian, but AMR thinks this is not the case.

I know Arianism (JW, Unitarian) that denies the Deity of Christ (unlike Oneness) is outside of Christianity into cultic territory.

Since salvation is in the name of Jesus, people were saved in the OT without understanding trinity, most Christians cannot articulate and defend trinity views, etc., I would not put modalism in the same category as Arianism.

Having said that, trinity is important, beautiful, powerful relational truth/sound doctrine and should be defended and proclaimed as AMR is doing.

GT's view of the doctrine of God, incarnation, Christology is flawed and indefensible, but I likely consider him a fellow believer with AMR.

GT also seems to be confusing OT theophanies/Christophanies with the different truth about incarnation/humiliation/kenosis.

God is one spirit nature/substance/being/essence (ontology/metaphysics) with 3 personal distinctions who are co-eternal, co-equal, co-essential. This is not 3 gods nor a 3 headed god (straw man caricature argument).

Jesus is one person with two natures, fully Deity, fully humanity.


The trinitarian view is the biblical, historical, orthodox view.

Really? is that what scripture teaches?
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Well, it looks like Gods Truth is doing an extremely poor job of defending his position and answering AMR's questions.
 

ChristNU

New member
The trinity doctrine came from the Catholics. That should tell you to question it.

Right here is the crux of it, IMHO. How much "bad" doctrine has been developed as the result of hatred of the RCC and all things considered RCC? The Trinity being one of those considered RCC by the uninformed.
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
I would like to challenge AMR one on one with my simple way of reasoning why Trinity is unbiblical and doctrine of demon.

I would like to start with questions that I don't think any trinity believers can answer biblically.

To tell the truth, I don't believe God's Truth is biblical either because He said Jesus is the Father but he denied this claim later on. He does not seem to think he knows what he is talking about.

He has been inconsistent all alone with many other things and trinity is the same.

blessings.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
The last point AMR made was that it is unexplainable in the sense that we need revelation vs raw reason (same applies to many other truths about God). It also means that the finite cannot exhaustively grasp the infinite. It is not a mystery (no revelation) and we can say much truth about the triune understanding and defend its parameters. The same can be said about the existence of God that we accept. It is unexplainable, but we accept that He is uncreated Creator, contrary to reason, but true because of revelation that is reality. Before the statement you isolate out of context, he gave much detail about the trinity, but you told him to quit giving evidence?!

You are not reasonable and I think you should be put out of your misery on this debate because there are better champions of your general view (David Bernard is the guy to engage academically, not GT; likewise Anthony Buzzard is the credible guy for Unitarianism, not two bit guys here like oatmeal).

Two bit!

cool,
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
I would like to challenge AMR one on one with my simple way of reasoning why Trinity is unbiblical and doctrine of demon.

To tell the truth, I don't believe God's Truth is biblical either because He said Jesus is the Father but he denied this claim later on.

He has been inconsistent all alone with many things and trinity is the same.

blessings.

You said it better than I could.

God's truth, at best, seems to be semi-trinitarian.

Either Jesus Christ is God or he is not.

Jesus Christ is not God, he is the son of God.

Son, as in male offspring, with a beginning. Matthew 1:18

GT seems to be riding the fence

Since Jesus Christ is the son of God, not God himself, any support for a trinity does not exist.
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
I would like to challenge any trinity believer on one on one, it has not be AMR.

anyone?

thank you.
 

bybee

New member
You said it better than I could.

God's truth, at best, seems to be semi-trinitarian.

Either Jesus Christ is God or he is not.

Jesus Christ is not God, he is the son of God.

Son, as in male offspring, with a beginning. Matthew 1:18

GT seems to be riding the fence

Since Jesus Christ is the son of God, not God himself, any support for a trinity does not exist.

You do not believe that God has the power and authority to interject Himself into human history by incarnating Himself as a perfect being to offer us salvation through a sacrifice of Self?
A self that was witnessed by countless persons as risen from the dead and ascended into heaven?
You are saying there are lies in the New Testament and you are calling the witness of the Apostles lies?

What a foolish man you are you are!
 

bybee

New member
You are right, I am not eloquent at all. After all English is my second language. I speak broken English.

You don't have be eloquent to be faithful to be Jesus' servant.

blessings.

I commend you Meshak for your use of English. It is a very difficult language and you do a good job!
And, I believe you are a good and faithful servant!
 

fishrovmen

Active member
Gt, I wonder what Stephen saw at his stoning at the end of Acts chapter 7? What is your understanding of that vision?
 

mmstroud

Silver Member
Silver Subscriber
Canonicity, history of dogma, textual criticism, etc. are not as simplistic as you think.

Why do you refuse to tell us what group or church or writer you identify with? If we wanted to become believers in Christ and attend a local church or fellowship with the truth, where would we go?

If it is just you, Jesus, and the Bible, we have heard that before by endless nut jobs who are misled and misleading.

godrulz makes good points here.

Scripture was not intended to be a tool for proof-texting to support a particular view. We should all be able to make a Biblical argument for our view, but that looks very different from plucking an isolated verse here or there, completely ignoring the greater context, the original hearer, the original language, the circumstances under which the book or letter was written, etc.

Further, proof-texting without explanation or interpretation proves nothing. If AMR simply answered GT's proof-texts with a few of his own, GT would have to admit that AMR's proof-texts are just as valid on the face of it.

Ignoring thousand of years of church history and those who went before us in the faith is downright foolish. GT's objection to quoting others is tantamount to the tired 'I don't believe in any man's religion'. Lone Ranger Christians often end up believing in, at best, slightly unorthodox doctrines, and at worst, outright heresy. And I guarantee none of us came to our beliefs without being taught by someone along the way.

It's clear to me that the root of the issue here is a difference in interpretive method. An overly literal, wooden literal, approach to Scripture yields confusion and error.

GT, you can't simply cite a few verses and claim victory. There are some truths in Scripture that can't be proof-texted. The doctrines are built carefully by viewing the whole of Scripture and, like the doctrine of the Trinity, many came about in response to serious error.

AMR, well done as usual. Glad it's GT and not me. :chuckle:
 

bybee

New member
godrulz makes good points here.

Scripture was not intended to be a tool for proof-texting to support a particular view. We should all be able to make a Biblical argument for our view, but that looks very different from plucking an isolated verse here or there, completely ignoring the greater context, the original hearer, the original language, the circumstances under which the book or letter was written, etc.

Further, proof-texting without explanation or interpretation proves nothing. If AMR simply answered GT's proof-texts with a few of his own, GT would have to admit that AMR's proof-texts are just as valid on the face of it.

Ignoring thousand of years of church history and those who went before us in the faith is downright foolish. GT's objection to quoting others is tantamount to the tired 'I don't believe in any man's religion'. Lone Ranger Christians often end up believing in, at best, slightly unorthodox doctrines, and at worst, outright heresy. And I guarantee none of us came to our beliefs without being taught by someone along the way.

It's clear to me that the root of the issue here is a difference in interpretive method. An overly literal, wooden literal, approach to Scripture yields confusion and error.

GT, you can't simply cite a few verses and claim victory. There are some truths in Scripture that can't be proof-texted. The doctrines are built carefully by viewing the whole of Scripture and, like the doctrine of the Trinity, many came about in response to serious error.

AMR, well done as usual. Glad it's GT and not me. :chuckle:

I pay careful attention to everything AMR has to say. I would not presume to argue with him. Having said that, I do not always agree but always give careful consideration to his words.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
He can do it if he wants. I just added so I don't mind anyone take the challenge.

I can do it with anyone.
I generally am reluctant to debate women. I know my limitations well enough to understand that I will fall into sin given my tendency to become impatient and even angered during the heat of discussion. I just do not think God is glorified with the likes of myself in heated discussions with a woman. I mean no offense by this. Your views are the reason I have you on ignore--to avoid falling into more personal sin when I become inflamed when reading your blasphemies related to the Godhead.

I only respond now as your comments were quoted and felt you were owed an explanation.

AMR
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top