The Trinity

The Trinity


  • Total voters
    121

Rosenritter

New member
It has been explained to you that I John 5:7 is not in early manuscripts, but was inserted much later by nefarious clergy and/or copyists. It doesn't bother you to keep perpetuating falsehood?

Most (so-called) early manuscripts don't even have 1 John (the whole book) period. You are aware that Jerome is on record complaining that his copyists often made the error of omitting said verse when they were doing their work making copies of the Vulgate? That Vulgate is far older than the "early manuscripts" you are relying on for a standard of authenticity.

There's far more than this. Would you like to open a new thread?
 

Rosenritter

New member
Consider the two types of penalties incurred by sins. Eternal, and temporal. If we were forgiven the eternal consequences of our sins, why would we pray, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us?" unless we are asking for temporal indulgences, and also promising to grant them to others. :idunno: :chew:

I get worried when you start speaking of indulgences. Brings up bad memories..
 

popsthebuilder

New member
I do believe that God is a male because He calls Himself Father.

As the angels are His sons and are male.
It is okay to consider the eternal creator GOD of all creation and existence any respectful symbol or combination there of so long is it indeed represents the One Creator GOD.

Is it blasphemy to consider GOD to exude more feminine characteristics; compassion, love, nurture? Also there are obvious male characteristics that can be discerned from the perceivable aspects of GOD within the physical life of man as well. I don't think there is much of a need in claiming GOD to be male or female; from the understanding of man it takes both to produce children, yet GOD is One GOD, so when being technical, I would have to insist no sex be affiliated with the Spirit of GOD for me personally, or rather both in unison.

I don't find it to be a needed dividing line between us, and hope you do not either.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
I get worried when you start speaking of indulgences. Brings up bad memories..
:) I'm sorry. Indulgences are wonderful things and most of us wouldn't be able to live happily without them. They're when the Church (that's us individual members) by hook or by crook somehow protects us from the consequences due us because of our sins, in this life (also in purgatory, but that's another topic). We grant them to others all the time, when we forgive them their trespasses against us, when we forgive those who trespass against us.
 

Rosenritter

New member
I appreciate this and used to think this too. There were way too many 'warning' scriptures, including "working out my salvation with fear and trembling" Philippians 2:12 but read the reason 'why' (It started my understanding when I did): Philippians 2:12&13Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose. -see also Ephesians 2:10

John 15:5, Colossians 1:17 Why should we fear? Because ONLY God can make us stand. Romans 14:4 2 Corinthians 5:17 "If"

1 John 2:19 made sense to me, finally, in this light. 2 Timothy 2:13 isn't God's prison, it is our salvation and freedom. John 8:36 Matthew 11:28-30

Are we saved by faith alone? Or is faith without works worthless and vain? It's not one or the other, any more than the reality in front of you is of the right eye instead of the left (or vice versa). Neither eye is wrong, they combine for a truer image.

I suggest that it works this way in this question as well. I am not worried that God will abandon me, or you, or anyone that wants to put their faith in him. This doesn't mean that people cannot fall away were they to willingly turn and rebel. God, as revealed in scripture, wants those who are truly willing: for example, when he told Gideon that those that were with him were too many, how did he thin them out?
 

popsthebuilder

New member
Are you so ignorant that you don't know that a Father is a person?

Or that a Son is a person?

The Father and the Son have a PERSONAL relationship.
Very good. You've shown the capacity to make connections an infant is able to deduce. Unfortunately, Im not too sure that is the "childlike" that out faith is to resemble.

Can you say metaphor?

And by the way, you might ought to more carefully consider your words as a father is not an exact copy or clone of a son, nor do they hold the same capacities or origins.
Are you so ignorant that you don't know that a Father is a person?

Or that a Son is a person?

The Father and the Son have a PERSONAL relationship.


Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
 

popsthebuilder

New member
Nobody is promoting to keep on sinning. You just don't understand Jesus Christ and His finished/completed work on the Cross of Calvary and He placing us in Him.
Oh. So being in Christ brings about no change, no shame upon knowing sin, or before? No desire for repentance there from, or actual repentance?


YOU PREACH THAT FAITH IS INEFFECTUAL.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
 

popsthebuilder

New member
I am dead to sin. It's impossible to "continue in knowing sin" when one has been delivered from the law and has been created IN CHRIST. I realize it's frustrating for the natural man to hear these facts. Rather than get angry at me, though, you should spend time in the word of God and pray for understanding.
You blindly rattle off truths as if they pertain to you while in knowing sin.

A seared conscience is NOT a product of effectual faith in Jesus the Christ of GOD or GOD.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

glorydaz

Well-known member
You blindly rattle off truths adrift they pertain to you while in knowing sin.

A seared conscience is NOT a product of effectual faith in Jesus the Christ of GOD or GOD.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Stop beating around the bush, Pops. Tell me what knowing sin I am guilty of committing. :chew:
 

Lon

Well-known member
Are we saved by faith alone? Or is faith without works worthless and vain? It's not one or the other, any more than the reality in front of you is of the right eye instead of the left (or vice versa). Neither eye is wrong, they combine for a truer image.
Yes, BUT take James' words in-light-of a new creation.... When I was young, my brother and sister had curfews, I did not. Guess why? Because I loved my parents and God more than the desire to get into trouble. I never had a curfew BUT the curfew was in me. 1 Timothy 1:9 1 John 3:3-6 Question: Was the law made for you? James wasn't so much saying 'do works' but 'my faith includes works already as a package deal.'

I suggest that it works this way in this question as well. I am not worried that God will abandon me, or you, or anyone that wants to put their faith in him. This doesn't mean that people cannot fall away were they to willingly turn and rebel. God, as revealed in scripture, wants those who are truly willing: for example, when he told Gideon that those that were with him were too many, how did he thin them out?
Until I read 1 John 2:19, I would likely have agreed with you. Now? After memorizing it? :nono: I can't (and incidentally don't desire to either, but would if I was convinced otherwise). I simply cannot believe 1 John 2:19 is anything but exactly what it says: They who left were NEVER a part.... Doesn't it say that clearly? :think: I'm okay with disagreement and this is off the topic that I can leave it be. I just want you to think about these and cherish these scriptures in your heart. :e4e:
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Oh. So being in Christ brings about no change, no shame upon knowing sin, or before? No desire for repentance there from, or actual repentance?


YOU PREACH THAT FAITH IS INEFFECTUAL.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

It seems you're the one who is unable to comprehend the power of God's workmanship in those who are HIS.
It's hard for you to believe, because you have not yet been created IN CHRIST JESUS. What is abundantly clear to the true believer is impossible for you to understand. Your doubt speaks volumes.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Galatians 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.​
 

popsthebuilder

New member
Those who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ are already hid with Christ in God. This is the foundation on which we rest. All things are lawful for us, but not all things are expedient. Those things which are not expedient are the wood and stubble.

1 Cor. 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.​

Do you see how much you all fret over "knowing sin"? You worry about others as you continue to ignore the stubble in your own life. You have no assurance of salvation, and are angry at those of us who do. I have no idea what you imagine the sins are that I'm "committing", but it's obviously consuming you. This is exactly why our Lord died for all sin....so that we could live our lives free of the fear of death that sin brings. You people just cannot bring yourselves to trust in Christ's work on the cross. It's a shame.

Could you please provide scripture saying we are hid in Christ? Thank you in advance.

The foundation is Christ; from the teachings,and example to the Holy Spirit that is the comforter of those who stand fast in faithfulness. The resurrection of the Christ is our reassurance and surety in the Word of GOD.

All things indeed are lawful for us as we are not bound toothed letter or the old law but toothed law that is shown us within our hearts and minds via the Holy Spirit/ Christ.

The wood and stubble for the fire are indeed fuel. It is indeed knowing sin, and being propagated as fine and A okay in the sight of our Lord GOD for Tue saved believer seems to me to be heck of a good way to be cut from the branch that is the congregation and church of the living GOD, and being replaced. But what do I know. I can't even spell, and am not traditional.

Even so; I am learning and would love to actually be shown to be wrong.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
 

popsthebuilder

New member
1 John 5:7 Matthew 28:19

:nono: John 1:1 John 20:28 Titus 2:13 Acts 20:28 There are lots, and they are clear. No Baptist is an arian or Unitarian.
And I'm not my grandmother.

I do not hold to denominational divisions.

I will check the verses you listed.

I listed one myself.

I really wish people understood that I am not against the Trinity; but the literal understanding of the coeternal son, and that it is a needed doctrine for salvation, as opposed to the actual teachings of the Christ.

I can see how one might have trouble understanding me though; with all the spelling and grammatical errors and all.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
It is okay to consider the eternal creator GOD of all creation and existence any respectful symbol or combination there of so long is it indeed represents the One Creator GOD.

Is it blasphemy to consider GOD to exude more feminine characteristics; compassion, love, nurture?
Hold on, these are not feminine exclusive qualities.
Galatians 5:22-23
Also there are obvious male characteristics that can be discerned from the perceivable aspects of GOD within the physical life of man as well. I don't think there is much of a need in claiming GOD to be male or female; from the understanding of man it takes both to produce children, yet GOD is One GOD, so when being technical, I would have to insist no sex be affiliated with the Spirit of GOD for me personally, or rather both in unison.

I don't find it to be a needed dividing line between us, and hope you do not either.

peace
There are times He describes Himself after those aspects such as sheltering wings, etc. Even that you recognize this, should allow an understanding of the Son as God, however.

"Persons" btw, is not a limitation, but rather a descriptor. PPS doesn't like the idea of 'persons' because it intimates as you suggest, a limitation as well as a 'physical' limitation. For me, it is rather to be understood a 'description' that reveals distinction, somehow, between God and God. How is that possible? :idunno: But I believe implicitly that scripture calls Father, Son, and Spirit: God, and that scripture also clearly says there is and ever will only be one God. Isaiah 43:11 Isaiah 44:6 Isaiah 45:5,6
 

popsthebuilder

New member
Hebrews 1:1-3 KJV
(1) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
(2) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
(3) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

See? It says right there, that the Son is the express image of the three persons of God. Persons, plural, and three of them it says. Oh, wait, actually it's singular, isn't it...

Anyone have another scripture that uses the word person or persons in relation to God?

So being appointed is synonymous with eternally being? Being begotten is eternal? Being an image of a singular thing is synonymous with being that literal thing?


Too easy friend.

Please don't think this is me refuting that Christ is GOD, because it is not.



Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
 
OK, I'll sum up what I read above as "Once Saved Always Saved" ... which is incorrect, and dangerous.

Who gave salvation, and who sustains it? If we could not do anything of our own to earn salvation in the first place, how is it even remotely logical that we could do anything of our own to keep it? Again, obedience is a product of salvation: salvation is never the product of obedience. All who are saved (preserved} will obey, but not all who obey are saved (preserved).

The only ones who believe "Once saved always saved so live like hell" are those who are not truly saved. When one truly has the seal of the Holy Spirit, sin becomes unappealing because the Holy Spirit works to conform the true believer into the image of Jesus Christ.

Yes, it is possible to fall away.

Possible to fall away from what, salvation? If you had a son, that son can no more lose his sonship than anyone can lose their salvation. You could take away his inheritance and give him nothing, but he would still be no less than your son. Our "heavenly" rewards are based on our obedience, not our salvation. It must then be talking about

Christ's blood has paid for everyone's sins,

Amen! Why is it never hard for someone to believe this, but then they always follow it with the something like the below?

it does not mean that all will be saved.

Actually, all have been saved already. Take a look at 1st Timothy 4:10. Did you catch what it said? Now, the type of salvation is another story...



If faith and belief turned from and rejected still ends up with salvation, what type of nonsense would that yield?

Um, the Apostle Peter...

The DEVIL HIMSELF once was perfect, and he rejected God. Why would you or I be granted salvation if we choose that same path of the devil?

  1. The Devil was not made perfect, I have gone over this quite thoroughly with Jamie early on in this very thread.
  2. Grace is the reason we are granted salvation!!! We were on the same path as the Devil until Jesus saw fit to open our eyes to the truth of his salvation. Do you not know that we were granted salvation while we were yet on that path?
  3. And before you go there, we were not made perfect either.

Spoiler
I think this parable is applicable to this point:

Mat 18:23-35
(23) Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
(24) And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
(25) But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
(26) The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
(27) Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
(28) But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
(29) And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
(30) And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
(31) So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
(32) Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
(33) Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
(34) And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
(35) So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

It sure is applicable, and I am glad you brought it up. Let me show you a couple of things that you seem to have missed in this parable.
  1. In verse 23, what is the kingdom of heaven likened unto? Answer: A king and his servants. The point: even after everything was said and done, the one whose debt was originally forgiven by the king was still no less the king's servant: albeit he was called a wicked servant, but a servant nonetheless.
  2. In verse 33 (which you conveniently highlighted for me), notice that the king calls the victim in the situation the wicked servant's fellowservant. Also, in verse 35 (which you again highlighted for me), that the forgiveness in the parable is toward ones brothers; that is, those who are in the family of God... Notice how the focus is put on those who start out in the beginning as part of the kingdom and, even after doing negative things, remain as part of the kingdom. This parable is about reproof and correction of the saved, not about losing one's salvation.

We don't "own" God or have him over a barrel, locked into a phone contract that he can't break out of if we decide that we don't want him to rule over us any longer.

You are right, it is quite the contrary. Through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, God "owns" us, has us over a barrel, locked into a phone contract that we can't break out of if we decide that we don't want him to rule over us any longer.

The price was paid, we are his bondservants (slaves), and God is a master from whom there is no escape!!!
 

Lon

Well-known member
I will check the verses you listed.

I listed one myself.
Agreed. How does it then work? :idunno: I just HAVE to listen to all scriptures. So, with yours and mine in conjunction? I am left triune by, I believe, necessity.

I really wish people understood that I am not against the Trinity; but the literal understanding of the coeternal son, and that it is a needed doctrine for salvation, as opposed to the actual teachings of the Christ.
:up: Helps. I'd say it over and over in threads like this.

I can see how one might have trouble understanding me though; with all the spelling and grammatical errors and all.
James 1:19 While I do debate with Unit-Arians, I rather feel I discuss, conversely, with you and those like you. 1M1S and I adamantly disagree on this topic, but both of us have committed to 'just the scriptures.' It helps give what is needed without a lot of fanfare. Wouldn't it be something if we had a thread like this and ONLY scriptures were allowed (no commentary whatsoever)??? :e4e:

-Not to take away from these kinds of threads like the one we are posting in, but rather in contrast and 'perhaps' with a separate thread where those scriptures alone, could be discussed. :think:
 

popsthebuilder

New member
I cite Clarke here because he has information of the original application of that Hebrew phrase. When we see an unfamiliar phrase, is it not preferable to find its historical usage, rather than inventing something based on whims?

But why do you say "Trinity lens?" Where does anything in those fact statements Clarke cites require a prior acceptance of "Trinity?" Did you forget that I don't identify myself as Trinitarian?
I would agree that one should have a firm understanding, but deny that understanding should come from another man. It is made clear we hear via the priest; there's only One.

As far as the explanations you provided are concerned; I didn't too much read them due to the reasons cited above.

I didn't mean to insinuate that you personally had Indonesia thick goggles, actually impeding your sight.

Sorry for the confusion.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
 
Top