ECT Our triune God

OneGodInChrist

New member
No, you do not, brother.:doh:

You are stalling...

If you knew what the Trinity is, then you could have easily stated what you think it is, already.

As it is, you are no different than any of the other Trinity deniers....as none of them can even tell us what they think it even is....all they know how to do is say that it is somehow 'wrong'...no definition, nothing...no defining premise...nothing...just plain 'wrong'..

Would you like the "official" definition such as the Nicean or Athanasian Creed, the Christian apologetics one, or just my own personal definition.

The Trinity teaches that God is one in essence, but three in persons. They are co-equal and co-eternal. That's my own shortened version of course, but I'm also well aware of the rest, such as the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, yet there are not three Gods, etc...

Now my question for you is, do you understand the Oneness? It's only fair haha
God bless bro
 

OneGodInChrist

New member
Scripture tells us that there is no difference in baptising in the singular name of the Trinity or the singular name of Jesus.

Baptism is a whole other discussion. However, how the apostles and early Church baptized testifies greatly to their view of the Godhead.
 

Apple7

New member
Would you like the "official" definition such as the Nicean or Athanasian Creed, the Christian apologetics one, or just my own personal definition.

What you think it is...after all, you are the one denying it to be true...



The Trinity teaches that God is one in essence, but three in persons. They are co-equal and co-eternal. That's my own shortened version of course, but I'm also well aware of the rest, such as the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, yet there are not three Gods, etc...

If you believe this...then show us your vey best silver-bullet Trinity-killer verse which supposedly thwarts the Trinity and detail why you think it does....good luck on that one...




Now my question for you is, do you understand the Oneness? It's only fair haha
God bless bro

The goal of oneness is to deny the Triune creator.

In order to do so, they must cherry-pick their scriptures very carefully to the exclusion of others.

Trinitarians use the whole of scripture.

See the difference, brother?
 

Apple7

New member
Baptism is a whole other discussion. However, how the apostles and early Church baptized testifies greatly to their view of the Godhead.

No.

Scripture informs us that baptising in the singular name of Jesus is the same as baptising in the singular name of the Trinity.

Still waiting for a verse which you think thwarts the Trinity...
 

Redeemed-777

New member
Those who sat on the Counsel of Nicea were NOT men who were even qualified to make any decisions on who God was. They were very paganistic, political "Christians" who believed a very compromised version of Christianity to what you and I believe today, which would later become known to us as Roman Catholicism.

In short, I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is the one Catholic doctrine that most of Reformed Christianity hasn't YET let go of.
I agree with your idea about the boys @ Nicea ...
who knows if they were born-again with the precious Holy Spirit INSIDE guiding them?
And I'm sure none had the baptism with the Holy Spirit ... Wah dat?

Movin' on ...
Just what are you a-goin' to do with those 70+ verses ...
which reveal that Jesus is God, equal to Father God, etc. etc.?


HEY! ... you either believe Scripture, or you don't.

If you don't, just say so! ... now that's a laugh.
None of you guys ever will admit you believe Scripture has been tampered with.
But, WHY?, I don't know ... for it would be an incredibly valid claim.

Continuing onski ...
It's all about BELIEF and OBEDIENCE.
Are any of us responsible for the condition of the Bible today?
All that's required of us is to DO DA BLUE ... with whatever we hold in our hot little hands.

P.S. Anyone have any idea what I'm talkin' about?
 

OneGodInChrist

New member
No.

Scripture informs us that baptising in the singular name of Jesus is the same as baptising in the singular name of the Trinity.

Still waiting for a verse which you think thwarts the Trinity...

I'm not here to disprove or disrespect anyone, or their beliefs. It's not my job to disprove the Trinity, but to simply show why I believe what I believe. Trinitarians know the Scriptures every bit as well as Oneness people do, and I'm the first to admit that. I don't believe that I could give a Scripture to you to disprove it, because we all know what the Scriptures teach. Where we differ however, is the INTERPRETATION of those Scriptures.

For example Deu. 6:4 I believe teaches that God is absolutely one in number, and that's why God told them to teach it diligently to their children. I don't like trying to tear each others beliefs apart because that alienates us from each other, and brings us to a place where neither one of us is willing to learn from each other.

I showed both my knowlege of the Trinity, and where history teaches it began, as well as why I don't believe Scripture teaches it. I'm not here to tear the Trinity, or anyone's beliefs apart, but rather to respectfully tell what I believe with all my heart to be true.
 

Gurucam

New member
This thread is specifically for triune believers. No other need or should post here.

I'm personally boycotting these cultists threads against our view. I have found none of them are here to learn a thing and they certainly don't make a cogent or compelling presentation. Its a waste of bandwidth and time from my experience. This thread is for posting material to help us on our way.

Here is a cogent and compelling presentation, which is also my Easter message:


Please click here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3034224#post3034224
 

OneGodInChrist

New member
I agree with your idea about the boys @ Nicea ...
who knows if they were born-again with the precious Holy Spirit INSIDE guiding them?
And I'm sure none had the baptism with the Holy Spirit ... Wah dat?

Movin' on ...
Just what are you a-goin' to do with those 70+ verses ...
which reveal that Jesus is God, equal to Father God, etc. etc.?


HEY! ... you either believe Scripture, or you don't.

If you don't, just say so! ... now that's a laugh.
None of you guys ever will admit you believe Scripture has been tampered with.
But, WHY?, I don't know ... for it would be an incredibly valid claim.

Continuing onski ...
It's all about BELIEF and OBEDIENCE.
Are any of us responsible for the condition of the Bible today?
All that's required of us is to DO DA BLUE ... with whatever we hold in our hot little hands.

P.S. Anyone have any idea what I'm talkin' about?

I absolutely believe that Jesus was God. However, I believe however, that the God of the Old Testament became a man in the New Testament. That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are different manifestations, or simply different ways that ONE God has revealed Himself to man, and not seperate "persons."
 

godrulz

New member
Hall of Fame
Baptism is a whole other discussion. However, how the apostles and early Church baptized testifies greatly to their view of the Godhead.

Baptizing in the name of Jesus relates to His person, work, authority. It was not a formulaic thing. The early church related to the triune God. They did not reduce Father/Son/Spirit to mere manifestations or offices, but prayed TO the FATHER in the NAME of Jesus. The language becomes meaningless to accept Oneness ideas. There would be no grammatical way to say that John is not Peter or that the Father is not the Son.
 

OneGodInChrist

New member
Baptizing in the name of Jesus relates to His person, work, authority. It was not a formulaic thing.

Although I totally agree with you about it relating to His person, work, and authority, both Scripture and history say it was a VERY formulaic thing.

Would you hold to that same belief of it not being formulaic if the apostles had've baptized in the Trinitarian formula? What I mean by that is, if the book of Acts had'he recorded it as in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, would you still agree that it wasn't a formula?
 

Apple7

New member
I'm not here to disprove or disrespect anyone, or their beliefs. It's not my job to disprove the Trinity, but to simply show why I believe what I believe. Trinitarians know the Scriptures every bit as well as Oneness people do, and I'm the first to admit that. I don't believe that I could give a Scripture to you to disprove it, because we all know what the Scriptures teach. Where we differ however, is the INTERPRETATION of those Scriptures.

For example Deu. 6:4 I believe teaches that God is absolutely one in number, and that's why God told them to teach it diligently to their children. I don't like trying to tear each others beliefs apart because that alienates us from each other, and brings us to a place where neither one of us is willing to learn from each other.

I showed both my knowlege of the Trinity, and where history teaches it began, as well as why I don't believe Scripture teaches it. I'm not here to tear the Trinity, or anyone's beliefs apart, but rather to respectfully tell what I believe with all my heart to be true.


You reject the Trinity because you feel your 'interpretation' is more accurate than that of the Trinitarian view.

Hence, as I keep asking you, bring forth your very best 'Trinity-killer' verse, which, according to your interpretation, supposedly thwarts the Trinity.

That is the only way that you are going to either strengthen or weaken your position, brother.

As it is right now, your denial of the Trinity looks pretty weak...
 

Apple7

New member
I absolutely believe that Jesus was God. However, I believe however, that the God of the Old Testament became a man in the New Testament. That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are different manifestations, or simply different ways that ONE God has revealed Himself to man, and not seperate "persons."

That would be the Trinity, brother.

Three expressions of the One God.
 

godrulz

New member
Hall of Fame
Although I totally agree with you about it relating to His person, work, and authority, both Scripture and history say it was a VERY formulaic thing.

Would you hold to that same belief of it not being formulaic if the apostles had've baptized in the Trinitarian formula? What I mean by that is, if the book of Acts had'he recorded it as in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, would you still agree that it wasn't a formula?

There is no evidence about the words that were said at baptism in the Bible. You misunderstand that to baptize into the name/person of Jesus was identification with Him vs Zeus, not magical words said in a sacramental way to cause regeneration. Many verses make repentant faith the condition of receiving grace. The verses about baptism cannot be teaching baptismal regeneration without contradiction. They do show that it was the normative, public expression of inner faith post-conversion. It is a symbolic, public, discipleship issue, not a salvation issue. Many are baptized who are not regenerated. Others are regenerated but never get baptized. You are making this legalistic when the Bible does not (cf. wrong Catholic views about transubstantiation, infant baptism, Mass, rosary, penance, etc.). When I was a pastor, I even said something like I baptize you in the name/authority of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit....in the name of Jesus. Amen. Whether the person did the ritual or not, they were already filled with the Spirit. If my assistant said one phrase, both phrases, no phrases, or in different orders, it did not matter. When I say in the name of Jesus, I do not say in the name of Jesus only. I also do not throw out Jesus' words and elevate Acts above the wording in the Great Commission. They are not contradictory for trinitarians.

You need to read Boyd's book. He deals with the heresies and legalisms of UPC from an insider perspective. God led Him to fuller understanding and freedom. You are in a sect. Like worse cultists, you do not see or appreciate the error/deception/indoctrination you are being influenced by. Those who are set free look back and see what they did not while they were in the group. My experience with UPC in my city over the years confirms that they have strong, controlling leadership, legalism, divisive spirit, misinformation about the trinity debate, zeal without knowledge. I consider them brothers in Christ, but not the heart of biblical, NT Christianity.
 

SovereigntyIsGods

New member
I absolutely believe that Jesus was God. However, I believe however, that the God of the Old Testament became a man in the New Testament. That the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are different manifestations, or simply different ways that ONE God has revealed Himself to man, and not seperate "persons."

Yeah that's exactly how I understand the Trinity. Three different ways that One God has chosen to extend outwardly from Himself in order to express Himself to men.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Yeah that's exactly how I understand the Trinity. Three different ways that One God has chosen to extend outwardly from Himself in order to express Himself to men.

The Persons of the Trinity are distinct while the purpose of God (fulfilled according to eternal decree and divine actions) is singular.

Failing to distinguish the Persons and attributing differing roles to the One God is the error of Modalism.

IOW's the harmony exhibited between the three Persons to achieve their singular goal, is vital to understanding correct Trinitarian teaching.

Nang
 

OneGodInChrist

New member
That would be the Trinity, brother.

Three expressions of the One God.

But the difference is that I believe that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost that Jesus was talking about in Math. 28:19, and that ALL of who God is was manifest in flesh, and not just one of three persons. But that ALL THE FULNESS of the Godhead was and is in Christ. Col. 2:9

Take care bro and Happy Easter:)
 

OneGodInChrist

New member
@godrulz..neither one of us are ignorant nor unlearned of the other's position so lets just enjoy the rest of Easter Sunday celebrating Jesus' death, burial, and resurrectin, and agree to disagree. We'll pick up the discussions next week I'm sure. I really do appreciate your ministry on here and your love for the Word even though we may not agree on all things. Oh, and I just found out the other day that you're a fellow Canadian..Happy Easter from NB!!
 

godrulz

New member
Hall of Fame
But the difference is that I believe that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost that Jesus was talking about in Math. 28:19, and that ALL of who God is was manifest in flesh, and not just one of three persons. But that ALL THE FULNESS of the Godhead was and is in Christ. Col. 2:9

Take care bro and Happy Easter:)

Jesus is not half God half man, but fully God, fully man. Col. 2 does not mean the Godhead (3) incarnated, but that Jesus is God in the flesh, not a hybrid (He is one person with two natures, fully God, fully man, not half man, half God). It is an affirmation of the Deity and incarnation of Christ, not a denial of God's triune nature eternally. Other verses show the trinity, so this verse does not contradict it (you proof text your idea, not exegete the meaning of it). This verse does not negate hundreds that show Jesus is not the person of the Father. Mt. 28 distinguishes Father, Son, Holy Spirit without hint that they are the same. Modalism makes the whole thing a confusing charade and illusion to mislead vs taking the verses at face value despite the contradiction to modalism and consistency with trinitarianism. We are to honor the Father and the Son. We are to worship each. Saying they are the same person (vs same God, true) is to dishonour God and misrepresent who He is.
 

OneGodInChrist

New member
Jesus is not half God half man, but fully God, fully man. Col. 2 does not mean the Godhead (3) incarnated, but that Jesus is God in the flesh, not a hybrid (He is one person with two natures, fully God, fully man, not half man, half God).

Now there's something we agree on!!
 

Apple7

New member
But the difference is that I believe that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost that Jesus was talking about in Math. 28:19, and that ALL of who God is was manifest in flesh, and not just one of three persons. But that ALL THE FULNESS of the Godhead was and is in Christ. Col. 2:9

Take care bro and Happy Easter:)


The singular name of the Trinity does not mean that the Father is the Son...or that the Son is the Father.
 
Top