• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

My position on the Trinity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
1689Dave said:
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.
Click to expand...
is Jesus right now in heaven fully God and full man?
 
1689Dave

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
Do you hold to the views of oneness concerning Jesus, that he was the trinity Himself, that he was all 3 at same time?
Click to expand...
You obviously do not read my posts and remain ignorant of my position. Why should I waste time with you?
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
1689Dave said:
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.
Click to expand...
Jesus has 2 natures, the divine and the sinless human, correct?
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
1689Dave said:
You obviously do not read my posts and remain ignorant of my position. Why should I waste time with you?
Click to expand...
Have you not stated that Jesus is the name for the trinity in the NT, very name of God for the NT now? And is He still Human and God in glory?
 
agedman

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
1689Dave said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you actually understood what I posted because, if you did, you would’t Have responded in such manner.

As pointed out on the first page of this thread, it matters little if one accepts three (trichromatism) or two (dichromatism) view’s.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
1689Dave said:
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.
Click to expand...
How can a creed that was written a century before the Athansian Creed define the Athansian Creed? That does not make sense.

That said, they are not in contradiction. No member has claimed that Christ was two persons. That was your straw man argument.

Both creeds define Christ as 100% man and 100% God. They just use different words.

The Chalcedonian Creed addresses the heresy that Christ was completely God with humanity added, but without a human spirit (that Christ had a human body, a "lower soul" but not a human spirit or mind).

Christ is fully man, fully God. Period. This should not even be an issue in question on a Christian board.
 
1689Dave

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
How can a creed that was written a century before the Athansian Creed define the Athansian Creed? That does not make sense.

That said, they are not in contradiction. No member has claimed that Christ was two persons. That was your straw man argument.

Both creeds define Christ as 100% man and 100% God. They just use different words.

The Chalcedonian Creed addresses the heresy that Christ was completely God with humanity added, but without a human spirit (that Christ had a human body, a "lower soul" but not a human spirit or mind).

Christ is fully man, fully God. Period. This should not even be an issue in question on a Christian board.
Click to expand...
How does old scripture shed light on new? I'm still not convinced the Athanasian creed is newer since He died before the Chalcedon became formalized in 451. Will you do anything to win? winning matters even if based on lies?
 
1689Dave

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
How can a creed that was written a century before the Athansian Creed define the Athansian Creed? That does not make sense.

That said, they are not in contradiction. No member has claimed that Christ was two persons. That was your straw man argument.

Both creeds define Christ as 100% man and 100% God. They just use different words.

The Chalcedonian Creed addresses the heresy that Christ was completely God with humanity added, but without a human spirit (that Christ had a human body, a "lower soul" but not a human spirit or mind).

Christ is fully man, fully God. Period. This should not even be an issue in question on a Christian board.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you have your "facts" straight.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
1689Dave said:
How can he then be fully man?
Click to expand...
It is obvious, I think, that you do not understand the Chalcedonian creed, the Athanasian creed, or the 1689 London Baptist Confession in regards to Christ.

The statements about the nature of Christ were initially (in the Chalcedonian Creed) addressing heresy. The point is that Christ is fully God and fully man, One Person. The Athanasian Creed was a statement of belief (again, affirming that Christ is completely God, completely man, One Person). And the 1689 Confession was based on the Athanasian Creed in regards to the Trinity.

The problem is you cannot fit this into an equation. That was kinda the point of the creeds and confessions. It affirms what is accepted, not what fits into human understanding.

I do not mind that you reject the two creeds and the 1689 Confession. That is no big deal to me.

But you have to stop lying about other people. That is a big deal. You can say that you do not understand the doctrine, but do not ascribe to people beliefs that they have rejected.
 
1689Dave

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
It is obvious, I think, that you do not understand the Chalcedonian creed, the Athanasian creed, or the 1689 London Baptist Confession in regards to Christ.

The statements about the nature of Christ were initially (in the Chalcedonian Creed) addressing heresy. The point is that Christ is fully God and fully man, One Person. The Athanasian Creed was a statement of belief (again, affirming that Christ is completely God, completely man, One Person). And the 1689 Confession was based on the Athanasian Creed in regards to the Trinity.

The problem is you cannot fit this into an equation. That was kinda the point of the creeds and confessions. It affirms what is accepted, not what fits into human understanding.

I do not mind that you reject the two creeds and the 1689 Confession. That is no big deal to me.

But you have to stop lying about other people. That is a big deal. You can say that you do not understand the doctrine, but do not ascribe to people beliefs that they have rejected.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to continue responding to you and your false accusations.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
1689Dave said:
I'm not sure you have your "facts" straight.
Click to expand...
I do have my facts straight. The Chalcedonian Creed was written by the Catholic Church in 451. We do not know the exact date the Athanasian Creed was written but it is from the mid-sixth century (560-580). It is called the Quicunque Vult and was attributed to Athansias in the medieval Catholic Church. The Athanasian Creed forms the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity for most of the Christian church. It did for the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church, and for most of the Protestant Church. It was the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity for the Belgic Confession which in turn was used in the Synod of Dort to create what is known as "Calvinism" in regards to the "Five Points".

What you do not realize is that you reject the 1689 London Baptist Confession in regards to the nature of Christ (I'm sure you otherwise agree with the Confession). That is no big deal because we are Baptists (I do not hold the 1689 London Baptist Confession either).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top