Is our understanding of The Trinity & Godhead, correct?

[Thorwald]

It appears to me, that there are 'four figures', instead of 'three'. If 'The Father' (The Son's Father), is an invisible god, whom man has not and cannot, see, and The Holy Ghost, who proceedeth from The Father, cannot be seen in His true form, then how do we explain Revelation chpt 4 & 5?

It appears to me, that Isaiah 44:6, refers to The Son, only. If this is true, then there is a difference between The Son, as 'Lord God Almighty', and The Son, as 'the man Christ'. Since The Son created everything, and this pleased The Father that He allowed this, and it was for The Son's pleasure that this was allowed, this tells me that The Son has two different functions. He created everything, and then had to reconcile His creation, by becoming the "Lamb". As 'The creator', He is our Father in heaven, and also His own Father of Himself as 'Son of Man' (our brother).

Some of the scriptures that I used, are as follows;

1 Timothy 2:3, 6:14-16, Rev 1:6, Eph 4:4-6, 3:9, 5:20, 1 Tim 2:5, Col 3:17, 1:2-3, 1:12-22, 2:2, John chpt 1, 1 Cor 5:19, 15:24-28, 2 Cor 6:17-18.
Your comments would be appreciated. :jesus:

Thorwald Johansen

 

[Ruiz]

It appears to me, that there are 'four figures', instead of 'three'. If 'The Father' (The Son's Father), is an invisible god, whom man has not and cannot, see, and The Holy Ghost, who proceedeth from The Father, cannot be seen in His true form, then how do we explain Revelation chpt 4 & 5?

It appears to me, that Isaiah 44:6, refers to The Son, only. If this is true, then there is a difference between The Son, as 'Lord God Almighty', and The Son, as 'the man Christ'. Since The Son created everything, and this pleased The Father that He allowed this, and it was for The Son's pleasure that this was allowed, this tells me that The Son has two different functions. He created everything, and then had to reconcile His creation, by becoming the "Lamb". As 'The creator', He is our Father in heaven, and also His own Father of Himself as 'Son of Man' (our brother).

Some of the scriptures that I used, are as follows;

1 Timothy 2:3, 6:14-16, Rev 1:6, Eph 4:4-6, 3:9, 5:20, 1 Tim 2:5, Col 3:17, 1:2-3, 1:12-22, 2:2, John chpt 1, 1 Cor 5:19, 15:24-28, 2 Cor 6:17-18.
Your comments would be appreciated. :jesus:

Thorwald Johansen

I think you replaced the Biblical understanding of the Trinity with a form of modalism.

 

[Thorwald]

I think you replaced the Biblical understanding of the Trinity with a form of modalism.

I simply used the KJV Bible scriptures (The Word of God), that God tells us to use. I have not changed a single word. The various 'ministers' of the various Christian faiths, are the ones that have changed God's Word.

If you look closely, and add other scriptures such as, "My Father and I are one," you will see, that there is something wrong with the current understanding of The Trinity and The Godhead. If I assume that Jesus is speaking as the Son of Man (The Word in the flesh) when He states the above quote, and is referring to Himself as The Lord God Almighty, as being 'My Father', then the scriptures (that I have posted previously) make more sense. The Christian ministry assumes 'symbolism' in order to explain how John saw the figure on the throne in Rev chpt 4. No scripture bears this out. This is nothing more than man's own 'assumption' (vanity).

We cannot have the figure sitting on the throne as being The Father, in Rev chpt 4, because the rest of the N/T scripture has 'The Son' creating everything. The Son must reconcile His kingdom, before submitting His Kingdom and Himself, unto The Father. The whole book of Revelation, is the reconciliation process, that constantly refers to the 'Word of God'. We know by John chpt 1, that The Son is The Word.

Jesus stated that He was looking forward to returning to the glory that He had, before the world was. Is this not the glory of being the 'creator...The Lord God Almighty'?

It appears to me, that the Christian ministry has 'locked' the Son into being 'The Lamb' (resurrected Son of Man), only. He has not been returned to being The creator. :jesus:

 

[Ruiz]

I simply used the KJV Bible scriptures (The Word of God), that God tells us to use. I have not changed a single word. The various 'ministers' of the various Christian faiths, are the ones that have changed God's Word.

If you look closely, and add other scriptures such as, "My Father and I are one," you will see, that there is something wrong with the current understanding of The Trinity and The Godhead. If I assume that Jesus is speaking as the Son of Man (The Word in the flesh) when He states the above quote, and is referring to Himself as The Lord God Almighty, as being 'My Father', then the scriptures (that I have posted previously) make more sense. The Christian ministry assumes 'symbolism' in order to explain how John saw the figure on the throne in Rev chpt 4. No scripture bears this out. This is nothing more than man's own 'assumption' (vanity).

We cannot have the figure sitting on the throne as being The Father, in Rev chpt 4, because the rest of the N/T scripture has 'The Son' creating everything. The Son must reconcile His kingdom, before submitting His Kingdom and Himself, unto The Father. The whole book of Revelation, is the reconciliation process, that constantly refers to the 'Word of God'. We know by John chpt 1, that The Son is The Word.

Jesus stated that He was looking forward to returning to the glory that He had, before the world was. Is this not the glory of being the 'creator...The Lord God Almighty'?

It appears to me, that the Christian ministry has 'locked' the Son into being 'The Lamb' (resurrected Son of Man), only. He has not been returned to being The creator. :jesus:

Defend it like you want, but you still seem to be advocating a form of modalism.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ruiz: Defend it like you want, but you still seem to be advocating a form of modalism.

HP: How is such a remark meaningful on a debate forum? Now if you would demonstrate for the list the errors of modalism and the affinity to that system that the author has IYO, now we have the makings of an excellent debate.:thumbsup:

 

[Thorwald]

Defend it like you want, but you still seem to be advocating a form of modalism.

I have listed scriptures that raise the question that I am asking. Can you not see this? I have 'created' nothing. There is a very real problem with our current understanding of The Trinity and The Godhead. It is contradictory, when compared to the scriptures. Simply defend your position/understanding using scriptures. It does not matter what I, or others, think. I am simply raising the topic, and supplying some of the scriptures that pertain to this topic. Your view(s) are very important to me. If I am wrong, then please provide me with the pertinent scriptures, that will correct 'my thinking'. I thank you for this. :jesus:

 

[savedbymercy]

thorwald

there is a difference between The Son, as 'Lord God Almighty', and The Son, as 'the man Christ'.

Thats is True. The Lord Jesus Christ is a very complex Being, because in His Divine Nature He is 100% God, Self Existing , Uncreated and Almighty, then He has a Begotten Mediatoral Being, as the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim 2:5, begotten from Everlasting, and this being is inferior to and subject to the Father, both of these Beings were combined[Hypostatic Union] before the world began ! I go into detail on my understanding of this subject in the thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=73533

 

[Ruiz]

HP: How is such a remark meaningful on a debate forum? Now if you would demonstrate for the list the errors of modalism and the affinity to that system that the author has IYO, now we have the makings of an excellent debate.:thumbsup:

The basis of this debate is one that extends outside the confines of Christianity because of the viewpoint itself. If he holds to modalism, then he is holding a heretical doctrine--one that rejects Christianity and the revealed Jesus Christ (Athanasius called it an Anathama). I would love to debate the Trinity, but I am not going to pretend it is a matter of two Christian doctrines debating the other. Rather, if there is an acknowledgement that he holds to a form of modalism, he is admitting that he is jettisoning Christianity. If, on the other hand, I am wrong and he is not embracing a form of modalism, then he should correct me.

As well, if he embraces modalism then it would be wise to also show this is an historic heresy before we progress further. The fact that he says we got it wrong all these years when Christianity has addressed the issue and called it heretical is pretty significant on the historic side of this discussion.

 

[Ruiz]

I have listed scriptures that raise the question that I am asking. Can you not see this? I have 'created' nothing. There is a very real problem with our current understanding of The Trinity and The Godhead. It is contradictory, when compared to the scriptures. Simply defend your position/understanding using scriptures. It does not matter what I, or others, think. I am simply raising the topic, and supplying some of the scriptures that pertain to this topic. Your view(s) are very important to me. If I am wrong, then please provide me with the pertinent scriptures, that will correct 'my thinking'. I thank you for this. :jesus:

Do you admit you are holding to a form of modalism? This is my point and a point I think must presuppose this debate. If you hold to modalism, you are rejecting historic Christianity. From my viewpoint, this is what you are embracing but I did not want to go that far but give you an opportunity to respond to the accusation. Yet, remember, that historically modalism has been addressed extensively and called a heresy.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Heresy is a very subjective notion, often driven by the powers that be. Certainly the Church has been wrong in the past on more than one issue. Heresy is so often denoted as 'anything that disagrees with my point of view, or the point of view a segment of the Church considers 'orthodox.'

We certainly know how slow burning the fires were kindled for Servetus when he disagreed with Calvin over his views on the Trinity, don't we. If for no other reason than the treatment given to Servetus, I would consider any and all of Calvin's views as possibly suspect to be prayerfully and carefully examined and tested.

 

[Ruiz]

Heresy is a very subjective notion, often driven by the powers that be. Certainly the Church has been wrong in the past on more than one issue. Heresy is so often denoted as 'anything that disagrees with my point of view, or the point of view a segment of the Church considers 'orthodox.'

We certainly know how slow burning the fires were kindled for Servetus when he disagreed with Calvin over his views on the Trinity, don't we. If for no other reason than the treatment given to Servetus, I would consider any and all of Calvin's views as possibly suspect to be prayerfully and carefully examined and tested.

I cited the Athanasian creed, not Calvin. While Serevetus was a heretic, and I disagree with the burning of heretics, history is clear that modalism of any sort is heretical. This is not subjective, except in the 20th and 21st Century where any theology can be attacked with impunity.

Let me be clear, I am ready to defend the idea that an embracing of modalism is an abandonment of Christianity. Someone who holds to modalism should be rejected by all Christians everywhere and jettisoned from true churches through the church discipline process. Yet, before doing such, I need to clarify that what is being advanced is modalism as this is a very serious charge. In our 2,000 year history, the church has strongly affirmed the traditional view of the Trinity and stood up strongly against other forms of heresy like Modalism and Socinianism as enemies of the Christian faith.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ruiz: I cited the Athanasian creed, not Calvin. While Serevetus was a heretic, and I disagree with the burning of heretics, history is clear that modalism of any sort is heretical. This is not subjective, except in the 20th and 21st Century where any theology can be attacked with impunity.

Let me be clear, I am ready to defend the idea that an embracing of modalism is an abandonment of Christianity.

HP: Many consider the abandonment of the Augustinian notion of original sin, or the questioning of OSAS as an abandonment of Christianity, but they are simply wrong. With those misunderstood notions of what Christianity is all about, I wonder about other issues as well.

The freedom we enjoy in 2o-21rst century America seems to be getting under your skin. For once, man, ( or should that be 'men' according to Biblicist) has the opportunity to question beliefs that should have been questioned long before had it not been for those slow roasts and court with stacked decks held for any and all that dare question any notion of the powers to be. I for one thank God for the freedom of religion we enjoy. This list is a testament, at least in some measure, of that freedom granted to us by God and the blood of our forefathers, sons, and daughters. God bless America, and God bless the freedom one is granted to us on the "Other Denominational" portion of the Baptist Board.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ct 5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
Act 5:35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
Act 5:36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
Act 5:37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
Act 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
Act 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

HP: There is something about Gamaliel's comments that I like. :thumbs:

 

[Ruiz]

HP: Many consider the abandonment of the Augustinian notion of original sin, or the questioning of OSAS as an abandonment of Christianity, but they are simply wrong. With those misunderstood notions of what Christianity is all about, I wonder about other issues as well.

The freedom we enjoy in 2o-21rst century America seems to be getting under your skin. For once, man, ( or should that be 'men' according to Biblicist) has the opportunity to question beliefs that should have been questioned long before had it not been for those slow roasts and court with stacked decks held for any and all that dare question any notion of the powers to be. I for one thank God for the freedom of religion we enjoy. This list is a testament, at least in some measure, of that freedom granted to us by God and the blood of our forefathers, sons, and daughters. God bless America, and God bless the freedom one is granted to us on the "Other Denominational" portion of the Baptist Board.

These things don't get under my skin, just don't call yourself a Christian. Yes, original sin is a key doctrine as is the Trinity. The denial of both are heretical and you should do us all a favor if you deny these, stop calling yourself a Christian.

As well, a denomination is still a part of the Christian religion with historic Christian roots. The Trinity is a Christian Doctrine, not a Baptist Doctrine. Lutherans, Congregationalists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopals, etc., have all embraced the Trinity and called variants of those beliefs heretical. Socinians, Modalists, and Pelangians have always been considered heretics until recently. They are not Christian.

As for your more "enlightened" 20th and 21st Century viewpoint, let me note that you are welcome to believe what you want. Christianity has believed that what is true is not new and what is new is not true. To embrace the liberalism of our modernistic world is not really something I would be proud of, but ashamed.

This is not an issue of embracing a new deonomination, but embracing a different religion.

 

[Ruiz]

ct 5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;
Act 5:35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.
Act 5:36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.
Act 5:37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.
Act 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
Act 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

HP: There is something about Gamaliel's comments that I like. :thumbs:

I think there is a huge difference. First, the people who wanted to kill the apostles were not Christian,, but rejected the clear teaching of the Word of God. Secondly, this was really not a new teaching either. Read Hebrews, the Bible talked about these things in shadows until the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I think you should quote Paul in Galatia, in how some have come in and so easily bewitched you with a doctrine not taught or espoused in Scripture. These people are even trying to deny the fulness and greatness of God.

This attempt to find a verse that can condemn my position is not only lame, but intellectually dishonest. We are talking about doctrine that is true. You espouse that doctrine can change, I espouse that it is always true and has been supported throughout church history. You think that the 20th and 21st Century somehow got things right where everyone was wrong. I think that is very modernistic centered and arrogant (and probably Darwinian).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If this is true, then there is a difference between The Son, as 'Lord God Almighty', and The Son, as 'the man Christ'. Since The Son created everything, and this pleased The Father that He allowed this, and it was for The Son's pleasure that this was allowed, this tells me that The Son has two different functions. He created everything, and then had to reconcile His creation, by becoming the "Lamb". As 'The creator', He is our Father in heaven, and also His own Father of Himself as 'Son of Man' (our brother).

Hi Thorward,

The following verse seems to distnguish the Son from the Father so I do not understand how the Son is a the same time the Father:

"The LORD (Yĕhovah) said unto my Lord ('adown), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool" (Ps.110:1).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

To the list: I believe that Ruiz has clearly violated the rules of this forum, (specifically in post #14) and his posts need to be addressed by the moderators of this board. Until they do, I will simply not respond to him. No Christian or charitable discussion can ensue if the remarks as he has made are allowed to stand as written.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

These things don't get under my skin, just don't call yourself a Christian. Yes, original sin is a key doctrine as is the Trinity. The denial of both are heretical and you should do us all a favor if you deny these, stop calling yourself a Christian.

There are plenty of people who are "born again" who do not hold to the false teaching of Original Sin.

When you had a chance to defend the idea that you called heretical you ran away from the discussion as fast as you could.

You should apologize for saying those things to Heavenly Pilgrim.

 

[Ruiz]

There are plenty of people who are "born again" who do not hold to the false teaching of Original Sin.

When you had a chance to defend the idea that you called heretical you ran away from the discussion as fast as you could.

You should apologize for saying those things to Heavenly Pilgrim.

I am not running away from anything.

Can you name me specific people who denied original sin? Wesley may be the most prominent example. However, if you read his sermon on Original Sin, he was combatting, not the idea that we were born in sin, but that of a Calvinistic understanding that does not allow for the Wesleyan understanding of grace upon all people/total inability.

Yet, to deny original sin is a heresy.

I do not owe him an apology. My entire contention here is to confirm the belief being advanced is modalism. I am defining the nature of the debate. As well, I saying that modalism is heresy.

 

[DHK]

To the list: I believe that Ruiz has clearly violated the rules of this forum, (specifically in post #14) and his posts need to be addressed by the moderators of this board. Until they do, I will simply not respond to him. No Christian or charitable discussion can ensue if the remarks as he has made are allowed to stand as written.

What he stated was forthright, blunt and to the point.
Examine it:
The trinity, original sin, and the eternal security of the believer have been orthodox mainline Christian doctrines held by believers throughout history. Those who have denied these truths fall outside the realm of historic Christianity. He mentioned the trinity. Any person that denies the trinity cannot be a Christian nor even saved. For that reason any person that denies the trinity is not permitted on this board.
I don't believe that his statement of belief is out of order seeing that it is in line with orthodox Christianity.