dreadknought
New member
Nevermind
Discussion thread for AMR and God's Truth Trinity Debate.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sorry, gr, but oneness gets no claim to being Christian. Oneness by definition denies the triune nature of the Godhead. This necessarily implies something is amiss when it comes to who Jesus is and who the Holy Spirit is. We either worship the God who is, or we are idolaters. There is no middle ground.
This does not mean a Christian must understand the Trinity at the depths that some others may understand it. The Trinity is not beyond the grasp of any true believer. You cannot read the Scriptures plainly without seeing the Trinity in evidence. Christian reason dictates that when you read Scripture it cannot be teaching that there are three Gods and one God for that would be a contradiction. Thus, this same reason dictates you dig deeper, seek the instruction of your church, review what the church as declared in history, as well as the interpretations of the community of believers, for we worship and interpret in community.
Those that deny the Trinity are to be rightfully considered as outside the faith for they are without excuse for not coming to a proper understanding of the doctrines made clear in Scripture about the very God they claim to worship.
As to the Pinnock reference, it is made to show how the view of one of the fathers of open theism lends itself so easily to Mormonism and Mormon-like notions. Point being, if your views are being hailed by cults, and your group's founders become the cult's co-belligerents, that should give you great pause, if nothing else. Just sayin'.
AMR
This does not mean a Christian must understand the Trinity at the depths that some others may understand it. The Trinity is not beyond the grasp of any true believer. You cannot read the Scriptures plainly without seeing the Trinity in evidence. Christian reason dictates that when you read Scripture it cannot be teaching that there are three Gods and one God for that would be a contradiction. Thus, this same reason dictates you dig deeper, seek the instruction of your church, review what the church as declared in history, as well as the interpretations of the community of believers, for we worship and interpret in community.
Those that deny the Trinity are to be rightfully considered as outside the faith for they are without excuse for not coming to a proper understanding of the doctrines made clear in Scripture about the very God they claim to worship.
As to the Pinnock reference, it is made to show how the view of one of the fathers of open theism lends itself so easily to Mormonism and Mormon-like notions. Point being, if your views are being hailed by cults, and your group's founders become the cult's co-belligerents, that should give you great pause, if nothing else. Just sayin'.
AMR
GT "If you do not debate in an honest way, you will forfeit by default. Mormons do not believe that Jesus is God. I know that Jesus is God. I ask you again to stop derailing this debate and carrying on with long posts about things that are not related to our discussion."
JWs do not believe Jesus is God. They say He is Michael the Archangel, a created being. He is Jehovah God's first creation with Jehovah alone being true God (Jesus is a god in a sense in their view).
Mormons, including the Book of Mormon, explicitly says that Jesus is Jehovah (they say the Father is another god, Elohim), the Alpha and Omega, I AM (titles for Deity). Their view is polytheistic, but they do not deny that Jesus is God like JWs, Unitarians, Muslims do. I do not say they affirm the true God, since Jesus was not always God and uniquely God. Their polytheism puts them outside of Christianity, just as JWs Arianism does.
Just as you misunderstand/misrepresent LDS views, so you do the same with trinitarian views. This is why you should listen to AMR even if you disagree with the views. At least understand what you are rejecting (vs straw man arguments that show your lack of expertise and credibility; even if AMR was wrong, at least he knows what he believes about the trinity, unlike you).
You do not want to hear about early church history or theology. There is nothing new under the sun. Your views are rehashed heresies that have been refuted centuries ago (similar, not identical). If someone from the first century stated your views, you would appeal to them. If they refuted the trinity, you would or could appeal to them. The reality is that it is your view, not trinitarianism, that came later as an attack on orthodoxy. By dismissing or disdaining the evidence, you remain in your error. This lack of teachability negates your right to teach with credibility or integrity.
I do not agree with AMR on many things, but his academic rigour will be more honourable/persuasive than your lack of it.
By the end of this, if not now, neither one of you will like me, but I am trying to be objective, reasonable, fair.
JWs do not believe Jesus is God. They say He is Michael the Archangel, a created being. He is Jehovah God's first creation with Jehovah alone being true God (Jesus is a god in a sense in their view).
Mormons, including the Book of Mormon, explicitly says that Jesus is Jehovah (they say the Father is another god, Elohim), the Alpha and Omega, I AM (titles for Deity). Their view is polytheistic, but they do not deny that Jesus is God like JWs, Unitarians, Muslims do. I do not say they affirm the true God, since Jesus was not always God and uniquely God. Their polytheism puts them outside of Christianity, just as JWs Arianism does.
Just as you misunderstand/misrepresent LDS views, so you do the same with trinitarian views. This is why you should listen to AMR even if you disagree with the views. At least understand what you are rejecting (vs straw man arguments that show your lack of expertise and credibility; even if AMR was wrong, at least he knows what he believes about the trinity, unlike you).
You do not want to hear about early church history or theology. There is nothing new under the sun. Your views are rehashed heresies that have been refuted centuries ago (similar, not identical). If someone from the first century stated your views, you would appeal to them. If they refuted the trinity, you would or could appeal to them. The reality is that it is your view, not trinitarianism, that came later as an attack on orthodoxy. By dismissing or disdaining the evidence, you remain in your error. This lack of teachability negates your right to teach with credibility or integrity.
I do not agree with AMR on many things, but his academic rigour will be more honourable/persuasive than your lack of it.
By the end of this, if not now, neither one of you will like me, but I am trying to be objective, reasonable, fair.
That trinity doctrine “picture” proves that the trinity doctrine makes a three-headed god, or even four gods. That trinity diagram is not explainable, and therefore cannot be defended against the truth that I said about it.
Exhibit A of straw man caricature ignorance. The diagram is imperfect, but does set out the biblical parameters that are defensible. AMR gives you substance to back up statements and you tell him to remove them. I do not give substance, but statements, in some posts, and you complain about that. You make statements without substance and expect us to embrace them despite the contrary evidence?!
This debate needs substance. Shorter posts would help, but this is not like a usual fly by thread. It is meant for more detail and slower, thoughtful responses. You need to pick it up more if you want him to scale it back.
Regardless of who is right, AMR would more likely win in a debate or court of law at this point (the point is not to have heat and win an argument, but have light and discover biblical truth).
Exhibit A of straw man caricature ignorance. The diagram is imperfect, but does set out the biblical parameters that are defensible. AMR gives you substance to back up statements and you tell him to remove them. I do not give substance, but statements, in some posts, and you complain about that. You make statements without substance and expect us to embrace them despite the contrary evidence?!
This debate needs substance. Shorter posts would help, but this is not like a usual fly by thread. It is meant for more detail and slower, thoughtful responses. You need to pick it up more if you want him to scale it back.
Regardless of who is right, AMR would more likely win in a debate or court of law at this point (the point is not to have heat and win an argument, but have light and discover biblical truth).
Brother Vinny
Active member
I think AMR took a wrong turn by trying to tie GT's beliefs to Mormonism. I have heard the theory that the image of God was the first thing to be created, and that the pre-incarnate eternal Christ inhabited this image of God and thus literally qualifies as being the firstborn of creation (while still maintaining His eternal attributes), and it was this image that the physical likeness of man was patterned after.
Don't know that I buy it, but I really don't see anything in the above paragraph that would be outside the pale of what is considered mainstream Christianity.
Don't know that I buy it, but I really don't see anything in the above paragraph that would be outside the pale of what is considered mainstream Christianity.
Again, Mormons and JWs are not wrong about everything. If a Catholic affirms the Deity/resurrection of Christ, as do I, that does not mean I am endorsing the other extra/contrabiblical Catholic views.
Denying the trinity is serious, but reducing personal distinctions to modes/offices is not as serious as denying the Deity of Christ. Some fundamentalists have a never ending list of what must be believed to be Christian. Some counter-cult ministries consider SDA to be Christian enough, while others say no. Some experts think Oneness can be Christian, while others do not. AMR, like all of us, is right about many things and wrong about some things. None of us is infallible.
I think we can agree that Muslims are not Christian. Those who think Pentecostals or charismatics may not be Christian (John MacArthur) are misguided. I personally know Oneness people who are wrong, but I do not doubt the grace of God in their lives. I cannot say the same about Mormon and JW friends.
God's Truth
New member
Again, you have not disproved anything that I have said, and you haven't proved anything you believe.
God's Truth
New member
I am no more a modalist than I am a trinitarian.
God's Truth
New member
I am on the side of truth.
Brother Vinny
Active member
can someone please state for me AMR and GT positions?
who is arguing what side of the debate?
In laymans terms please
AMR is the champ-peen for the classical, mainstream Trinitarian view of God (accept no substitutes).
GT is playing the heretic, posing some sort of oneness/modalistic Unitarian God (I think) that inhabited a spiritual body of sorts prior to the Incarnation, and who returned to the spiritual body at the resurrection.
This makes me want to ask why the scars appeared on the spiritual body. Also makes me think if we lose an appendage down here, our spiritual bodies would also be missing it.
God's Truth
New member
That does not make sense what you just said. You are misrepresenting the Oneness doctrine.
You know you cannot explain your trinity doctrine. In the trinity doctrine, it states that it is unexplainable.
However, we are to explain our beliefs.
You are “just sayin’” anything. You do not care if you speak the truth or not.
JosephR
New member
Oh I see and thanks BV
Trins, they believe God is God Jesus and Holy Spirit all in one..A non created being.
And Unis say all came from God including Jesus and Holy Spirit.
And I get the vibe that Trins is the main or popular view, right?seems I see Meshak allways talking bout them.
Trins, they believe God is God Jesus and Holy Spirit all in one..A non created being.
And Unis say all came from God including Jesus and Holy Spirit.
And I get the vibe that Trins is the main or popular view, right?seems I see Meshak allways talking bout them.
JosephR
New member
Oh I see and thanks BV
Trins, they believe God is God Jesus and Holt Spirit all in one..A non created being.
And Unis say all came from God including Jesus and Holy Spirit.
And I get the vibe that Trins is the main or popular view, right?seems I see Meshak allways talking bout them.
And I am guessing the first line of the BIBLE wont stop this debate either?
In the Beginning GOD.
?
See other threads where we have engaged more. I am making observations here since you are the two hashing out the doctrinal dispute on the other thread. This is not the place to usurp your debate in detail. If so, you should cancel the one-on-one with him and make one for us (not necessary, of course).
God's Truth
New member
AMR is the champ-peen for the classical, mainstream Trinitarian view of God (accept no substitutes).
GT is playing the heretic, posing some sort of oneness/modalistic Unitarian God (I think) that inhabited a spiritual body of sorts prior to the Incarnation, and who returned to the spiritual body at the resurrection.
This makes me want to ask why the scars appeared on the spiritual body. Also makes me think if we lose an appendage down here, our spiritual bodies would also be missing it.
Instead of my spending this time, correcting you for speaking falseness about me...why, don't you explain in your own words how Jesus existed in heaven as God before coming to earth?
I am waiting to hear what you have to say.
I know you will not be able to explain it. So then, how about you show some respect for what I am explaining.
Brother Vinny
Active member
Oh I see and thanks BV
Trins, they believe God is God Jesus and Holt Spirit all in one..A non created being.
And Unis say all came from God including Jesus and Holy Spirit.
And I get the vibe that Trins is the main or popular view, right?seems I see Meshak allways talking bout them.
Emphasis on always talking.
The Church decided on the Trinity before a solid canon of Scripture was settled upon. This should tell one how important it was to them.
Arianism, modalism/Oneness, trinitarianism, polytheism are the main views. There are countless nuanced views that could be plugged under each.
Arian=views that reduce Christ to creature and often Holy Spirit as impersonal (e.g. JWs, Unitarians, etc.). They are anti-trin, anti-Deity of Christ.
polytheism=belief in more than one true God (LDS/Mormon, Hinduism).
monotheism= Judaism, Islam, Christianity (Oneness and Trinitarian), pseudo-Christian cults (JW, Unitarian), etc.
trinitarianism=one God with 3 personal distinctions, not 3 gods, not 3-headed god (the fact you talk about the latter or even 4 gods shows that you should quit now).
modalism/Sabellianism/modal monarchianism/Oneness/Jesus only, etc.= anti-trin, monotheistic, Deity of Christ affirming. F, S, HS are not personally distinct, but the same, whether called office, mode, manifestation, all at once, or consecutively.
GT: If your view does not generically fit any above, you are not being reasonable or are so far out to lunch we should not even entertain it, but lump it in with endless minor views that are not even credible to make a label over.
God's Truth
New member
That is just like you to speak falseness about me and my beliefs, but then fault me for correcting you and explaining what I believe.
I do not want to cancel the one on one. AMR is showing he cannot defend his doctrine.
You cannot answer the question I ask all trinitarians and that is how is Jesus God but not the Father who is God, and the Holy Spirit.
Brother Vinny
Active member
Some secrets belong to God alone (see Deut 29:29). Jesus' pre-Incarnate life is among these.
So, is my wife's deceased uncle, who died a legless believer, gimping around the heavenlies on two spiritual stumps? If not, why not, since Jesus still has His scars?
- Status