My position on the Trinity

[1689Dave]

I'm posting this as a safeguard against antitrinitarian accusations that would lead to my banning.


the doctrine of the Trinity can be summarized in seven statements. (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.

The Athanasian Creed puts it this way: “Now this is the catholic [universal] faith: That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons, nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit, still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.”

Orthodox Trinitarianism rejects monarchianism which believes in only one person (mono) and maintains that the Son and the Spirit subsists in the divine essence as impersonal attributes not distinct and divine Persons.

Orthodox Trinitarianism rejects modalism which believes that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different names for the same God acting in different roles or manifestations (like the well-intentioned but misguided “water, vapor, ice” analogy).

Orthodox Trinitarianism rejects Arianism which denies the full deity of Christ.

And finally, orthodox Trinitarianism rejects all forms of tri-theism, which teach that the three members of the Godhead are, to quote a leading Mormon apologist, “three distinct Beings, three separate Gods.”

 

[Reformed]

Dave, is there a reason you felt compelled to post this? Am I missing something?

 

[1689Dave]

Dave, is there a reason you felt compelled to post this? Am I missing something?

Thanks for your concern. We are having a discussion on the Symbol of Chalcedon VS Nestorianism in another thread. It's not going well. Since banning is possible for anti trinitarianism, I'm making my position on the trinity clear.

 

[Alan Gross]

I'm posting this as a safeguard against antitrinitarian accusations that would lead to my banning.


the doctrine of the Trinity can be summarized in seven statements. (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.

The Athanasian Creed puts it this way: “Now this is the catholic [universal] faith: That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons, nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit, still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.”

Orthodox Trinitarianism rejects monarchianism which believes in only one person (mono) and maintains that the Son and the Spirit subsists in the divine essence as impersonal attributes not distinct and divine Persons.

Orthodox Trinitarianism rejects modalism which believes that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different names for the same God acting in different roles or manifestations (like the well-intentioned but misguided “water, vapor, ice” analogy).

Orthodox Trinitarianism rejects Arianism which denies the full deity of Christ.

And finally, orthodox Trinitarianism rejects all forms of tri-theism, which teach that the three members of the Godhead are, to quote a leading Mormon apologist, “three distinct Beings, three separate Gods.”

I ban you.

Not really.

I think I get your clarification and I like what you reject.

 

[Reformed]

Thanks for your concern. We are having a discussion on the Symbol of Chalcedon VS Nestorianism in another thread. It's not going well. Since banning is possible for anti trinitarianism, I'm making my position on the trinity clear.

Oh, OK. I found it strange that you created this thread, but now I understand. Thank you for the explanation.

 

[JonC]

Dave, is there a reason you felt compelled to post this? Am I missing something?

He has declared on another forum that those who affirm the Athanasian Creed and the Chalcedonian creed by claiming Christ is completely God and completely man are guilty of Nestorianism.

The statement he decried as heresy is "Christ is one person, two natures (indivisible yet without mixture), completely God, completely human".

His charge was that this is attacking the Chalcedonian Creed and Nestorianism because saying Christ is "completely God, completely human" is the same as saying Christ is two persons.

He offered an illustration that our finger is "completely human", Christ had a human body and soul but not a human spirit.

His view is called Apollinarianism and was deemed heretical in 381.

He wants to make sure his rejection of orthodox doctrine here is not a cause to be banned. My opinion is we have to allow some room because this is a difficult doctrine to articulate and an impossible one to fully understand.

Not all have studied theogy at a graduate level and many may not be familiar with Apollinarianism or the distinction of bipartite vs tripartite when it comes to Christian anthropology.

The question is whether or not Apollinarianism is considered a "strong heresy" by the Administration. I do not think so but I am not the deciding factor.

 

[JonC]

@1689Dave,

Thank you for explaining your view.

Do you also believe that Christ is completely God, completely man?

I ask because the orthodox position (from the Athanasian Creed) uses the words "completely God, completely human". This is the creed Calvinism used to articulate the Trinity in the Belgic Confession and was instrumental at the Synod of Dort.

That is the main concern some had with your view. You appeared to link the Athanasian Creed ("completely God, completely human") with Nestorianism rather than orthodoxy.

 

[1689Dave]

@1689Dave,

Thank you for explaining your view.

Do you also believe that Christ is completely God, completely man?

I ask because the orthodox position (from the Athanasian Creed) uses the words "completely God, completely human". This is the creed Calvinism used to articulate the Trinity in the Belgic Confession and was instrumental at the Synod of Dort.

That is the main concern some had with your view. You appeared to link the Athanasian Creed ("completely God, completely human") with Nestorianism rather than orthodoxy.

Surely you know Paul teaches we are Body, Soul, and Spirit. So none of the earlier creeds contradict the more fully developed creeds. Normally we go by the most detailed, just as we do with scripture. They all say "body and soul", but Chalcedon explains it completely so we go by it. Christ is a human body and soul. But in place of the human spirit, his Spirit is God.

..."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,"

So you can lead others astray and damage their ability to properly understand scripture. Or you can lie and teach heresy to justify your claims.

 

[JonC]

@1689Dave,

Many believe that man is comprised of two parts - a body and a soul/spirit/ non-physical part. Mists Calvinists I have encountered hold this position. R. C. Sproul wrote a good defence for the view.

I personally see the Spirit as different from the soul. But I am not a Calvinist.

Regardless, orthodox Christianity holds that Christ is "completely God, completely human" to include all there is of man (whether two or three "parts").

The belief Christ had a human body, human soul, but not a human mind/ spirit is called Apollinarianism and was declared a heresy in 381 as it presented Christ as fully God but not fully man.

I am not debating the accuracy of your view. Like I said, orthodoxy is a presupposition.

I am just pointing out the fact that you hold to a view that was declared a heresy in 381 and is outside of orthodox belief.

I would caution you, however, not to defend your view here. The orthodox position (an agreement with the Ecumenical Creeds) is assumed on this board. I believe your belief, while technically in violation of BB standards, can be overlooked but it cannot be advocated or defended on the forum.

 

[1689Dave]

@1689Dave,

Many believe that man is comprised of two parts - a body and a soul/spirit/ non-physical part. Mists Calvinists I have encountered hold this position. R. C. Sproul wrote a good defence for the view.

I personally see the Spirit as different from the soul. But I am not a Calvinist.

Regardless, orthodox Christianity holds that Christ is "completely God, completely human" to include all there is of man (whether two or three "parts").

The belief Christ had a human body, human soul, but not a human mind/ spirit is called Apollinarianism and was declared a heresy in 381 as it presented Christ as fully God but not fully man.

I am not debating the accuracy of your view. Like I said, orthodoxy is a presupposition.

I am just pointing out the fact that you hold to a view that was declared a heresy in 381 and is outside of orthodox belief.

I would caution you, however, not to defend your view here. The orthodox position (an agreement with the Ecumenical Creeds) is assumed on this board. I believe your belief, while technically in violation of BB standards, can be overlooked but it cannot be advocated or defended on the forum.

For someone who harps on the deficiency of the creeds, you should take Scripture for what it says.

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (NCPB)

“And Mary said, ‘My soul doth magnify the Lord,” Luke 1:46 (NCPB)

“and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” Luke 1:47 (NCPB)

 

[Reformed]

For someone who harps on the deficiency of the creeds, you should take Scripture for what it says.

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (NCPB)

“And Mary said, ‘My soul doth magnify the Lord,” Luke 1:46 (NCPB)

“and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” Luke 1:47 (NCPB)

Dave, I'm on the road right now, so I don't have access to my reference works. I have no problem with the Trichotomist position, although I am a Dichotomist. I believe scripture teaches that man has both a material and a immaterial part. I see soul and spirit as synonymous and the Greek words for them not establishing a material difference. But I also do not see either position as serious error even if one of them is wrong.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm posting this as a safeguard against antitrinitarian accusations that would lead to my banning.


the doctrine of the Trinity can be summarized in seven statements. (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father.

The Athanasian Creed puts it this way: “Now this is the catholic [universal] faith: That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons, nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit, still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.”

Orthodox Trinitarianism rejects monarchianism which believes in only one person (mono) and maintains that the Son and the Spirit subsists in the divine essence as impersonal attributes not distinct and divine Persons.

Orthodox Trinitarianism rejects modalism which believes that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different names for the same God acting in different roles or manifestations (like the well-intentioned but misguided “water, vapor, ice” analogy).

Orthodox Trinitarianism rejects Arianism which denies the full deity of Christ.

And finally, orthodox Trinitarianism rejects all forms of tri-theism, which teach that the three members of the Godhead are, to quote a leading Mormon apologist, “three distinct Beings, three separate Gods.”

Is Jesus fully man and God, as in He is body soul and spirit as a human, but also is Diety also in his other nature?

 

[JonC]

For someone who harps on the deficiency of the creeds, you should take Scripture for what it says.

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (NCPB)

“And Mary said, ‘My soul doth magnify the Lord,” Luke 1:46 (NCPB)

“and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” Luke 1:47 (NCPB)

I never harped on the deficiency of the creeds (I actually stated the opposite - I said that while I am not "creedal" I believe the creeds do an excellent job of explaining this doctrine).

I also never said that I am a Dichotomist. I have repeatedly said that I believe man has a body, soul, and spirit (I believe the "spirit" is different from the "soul").

Let me ask you this-

Why is it I quote an Ecumenical creeds and say I believe it does a very good job at presenting the doctrine of the trinity and YOU declare that I am denying the creed and claiming Christ is two persons when I never even hinted at such things?

Why is it you claim I deny Scripture by stating man is only body and soul when my stated position is that I believe men are body, soul, and spirit?


Perhaps the reason is you study Scripture and the creeds as carelessly as you read my posts and the posts of others on this board.

To use YOUR standard - quote me "harping on the deficiency" of the creeds or be proven a liar.

Quote me denying man is "spirit and soul and body" or be proven a liar.

 

[Yeshua1]

I never harped on the deficiency of the creeds (I actually stated the opposite - I said that while I am not "creedal" I believe the creeds do an excellent job of explaining this doctrine).

I also never said that I am a Dichotomist. I have repeatedly said that I believe man has a body, soul, and spirit (I believe the "spirit" is different from the "soul").

Let me ask you this-

Why is it I quote an Ecumenical creeds and say I believe it does a very good job at presenting the doctrine of the trinity and YOU declare that I am denying the creed and claiming Christ is two persons when I never even hinted at such things?

Why is it you claim I deny Scripture by stating man is only body and soul when my stated position is that I believe men are body, soul, and spirit?


Perhaps the reason is you study Scripture and the creeds as carelessly as you read my posts and the posts of others on this board.

To use YOUR standard - quote me "harping on the deficiency" of the creeds or be proven a liar.

Quote me denying man is "spirit and soul and body" or be proven a liar.

He does always seem to want to go to what the Creeds state on doctrine over the Bible itself, as if the Bible is incomplete somehow!

 

[1689Dave]

Dave, I'm on the road right now, so I don't have access to my reference works. I have no problem with the Trichotomist position, although I am a Dichotomist. I believe scripture teaches that man has both a material and a immaterial part. I see soul and spirit as synonymous and the Greek words for them not establishing a material difference. But I also do not see either position as serious error even if one of them is wrong.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Use scripture, body, soul, and spirit to define a man. You have contradictions otherwise.

 

[1689Dave]

I never harped on the deficiency of the creeds (I actually stated the opposite - I said that while I am not "creedal" I believe the creeds do an excellent job of explaining this doctrine).

I also never said that I am a Dichotomist. I have repeatedly said that I believe man has a body, soul, and spirit (I believe the "spirit" is different from the "soul").

Let me ask you this-

Why is it I quote an Ecumenical creeds and say I believe it does a very good job at presenting the doctrine of the trinity and YOU declare that I am denying the creed and claiming Christ is two persons when I never even hinted at such things?

Why is it you claim I deny Scripture by stating man is only body and soul when my stated position is that I believe men are body, soul, and spirit?


Perhaps the reason is you study Scripture and the creeds as carelessly as you read my posts and the posts of others on this board.

To use YOUR standard - quote me "harping on the deficiency" of the creeds or be proven a liar.

Quote me denying man is "spirit and soul and body" or be proven a liar.

It is your logic of Christ having two persons that end there.

 

[1689Dave]

Is Jesus fully man and God, as in He is body soul and spirit as a human, but also is Diety also in his other nature?

You depict him as crazy, having multiple personalities.

 

[1689Dave]

He does always seem to want to go to what the Creeds state on doctrine over the Bible itself, as if the Bible is incomplete somehow!

Just that book learnin' helps.

 

[Yeshua1]

You depict him as crazy, having multiple personalities.

2 natures within one Person!

 

[Yeshua1]

Just that book learnin' helps.

Do the Creeds have better theology then scriptures?