Does the Word of God evidence the Trinity or is the Godhead simply reasoned out from Scripture?

[AustinC]

I agree.

But over and over again I have seen members on this forum argue that the Trinity (not the title, but the Godhead) is not actually in the Bible but is a teaching reasoned out of the Bible.

My argument is that there indeed are passages (the text) that we can turn to which verifies that God is One and triune.

Well, why didn't you say so, Patrick!?

Of course God is one being in three equal persons.

Now, go find that word trinity in that Bible of yours their Patrick...I mean really, Patrick...

 

[Reformed1689]

I agree.

But over and over again I have seen members on this forum argue that the Trinity (not the title, but the Godhead) is not actually in the Bible but is a teaching reasoned out of the Bible.

My argument is that there indeed are passages (the text) that we can turn to which verifies that God is One and triune.

Can you give an example of someone doing this?

 

[JamesL]

I agree.

But over and over again I have seen members on this forum argue that the Trinity (not the title, but the Godhead) is not actually in the Bible but is a teaching reasoned out of the Bible.

My argument is that there indeed are passages (the text) that we can turn to which verifies that God is One and triune.

I agree that God is One, and that He is Triune in some manner.

I can't get on board with 3 Persons.
I think people want so badly to see their doctrines in scripture that they won't allow themselves to be honest.

There is a way to understand the Tri-Unity of God without "Persons"

And most who have chimed in have gone outside the parameters of the OP and have made mere assertions that cannot be found in any text of scripture.

Those people should be disqualified from the discussion, imho

 

[JonC]

What???

Karen,

I do not know what you are talking about. I thought the thread was self explanatory. Others seem to get it.

Best of luck.

 

[JonC]

Well, why didn't you say so, Patrick!?

Of course God is one being in three equal persons.

Now, go find that word trinity in that Bible of yours their Patrick...I mean really, Patrick...

I did say so, Karen.

 

[AustinC]

Karen,

I do not know what you are talking about. I thought the thread was self explanatory. Others seem to get it.

Best of luck.

You found a glorious way to muck it up.

 

[JonC]

You found a glorious way to muck it up.

Guess I did, Karen. Glad most got it. Feel
free to leave the muck.

Patrick

 

[AustinC]

Guess I did, Karen. Glad most got it. Feel
free to leave the muck.

Patrick

Hey, I told you, you finally cleared it up. You should have just stated it in the first place. This thread would not still be going if you had just been forthright.
I am sure you think you are speaking clearly. You can see it in your mind. You just struggle to explain your thoughts to others. I am pretty sure you were never a teacher.

 

[JonC]

Hey, I told you, you finally cleared it up. You should have just stated it in the first place. This thread would not still be going if you had just been forthright.
I am sure you think you are speaking clearly. You can see it in your mind. You just struggle to explain your thoughts to others. I am pretty sure you were never a teacher.

I taught, but not kids. I taught thology to adults, preached and taught an adult study. But not kids. I do not have the patience I once had....which is strange.

I thought the older you got the more patient you became, but the older I get the less foolish I seem willing to tolerate.

Anyway, glad you got what I was saying, Karen. I do post from my phone these days and are not nearly as careful with my wording.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Just to make myself clear from all misrepresentations, I believe that the Scriptures are perfectly clear that God is a Trinity.
The doctrine is portrayed almost as clearly as that of Penal Substitution.
In either case, only those determined not to believe will refuse to do so.

In particular, if you could establish that 1 John 5:7 is original, you would be on firmer ground, but you can't. None of the other texts you quote establish the Deity of the Spirit in a way that would convince a Unitarian. He would believe that the very mention of 'The Spirit of God' means that the Spirit is the non-personal active force of God.
There is a way of presenting the Deity of the Spirit, but simply saying 'The Spirit of God' and expecting a JW to roll over and holler "uncle" is a vain hope.

 

[JonC]

Just to make myself clear from all misrepresentations, I believe that the Scriptures are perfectly clear that God is a Trinity.
The doctrine is portrayed almost as clearly as that of Penal Substitution.
In either case, only those determined not to believe will refuse to do so.

In particular, if you could establish that 1 John 5:7 is original, you would be on firmer ground, but you can't. None of the other texts you quote establish the Deity of the Spirit in a way that would convince a Unitarian. He would believe that the very mention of 'The Spirit of God' means that the Spirit is the non-personal active force of God.
There is a way of presenting the Deity of the Spirit, but simply saying 'The Spirit of God' and expecting a JW to roll over and holler "uncle" is a vain hope.

I was not trying to convince anybody of the Trinity. I was just pointing out the verses are in the text of Scripture.

If your post were true then you would be able to provide a few simple texts of Scripture....like we can with the Trinity....that actually states - IN SCRIPTURE - those things that make your theory distinct.

But you can't.

The reason is, unlike with the Trinity, there are no passages that - none you can even collect that together woukd - say Christ suffered God's wrath instead of us.

You are doing what the Jehovah Witnesses do. You are equating your belief to Scripture, adding to Scripture. They believe Russell properly interpreted Scripture. You believe the Reformers properly interpreted Scripture.

 

[kyredneck]

There is a way of presenting the Deity of the Spirit, but simply saying 'The Spirit of God'...

...how about "God is a Spirit"? John 4:24

 

[AustinC]

I was not trying to convince anybody of the Trinity. I was just pointing out the verses are in the text of Scripture.

If your post were true then you would be able to provide a few simple texts of Scripture....like we can with the Trinity....that actually states - IN SCRIPTURE - those things that make your theory distinct.

But you can't.

The reason is, unlike with the Trinity, there are no passages that - none you can even collect that together woukd - say Christ suffered God's wrath instead of us.

You are doing what the Jehovah Witnesses do. You are equating your belief to Scripture, adding to Scripture. They believe Russell properly interpreted Scripture. You believe the Reformers properly interpreted Scripture.

You believe you properly interpret scripture. Who is closer to Charles Taze Russell, Martin or Jon?

For anyone wondering, the answer is Jon.

 

[JonC]

You believe you properly interpret scripture. Who is closer to Charles Taze Russell, Martin or Jon?

For anyone wondering, the answer is Jon.

Well....since I have stick with Scripture (whether interpreted correctly or not) while Russell and Martin have focused on what they think Scripture teaches by adding to God's Word, Martin is much closer to Russell than I.

You oppose my view based on my rejection not of "what is written" but on what you believe Scripture "teaches". I oppose your view based on those same "teachings".

That is the difference. I can provide verses stating what I belueve even if my understanding of those passages is flawed.

You cannot provide passages stating what you believe but can only reason out what you think the passages teach.

This is exactly what the Jehovah Witnesss do. They provide Scripture but insist on what they believe the passages teach as being true. That is why their doctrine fails the test of "what is written". You do the same thing.

 

[AustinC]

Well....since I have stick with Scripture (whether interpreted correctly or not) while Russell and Martin have focused on what they think Scripture teaches by adding to God's Word, Martin is much closer to Russell than I.

You oppose my view based on my rejection not of "what is written" but on what you believe Scripture "teaches". I oppose your view based on those same "teachings".

That is the difference. I can provide verses stating what I belueve even if my understanding of those passages is flawed.

You cannot provide passages stating what you believe but can only reason out what you think the passages teach.

This is exactly what the Jehovah Witnesss do. They provide Scripture but insist on what they believe the passages teach as being true. That is why their doctrine fails the test of "what is written". You do the same thing.

Jon, you've told yourself (and us) this lie so long that you actually believe it. Problem is...no one else actually believes it.

 

[Aaron]

Look, Sally, Look!
CJon throw a hissy!
OJon!

 

[Aaron]

Why do I get the feeling there is some misrepresentation going on in this thread?

Because that's exactly what's going on. AustinC had said that JonC's demanding to be shown the word 'substitute' be found in the Scripture before conceding to the fact that Christ is our substitute, though the role is clearly defined, is like demanding to be shown the word 'trinity' before conceding to the fact that God is One in three Persons.

As is his custom, JonC reimagined AustinC's eminent rebuttal into what you see in the OP.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Jesus and the Father are One, the Word is God:

John 1:1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Once again, this verse will not convince Unitarians. They will tell you that the Word was 'a God,' not in the sense of there being more than one God, but in the sense of Psalms 82:6 and John 10:34ff.

John 10:25–33 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. “I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

And here again, as I already pointed out to you, Unitarians will say that John 10:30 cannot mean that The Father and Son are one Being because elsewhere, the Lord Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I." Therefore (they say), the verse must mean that Father and Son are one in agreement, specifically on the protection of the sheep.

You may say that these are silly and specious arguments, but they are no more silly and specious than your arguments against Penal Substitution.

 

[AustinC]

I taught, but not kids. I taught thology to adults, preached and taught an adult study. But not kids. I do not have the patience I once had....which is strange.

I thought the older you got the more patient you became, but the older I get the less foolish I seem willing to tolerate.

Anyway, glad you got what I was saying, Karen. I do post from my phone these days and are not nearly as careful with my wording.

I watched Greg Boyd go off the deep end and fall into open theism. I feel sorry for anyone you may have taught. They had to be more confused after they left your class.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But you can't.

The reason is, unlike with the Trinity, there are no passages that - none you can even collect that together woukd - say Christ suffered God's wrath instead of us.

I have shown you. Do you bother to read posts? Would you like me to post them again?