Do Baptists believe in the Trinity?

[JohnDeereFan]

But how does he do so? Through the spirit? Through His angels? If any flesh stood before God, they would die. "No flesh may glory in His presence." Like the light of the glory of God going through Christ when he appeared before Paul, the light coming from God would kill us instantly.

Hi, Dust.

How do you interpret Hebrews 8:1? How about Isaiah 9:6?

Do you worship Jesus Christ?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That's the one.



Who says I'm not? Believe me, you have no idea what I know or don't know.

You might be interested to know that one of the first things I discuss in both my history classes and philosophy class are "proper methods of research and study", as you put it.

Perhaps, if you treated me with a little more respect and did not constantly look for opportunities to attack me and impugn my intelligence, I might be a little more inclined to discuss things a little more in depth with you.

Something else you might want to keep in mind is that internet message boards are informal meeting places where not everyone has the same education, experience, or interests, so I learned a long time ago not to try to talk over people's heads or to bore them with academic details. Just because I teach doesn't mean I walk around all day talking like Frasier Crane.

But then, I guess not having anything to prove to you means I don't have to.

JDF, initially I did respect you. However, I am reactionary. If you attack me I find myself fighting back. In our discussions I said things you don't agree with but you would reply with a comment not consistent with your training or background that was an attack. And I've noticed that once you have a view in mind you are not willing to even consider another even when support is provided. And I find my self responding in kind to you. I have never spoken over your head as I am unable to do that. But if I see an error I will point it out and so I have. There are times I speculate on this site and I learn things from people better trained than I and I look foreward to that. Also if there is something I am confident in I will show that confidence.

 

[rbell]

Actually it says "to him only shall you serve." If you are serving and obeying Christ, you are serving God, but that does not mean that Christ is God. It is the same as obeying the voice of an angel, such as the angel speaking to Moses. Serving or obeying the angel is obeying God because the angel is conveying the will of God. However, your religious worship should be towards the Most High, not to an angel.

In other words, "revere the Deity and serve only him."

If a wife serves her husband in the way God demands, she is serving God. If a slave serves his master in the way God demands, he is serving God.

I love how you "re-define" Greek words when Scripture doesn't fit your heresy.

You know, I checked on it...God's not a fan of your techniques.

You might want to read Philippians 2 sometime...you will correct your heretical beliefs...I just pray it's sooner, rather than later.

If you do not believe Jesus to be God, I'm afraid you are not a Christian.

Mods, I know this falls under "questioning someone's salvation." But for someone to admit Jesus is not God...well, that pretty much settles it.

 

[Eric B]

Okay, I see you are a Christadelphian. I know they do not believe in the Trinity. Christadelphians have some beliefs similar to JWs. They also deny the deity of Christ.

Dust is a Christadelphian. They deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ as equal with the Father, sort of like the JWs. I posted that on the first page here. Just Google Christadelphian beliefs.

If St. Nicolas were here, he'd punch you in the face, just as he did to the heretic Arius in 325AD!

"Ho, ho, ho! Arius has been a naughty boy this year, so no presents for him!"

Modalism is heresy. The Holy Ghost is a person and is referred to as a person by Christ (John 14:6; 16:7). He (the person Holy Ghost) can be grieved (Eph 4:30). He is eternal (Hebrews 9:14).

Technical detail here; Christadelphianism is neither Arian, nor modalistic (Sabellian). They would basically folow the third "heresy" (beside those other two) dealt with at Nicaea, by Paul of Samosata, called psilanthropism or dynamic monarchianism, or more commonly, pure "unitarianism".
So today, they are more in line with the Way International, the "Abrahamic Faith" (Oregon, IL), or the House of YHWH (TX).

If I have it correctly, Christ was adopted as Son when the eternal Word united with the human Jesus (And today's "Oneness" or true modalists end up teaching the same thing when pressed on how Jesus could speak to God, even though they "officially" believe in His deity). Even though Jesus was a regular man, I think they still hold the Virgin birth; at least the other groups with this doctrine do. The Spirit was the power of God, (not a "person") though probably more apart of the divine nature than the JW's separate "force", but then I'm not sure of the Christadelphians' exact teaching on that.

http://www.erictb.info/triune.html

 

[JohnDeereFan]

JDF, initially I did respect you.

Well, you certainly have a funny way of showing it.

And I've noticed that once you have a view in mind you are not willing to even consider another even when support is provided.

You're right. When FIVE Catholic sources state what Catholicism teaches, I tend to believe them before I believe you.

And I find my self responding in kind to you.

No, no, no. Don't start with the "in kind" nonsense because I haven't treated you that way.

But if I see an error I will point it out and so I have.

Personal attacks are not a good way to point out errors. It's really unfortunate that your parents never taught you any manners, but if you disagree, then say "I disagree because..." and then, if you're unable to persuade your opponent, you let it go.

You don't make personal attacks and attempt to bully your opponent the way you did me. No, of course, this is the part where you're pull out the tu quoque card, but since no examples will follow, I suppose we can just ignore it now and save time later.

Also if there is something I am confident in I will show that confidence.

Personal attacks are not "confidence". They're just evidence that your parents failed to teach you any manners.

Show me my Personal attacks to you specifically.

You have repeatedly impugned my intelligence, my understanding of doctrine, my schooling, etc.

Have you attacked me? It seems so to me since I can give evidence to it.

Can you?

I am reactionary and If you attack me I respond.

But I didn't attack you. That's the whole point. You dove right in and stated attacking me the minute you realized that I wasn't a pushover and that I did not bow down to your opinion.

And as far as the 5 catholic teachers you should read the other thread and see again that you have misrepresented what they said.

No, I did not misrepresent what they said. Again, you're lying about what I posted. I quoted them (complete with citations) verbatem.

I'm certain I can find even more sources in this matter than you've posted.

And if they contradict the CCC, they're wrong.

 

[Matt Black]

And in what way is what you've just posted not a personal attack?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, you certainly have a funny way of showing it.



You're right. When FIVE Catholic sources state what Catholicism teaches, I tend to believe them before I believe you.



No, no, no. Don't start with the "in kind" nonsense because I haven't treated you that way.



Personal attacks are not a good way to point out errors. It's really unfortunate that your parents never taught you any manners, but if you disagree, then say "I disagree because..." and then, if you're unable to persuade your opponent, you let it go.

You don't make personal attacks and attempt to bully your opponent the way you did me. No, of course, this is the part where you're pull out the tu quoque card, but since no examples will follow, I suppose we can just ignore it now and save time later.



Personal attacks are not "confidence". They're just evidence that your parents failed to teach you any manners.

Show me my Personal attacks to you specifically. What do you consider a personal attack? Have you attacked me? It seems so to me since I can give evidence to it. I am reactionary and If you attack me I respond. And as far as the 5 catholic teachers you should read the other thread and see again that you have misrepresented what they said. I'm certain I can find even more sources in this matter than you've posted.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Technical detail here; Christadelphianism is neither Arian, nor modalistic (Sabellian). They would basically folow the third "heresy" (beside those other two) dealt with at Nicaea, by Paul of Samosata, called psilanthropism or dynamic monarchianism, or more commonly, pure "unitarianism".
So today, they are more in line with the Way International, the "Abrahamic Faith" (Oregon, IL), or the House of YHWH (TX).

If I have it correctly, Christ was adopted as Son when the eternal Word united with the human Jesus (And today's "Oneness" or true modalists end up teaching the same thing when pressed on how Jesus could speak to God, even though they "officially" believe in His deity). Even though Jesus was a regular man, I think they still hold the Virgin birth; at least the other groups with this doctrine do. The Spirit was the power of God, (not a "person") though probably more apart of the divine nature than the JW's separate "force", but then I'm not sure of the Christadelphians' exact teaching on that.

http://www.erictb.info/triune.html

Eric, I believe you are correct, based on what I've read about the Christadelphians. They thus have many similarities to the Ebionites.

 

[Darron Steele]

And in what way is what you've just posted not a personal attack?

Hi Matt: almost the entire communication to our resident experts on Catholicism by JohnDeereFan are personal attacks.

A person grows up in a Catholic household. He maintains ties with his Catholic family. He communicates with Catholic clergy. Yet he gets told he does not know what he is talking about by someone who shows no signs of any familiarity with Catholicism.

Another person evidently attends Mass often enough to know what the heck is going on. She is told that she too does not know what she is talking about -- by that same someone who shows no sign of any familiarity with Catholicism.

It is calling these people stupid minus saying it. I dare say that if the religious system in discussion was not Catholicism, it probably would have been stopped by now.

I have never set foot in a Presbyterian congregation. I cannot imagine arguing with Presbyterians about what happens in their congregations -- or with someone who only recently stopped attending. I have never set foot in an Orthodox congregation; I cannot imagine arguing with an Orthodox or recent former Orthodox about what happens in an Orthodox congregation. It would be rude!

Imagine if you and I argued with Baptists here about what Baptists believed without
a) ever going to Baptist assembly,
b) without making any effort to get well-acquainted with the personal beilefs of any of them.
We would hear no end to the outrage -- and it would be deserved. Yet there are people here who do the exact same things toward Catholics or those with firsthand familliarity with them.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Do Baptists believe in the Trinity?

I do, and I suppose I am a baptist! Whatever that means. Born again evangelical Christian is the term I would use I guess. These days it seems you just can't say "I am a Christian".

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I do, and I suppose I am a baptist! Whatever that means. Born again evangelical Christian is the term I would use I guess. These days it seems you just can't say "I am a Christian".

I can call you a Christian. I believe all Christians (once notified of the faith) hold to the Trinity.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

A person grows up in a Catholic household. He maintains ties with his Catholic family. He communicates with Catholic clergy. Yet he gets told he does not know what he is talking about by someone who shows no signs of any familiarity with Catholicism.

In what way do you believe the five Catholic sources I cited "show no signs of any familiarity with Catholicism"?

Another person evidently attends Mass often enough to know what the heck is going on. She is told that she too does not know what she is talking about -- by that same someone who shows no sign of any familiarity with Catholicism.

Again, how do the five Catholic sources I cited "show no sign of any familiarity with Catholicism"?

Imagine if you and I argued with Baptists here about what Baptists believed without
a) ever going to Baptist assembly

So, are you saying that no one represented in the five Catholic sources I cited ever went to a Catholic church?

Yet there are people here who do the exact same things toward Catholics or those with firsthand familliarity with them.

The problem is that, without even getting into the many years I spent in the Catholic Church, each of the five Catholic sources I cited not only have "firsthand familiarity", but are authorities representing the Catholic Church.

 

[Darron Steele]

Hi JohnDeereFan: I am not interested in your quotations from Catholic documents. I am not impressed. I have a copy of
a) the Catechism of the Catholic church, 2000, in two languages
b) the U.S. catechism
c) two books of Vatian II documents
d) a small library of a dozen or so current apologetics books
e) several contemporary Catholic study or educational Bibles in two languages
f) the teacher's edition of a religion textbook used in Catholic schools.

I also have a good friend who is a religious studies degree holder and former RCIA instructor, and we talked faith many times. I have worked in two Catholic schools.

I am familiar enough with Catholicism to know that you do not understand what you are reading. Catholicism is a complex religion. You are not going to learn about a complex faith like that by scanning their writings and only paying attention to what can be used as ammunition.

Further, I am more inclined to believe two individuals who evidently maintain closer ties to the Catholic church group than I do. They can tell me what Catholics currently believe.

One thing for sure: I am not going to argue with them about what Catholicism teaches now and what Catholics believe and do now. They obviously are better equippied to comment on what is going on in Catholic circles than I am and definitely more so than you.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Hi JohnDeereFan: I am not interested in your quotations from Catholic documents. I am not impressed. I have a copy of
a) the Catechism of the Catholic church, 2000, in two languages
b) the U.S. catechism

But you just said you're not interested in what the Catechism has to say.

If you're not interested, then why do you have a copy?

I am familiar enough with Catholicism to know that you do not understand what you are reading.

Ah yes, the old "you disagree with me so I'm going to call you stupid" argument.

Sorry, I'm not going to sink to your level.

Honestly, it's at this point that I just follow the Bible's admonition not to argue with fools.

 

[Dust]

Hi, Dust.

How do you interpret Hebrews 8:1? How about Isaiah 9:6?

Do you worship Jesus Christ?

Hebrews 8 speaks of Christ as our priest and the establishment of the new covenant or promise that resides in Christ, which is that Christ will return and redeem the righteous through faith in him and establish a Kingdom. The Baptists, based on their first statement of faith, recognized this coming kingdom on earth. Apparently, not any more.

It says: "For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things."

Christ is our one and only high priest who was 1. appointed and 2. dwells in Heaven to offer the TRUE heavenly things to the Father rather than the "copy or shadow." Heb 8:1 says that he sits by the right hand of the throne. We simply have to look at the makeup of any kingdom to see that the right hand was the place for the chief advisor or the son. The prince or advisor was not as great as the king, but still held power over the kingdom.

Hebrews is the best letter to completely destroy the Trinity. The priest gives intercession between God and man. Christ is the priest. The mediator mediates between God and man. Christ is the mediator. God loves Christ and will do all for him, so if we reside in Christ, he will do for us. It is the same thing that Catholics do with saints or Mary, not realizing that it is Christ who gives intercession to the Father and not dead people to Christ.

Isa 9:6 uses the word El. It simply means Mighty One or power. It is used often as a title for the Most High, but it is also the singular form of elohim or Mighty Ones, which are the angels (and later the saints) who are manifestations of God. It is perfectly acceptable to refer to Christ by this title since 1. he is the perfect manifestation of the glory of God, 2. he has full authority over the power of the Most High, and 3. he shall be the mightiest on earth, sitting upon the throne of David. It is also acceptable to call him father for the same reasons. Even Paul called himself a father of the church. He is also deemed Yahweh of hosts or armies. Since angels can bear the title of God, so can the Son, who is greater than the angels.

I refer you to Gen 32:28 which says that Jacob wrestled with elohim. Hos 12:4 then proves that Jacob wrestled with mal'ak or angel.

Gen 18 shows the three men who appeared before Abraham. Two went on to Sodom while Abraham detained the other. Gen 19:1 calls the two mal'ak or angels. The third that was detained is dubbed Yahweh, translated LORD. Knowing that "no man has seen God" from John, Abraham was speaking to an angel.

Exo 3:2 (confirmed by Acts) says that a mal'ak or angel appeared in the bush to Moses. It then proceeds to call the angel elohim and Yahweh. In Exo 3:14, the angel says "I am who shall be" (translated I AM THAT I AM). In Exo 4, it proceeds to call the angel speaking as Yahweh or LORD. Thus, the angel bore the name and title of the Most High given to Moses.

Why can angels bear the titles of the Most High? Because they are all of one spirit and are manifestations of him, as the saints will be. "Yahweh our Elohim is one Yahweh (Deut 6:4)." It is the same as we bear the title of Christ when we "put on Christ." It is the same as the wife bearing the name and title of her husband.

If angels can bear the title of God, so can Christ who was made greater than the angels.

 

[Darron Steele]

But you just said you're not interested in what the Catechism has to say....

Evidently, you cannot understand what you read, or are a liar.

What I actually posted is there for anyone to read. Here it is again: "Hi JohnDeereFan: I am not interested in your quotations from Catholic documents."

I am interested in what the Catechism has to say, at least when it comes to understanding my Catholic neighbors. But unlike you, I desire to understand it correctly. That is not something I am going to get from you.

Honestly, it's at this point that I just follow the Bible's admonition not to argue with fools.

I am not the one arguing about what Catholics believe and do now with two people with current firsthand experience.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Evidently, you cannot understand what you read, or are a liar.

That's nice. God bless you, Darron. I'm praying for you.

 

[David Michael Harris]

That's nice. God bless you, Darron. I'm praying for you.

Don't you just love the Christian forums!

Gosh, I would not call someone a liar, it happens though. I think most of us are as bad as each other. Thing is we all have a passion for Christianity and it comes out in us in different ways I guess.

I have said many things I regret, learning process I guess.

May God bless all this holiday period anyway.

 

[annsni]

Hebrews 8 speaks of Christ as our priest and the establishment of the new covenant or promise that resides in Christ, which is that Christ will return and redeem the righteous through faith in him and establish a Kingdom. The Baptists, based on their first statement of faith, recognized this coming kingdom on earth. Apparently, not any more.

It says: "For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things."

Christ is our one and only high priest who was 1. appointed and 2. dwells in Heaven to offer the TRUE heavenly things to the Father rather than the "copy or shadow." Heb 8:1 says that he sits by the right hand of the throne. We simply have to look at the makeup of any kingdom to see that the right hand was the place for the chief advisor or the son. The prince or advisor was not as great as the king, but still held power over the kingdom.

Hebrews is the best letter to completely destroy the Trinity. The priest gives intercession between God and man. Christ is the priest. The mediator mediates between God and man. Christ is the mediator. God loves Christ and will do all for him, so if we reside in Christ, he will do for us. It is the same thing that Catholics do with saints or Mary, not realizing that it is Christ who gives intercession to the Father and not dead people to Christ.

Isa 9:6 uses the word El. It simply means Mighty One or power. It is used often as a title for the Most High, but it is also the singular form of elohim or Mighty Ones, which are the angels (and later the saints) who are manifestations of God. It is perfectly acceptable to refer to Christ by this title since 1. he is the perfect manifestation of the glory of God, 2. he has full authority over the power of the Most High, and 3. he shall be the mightiest on earth, sitting upon the throne of David. It is also acceptable to call him father for the same reasons. Even Paul called himself a father of the church. He is also deemed Yahweh of hosts or armies. Since angels can bear the title of God, so can the Son, who is greater than the angels.

I refer you to Gen 32:28 which says that Jacob wrestled with elohim. Hos 12:4 then proves that Jacob wrestled with mal'ak or angel.

Gen 18 shows the three men who appeared before Abraham. Two went on to Sodom while Abraham detained the other. Gen 19:1 calls the two mal'ak or angels. The third that was detained is dubbed Yahweh, translated LORD. Knowing that "no man has seen God" from John, Abraham was speaking to an angel.

Exo 3:2 (confirmed by Acts) says that a mal'ak or angel appeared in the bush to Moses. It then proceeds to call the angel elohim and Yahweh. In Exo 3:14, the angel says "I am who shall be" (translated I AM THAT I AM). In Exo 4, it proceeds to call the angel speaking as Yahweh or LORD. Thus, the angel bore the name and title of the Most High given to Moses.

Why can angels bear the titles of the Most High? Because they are all of one spirit and are manifestations of him, as the saints will be. "Yahweh our Elohim is one Yahweh (Deut 6:4)." It is the same as we bear the title of Christ when we "put on Christ." It is the same as the wife bearing the name and title of her husband.

If angels can bear the title of God, so can Christ who was made greater than the angels.

What if the "angel" that you are speaking of in the Old Testament is Christ? angels are not called "god" anywhere in Scripture but Christ is.

 

[David Michael Harris]

(once notified of the faith)

Come on, explain this Notified