My position on the Trinity

[1689Dave]

All Christian theology needed to know and apply is found in the Bible itself, as revealed to us by the Spirit!

Every cult says the same. But debate proves they are always wrong.

 

[ThyWordIsTruth]

While the early Church "Creeds" can be useful in our understaning of some important Doctrines in the Holy Bible, they are nevertheless human works, and therefore falliable, and not always Biblically sound in their theology, like the famous "Nicene Creed", which teaches a "subordinate" Jesus Christ to God the Father, within the Godhead; which clearly is heresy. Our final authority must be the Teachings of the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, as they alone are fully Infallible, Inerrant and Inspired by God the Holy Spirit.

On the subject of the "Person" of Jesus Christ. It is abundantly clear from the Bible, that He is eternally Almighty God, Yahweh, without beginning or end, coequal, coeternal and coessential to God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit. After His Incarnation, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, took upon Him the complete "nature" of a human being, apart from sin. It is also clear from the Bible, that all humans are, "spirit and soul and body", as it states in 1 Thessalonians 5:23. The fact that in the Greek, it reads, "the spirit and the soul and the body", shows that three parts are being referred to, that are distinct from each other, yet one human. Much like the Holy Trinity, Three distinct (not separate) Persons, One Godhead.

It is also clear from Philippians 2:5-8, that Jesus Christ, after The Incranation, was 100% God, and 100% Human. The word "form" in most English versions of the Bible, are from the Greek, "morphe". Although the original meaning was "the outward appearance", yet it was also used to denote the "essential being" of the person. As the NIV has rightly rendered the Greek by the English, "very nature"; which is exactly how the Apostle Mark used it in 16:12, where we read that Jesus "appeared in another form", that is, His "essential being" was changed after the Resurrection, not His outward appearance. We also see from the passage in Philippians, that Jesus Christ, while remaining Almighty God in His "essential being", took on Himself at the Incarnation, the "essential being" of a human being, and He "appeared" to others as one of them, apart from any sinfulness in His human nature. (Luke 1:35, KJV).

The Person of Jesus Christ is a Mystery, and as such cannot be fully understood by our limited, fallen human minds!

 

[1689Dave]

While the early Church "Creeds" can be useful in our understaning of some important Doctrines in the Holy Bible, they are nevertheless human works, and therefore falliable, and not always Biblically sound in their theology, like the famous "Nicene Creed", which teaches a "subordinate" Jesus Christ to God the Father, within the Godhead; which clearly is heresy. Our final authority must be the Teachings of the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, as they alone are fully Infallible, Inerrant and Inspired by God the Holy Spirit.

On the subject of the "Person" of Jesus Christ. It is abundantly clear from the Bible, that He is eternally Almighty God, Yahweh, without beginning or end, coequal, coeternal and coessential to God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit. After His Incarnation, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, took upon Him the complete "nature" of a human being, apart from sin. It is also clear from the Bible, that all humans are, "spirit and soul and body", as it states in 1 Thessalonians 5:23. The fact that in the Greek, it reads, "the spirit and the soul and the body", shows that three parts are being referred to, that are distinct from each other, yet one human. Much like the Holy Trinity, Three distinct (not separate) Persons, One Godhead.

It is also clear from Philippians 2:5-8, that Jesus Christ, after The Incranation, was 100% God, and 100% Human. The word "form" in most English versions of the Bible, are from the Greek, "morphe". Although the original meaning was "the outward appearance", yet it was also used to denote the "essential being" of the person. As the NIV has rightly rendered the Greek by the English, "very nature"; which is exactly how the Apostle Mark used it in 16:12, where we read that Jesus "appeared in another form", that is, His "essential being" was changed after the Resurrection, not His outward appearance. We also see from the passage in Philippians, that Jesus Christ, while remaining Almighty God in His "essential being", took on Himself at the Incarnation, the "essential being" of a human being, and He "appeared" to others as one of them, apart from any sinfulness in His human nature. (Luke 1:35, KJV).

The Person of Jesus Christ is a Mystery, and as such cannot be fully understood by our limited, fallen human minds!

Chalcedon says Jesus Christ the man has a fully human nature. You err giving him a human spirit when you say 100% fully human. This is a heresy called Nestorianism and replaces Christ with an idol that cannot save.

 

[ThyWordIsTruth]

Chalcedon says Jesus Christ the man has a fully human nature. You err giving him a human spirit when you say 100% fully human. This is a heresy called Nestorianism and replaces Christ with an idol that cannot save.

If as you say, Jesus did not have a "human spirit", then what does He mean here?

"Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last." (Luke 23:46)

Are you saying that Jesus was here "committing" the Holy Spirit to the Father?

I don't care much about these "Creeds", but what the Holy Bible Teaches. I am very open to learning. Also, how else do you understand Paul's language in Philippians 2:5-8, if he did not mean that Jesus Christ after His Incarnation, was perfect God and perfect Man, sin excepted?

 

[1689Dave]

If as you say, Jesus did not have a "human spirit", then what does He mean here?

"Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last." (Luke 23:46)

Are you saying that Jesus was here "committing" the Holy Spirit to the Father?

I don't care much about these "Creeds", but what the Holy Bible Teaches. I am very open to learning. Also, how else do you understand Paul's language in Philippians 2:5-8, if he did not mean that Jesus Christ after His Incarnation, was perfect God and perfect Man, sin excepted?

The Spirit of God. He went to heaven having his human nature buried. Remember
“Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, ‘Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me:” Hebrews 10:5 (NCPB)

God cannot die and you make a human Spirit God (real heresy) if you continue this path.

 

[ThyWordIsTruth]

The Spirit of God. He went to heaven having his human nature buried. Remember
“Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, ‘Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me:” Hebrews 10:5 (NCPB)

God cannot die and you make a human Spirit God (real heresy) if you continue this path.[/QU

It is clear from both the Hebrew and Greek, that "body" many times is used for the "complete person", as well as on its own as referring to the flesh.

It says very clearly in the text from Luke, that after Jesus "committed" His "spirit" to the Father, He "breathed His last", that is died. This can hardly be referring to God the Holy Spirit!

If Jesus Christ did not possess a human "spirit", as all human beings have, as clearly taught in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, then He could not have a "complete" human nature.

Show me Biblically the hersey in this?

 

[1689Dave]

You say Jesus is multiple personalities which means he is not always the Word of God. And cannot produce faith in those who hear.

You need to prove your point from scripture or remain a heretic.

 

[ThyWordIsTruth]

You say Jesus is multiple personalities which means he is not always the Word of God. And cannot produce faith in those who hear.

You need to prove your point from scripture or remain a heretic.

where exactly do you get my theology on Jesus Christ from??? WHERE do I say that Jesus has "multiple personalities", or that "He is not always the Word of God", and "cannot produce faith in those who hear"? You are charging me with things that I have NEVER said, nor EVER believed!

Do you believe that Jesus Christ the God-Man has TWO "souls"? Does God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have "souls"?

Please do NOT use the term "heretic" for anyone whom you disagree with, where you cannot Biblically prove them to be!

 

[1689Dave]

where exactly do you get my theology on Jesus Christ from??? WHERE do I say that Jesus has "multiple personalities", or that "He is not always the Word of God", and "cannot produce faith in those who hear"? You are charging me with things that I have NEVER said, nor EVER believed!

Do you believe that Jesus Christ the God-Man has TWO "souls"? Does God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have "souls"?

Please do NOT use the term "heretic" for anyone whom you disagree with, where you cannot Biblically prove them to be!

Nestorianism, (what you suggest about Christ) produces a false Christ and a false Christianity.

 

[JonC]

Nestorianism, (what you suggest about Christ) produces a false Christ and a false Christianity.

@1689Dave,

Please be more careful when dealing with other members.

This is not the first time you have falsely accused others of Nestorianism simply for expressing the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

It is obvious that you cannot grasp how Christ is fully human (body, soul/ spirit) without bring two persons but do not allow your ignorance on the subject make you bear false witness against the brethren.

 

[1689Dave]

@1689Dave,

Please be more careful when dealing with other members.

This is not the first time you have falsely accused others of Nestorianism simply for expressing the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

It is obvious that you cannot grasp how Christ is fully human (body, soul/ spirit) without bring two persons but do not allow your ignorance on the subject make you bear false witness against the brethren.

This is a lie. TWO persons instead of ONE is heresy.

 

[JonC]

This is a lie. TWO persons instead of ONE is heresy.

I should have asked this earlier, and you have my apology for not. Is English your second language?

I ask because no member has even hinted at the idea that Christ is two persons. That is a claim that you introduce over and over. Perhaps at one time you held the misunderstanding that Christ is two persons, but no member here has expressed that idea.

What the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity states is that Christ is completely God, completely human, perfect in his humanity, perfect in his divinity. NOT more or less than human in his humanity. That was the purpose of the creeds (they were addressing heresies on all sides, some believed that Christ was not human at all, or not fully human).

 

[1689Dave]

I should have asked this earlier, and you have my apology for not. Is English your second language?

I ask because no member has even hinted at the idea that Christ is two persons. That is a claim that you introduce over and over. Perhaps at one time you held the misunderstanding that Christ is two persons, but no member here has expressed that idea.

What the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity states is that Christ is completely God, completely human, perfect in his humanity, perfect in his divinity. NOT more or less than human in his humanity. That was the purpose of the creeds (they were addressing heresies on all sides, some believed that Christ was not human at all, or not fully human).

The bible says completely human = spirit, soul, and body. Which do you use to interpret the creeds? Heresy = a different Christ and a different Christianity. I stick with scripture and understand the creeds according to it.

 

[JonC]

The bible says completely human = spirit, soul, and body. Which do you use to interpret the creeds? Heresy = a different Christ and a different Christianity. I stick with scripture and understand the creeds according to it.

Orthodox Christianity holds that Christ is "completely God, completely human". You divert from orthodox belief. I have no problem with that (I recognize that you do not hold to traditional views but lean towards a Reformed Onness amalgamation on this topic).

But you cannot continue to accuse people who hold the orthodox view with holding views that they deny. The Chalcedonian creed uses the word "perfectly" to denounce the heresy that Christ is less than completely human. The Athanasian creed (a later creed and the "orthodox" standard...to include the Calvinistic standard) uses the word "completely".

You are the only person on this board who misunderstands these doctrines and believes it means Christ is "two persons".

That said, you are wrong to falsely accuse people of beliefs that they have directly denied on the forum. That is called lying because you are aware that they do not actually believe what you accuse them of believing.

I understand that you post out of ignorance. But do not let ignorance be a reason to sin.

 

[1689Dave]

I should have asked this earlier, and you have my apology for not. Is English your second language?

I ask because no member has even hinted at the idea that Christ is two persons. That is a claim that you introduce over and over. Perhaps at one time you held the misunderstanding that Christ is two persons, but no member here has expressed that idea.

What the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity states is that Christ is completely God, completely human, perfect in his humanity, perfect in his divinity. NOT more or less than human in his humanity. That was the purpose of the creeds (they were addressing heresies on all sides, some believed that Christ was not human at all, or not fully human).

The symbol of Chalcedon is the most complete and it defines what is meant by fully human and fully God and it refutes all you say.

 

[JonC]

The symbol of Chalcedon is the most complete and it defines what is meant by fully human and fully God and it refutes all you say.

I do not understand why you think that the "symbol of Chalcedon" is the most complete when was written a century prior to the Athanasian Creed AND the fact that the Athanasian Creed is incorporated into the 1689 London Baptist Confession rather than the Chalcedonian Creed.....but that's a matter of history.

As a baptist I accept Scripture as the test for our faith. I do not care that you deny the Chalcedonian Creed, the Athansian Creed and the 1689 London Confession.

I am concerned, however, that you have chosen to attack Christians who affirm the orthodox position. I am more concerned that you willfully lie about their positions.

 

[agedman]

The symbol of Chalcedon is the most complete and it defines what is meant by fully human and fully God and it refutes all you say.

Are you not trying to separate the nature of Christ into two nature’s?

The Chalcedon articles refute such attempts of a two separate person Christ. Christ did not suffer from multiple personalities.

I have witnessed such attempts some modernists have made in trying to state that Christi’s divine had to overrule his human and such thinking ultimately ends in disastrous doctrinal presentations.

Attempts at separating the nature of the Christ into what part express his human and what part expressed his divine leads into great errors. Small minds struggle to reconcile their human perceptions in which they try to scheme answers that to the diminished capacity would appear reasonable. Such scheming is foolishness.

Christ is perfectly and completely human, and Christ is perfectly and completely divine. The divine/human nature of the Christ is singularly inseparable.

The Scriptures present Christ as fully God setting aside His Glory and taking upon Himself the full human. Therefore, He is completely God and completely human (without sin) - inseparable.

This is also why the word “unique” and “only begotten” are so important to the rendering of John 3:16.

Christ is the only Son of God and Son of man. Unique.

 

[1689Dave]

Are you not trying to separate the nature of Christ into two nature’s?

The Chalcedon articles refute such attempts of a two separate person Christ. Christ did not suffer from multiple personalities.

I have witnessed such attempts some modernists have made in trying to state that Christi’s divine had to overrule his human and such thinking ultimately ends in disastrous doctrinal presentations.

Attempts at separating the nature of the Christ into what part express his human and what part expressed his divine leads into great errors. Small minds struggle to reconcile their human perceptions in which they try to scheme answers that to the diminished capacity would appear reasonable. Such scheming is foolishness.

Christ is perfectly and completely human, and Christ is perfectly and completely divine. The divine/human nature of the Christ is singularly inseparable.

The Scriptures present Christ as fully God setting aside His Glory and taking upon Himself the full human. Therefore, He is completely God and completely human (without sin) - inseparable.

This is also why the word “unique” and “only begotten” are so important to the rendering of John 3:16.

Christ is the only Son of God and Son of man. Unique.

Here's the symbol. Can you make sense of anything you said as it relates to it?

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.


Historic Creeds and Confessions. (1997). (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Lexham Press.

 

[1689Dave]

I do not understand why you think that the "symbol of Chalcedon" is the most complete when was written a century prior to the Athanasian Creed AND the fact that the Athanasian Creed is incorporated into the 1689 London Baptist Confession rather than the Chalcedonian Creed.....but that's a matter of history.

As a baptist I accept Scripture as the test for our faith. I do not care that you deny the Chalcedonian Creed, the Athansian Creed and the 1689 London Confession.

I am concerned, however, that you have chosen to attack Christians who affirm the orthodox position. I am more concerned that you willfully lie about their positions.

It defines fully human, fully divine where the others do not. I've never seen anyone try to resuscitate a dead horse as you do. But you are still wrong a million years from now.

 

[Yeshua1]

Chalcedon says Jesus Christ the man has a fully human nature. You err giving him a human spirit when you say 100% fully human. This is a heresy called Nestorianism and replaces Christ with an idol that cannot save.

Do you hold to the views of oneness concerning Jesus, that he was the trinity Himself, that he was all 3 at same time?