To whom does John 1:3, 1:10, and Colossians 1:16 refer?
toldailytopic: Does the doctrine of Trinity matter? If so why?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
To whom does John 1:3, 1:10, and Colossians 1:16 refer?
Lon
Well-known member
No surprise, he thinks just like you and is as contentious. That's an odd place to be, in my studied opinion. If I were this opinionated as a child, I'd have thought my parents were always wrong and thought I was 'Mr. Brilliant - God's gift to the world.' You go ahead and encourage that all you like. I find it nothing less than sinful lying to him to encourage such drivel. I can't respect any adult (not even one) that encourages this kind of willful disobedience. You probably would have given atta-boy's to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. You are happy with lies and unorthodoxy, none of the rest of us are. To encourage such is endangering CS's soul and you will be held accountable Luke 17:2, Keypurr. Isaiah 5:20 too.
Take a correction from God for once in your pitiful life!
See? The same thing makes me cry. I'd hate if my child perverted God's word.
Only if you are inept, stupid or retarded...
Because you prefer the lie rather than the truth. Otherwise there is no foundation for this. In fact, you've told me I'm intelligent on a couple of occassions so you are sending mixed messages that cannot be true at this venture. You just don't like me picking on your prodigy, but that is not a good reason for your interjection in this conversation. Truth would be, but that's not what you are doing. You are simply sticking up for your boy and endangering both of your souls in the process. God will hold us all accountable, you can be assured. You will stand before your Maker (Jesus btw) just as I will.
I do not believe He will say "Well done faithful servant" to you for this.
See also below...
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Great TOL link :up:
Most churches do a poor job of explaining this and the average believer probably would fumble rather than articulate what they were supposedly taught.
It displays ignorance of the history of dogma, Church Fathers, Scripture to say the trinity is not valid. Your conspiracy theories are rehashed agnostic Bart Ehrman, not conservative, biblical, historical, orthodox truth.
Lon
Well-known member
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness,
Rom 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made.
So people are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God
or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Rom 1:29 They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless.
Rom 1:32 Although they fully know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.
Rom 1:32 Although they fully know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.
Luke 17:2 It would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.
Rom 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made.
| Col 1:16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him — all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers — all things were created through him and for him. John 20:28 Thomas replied to him, "My Lord and my God!" |
So people are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God
Php 2:6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God |
or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Rom 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.
Rom 1:29 They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless.
Rom 1:32 Although they fully know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.
Luke 17:2 It would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.
Isa 5:20 Those who call evil good and good evil are as good as dead, who turn darkness into light and light into darkness, who turn bitter into sweet and sweet into bitter.
Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
Rom 1:32 Although they fully know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.
Luke 17:2 It would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.
csuguy
Well-known member
Your document makes many assumptions and provides little to no exegesis. Nor does it address potential alternative interpretations. I am familiar with the scriptures - making a list of them isn't going to change my position. I am always open to discussing this matter if you so wish, but that means we will need to examine your individual claims one at a time and in depth.
For instance, let us start with the overall framework of your argument. You insist that if we establish that the Father, Son, and HS are all God - but that they are also distinct from one another that we have established the Trinity.
There are several problems with this. First, without further (and unscriptural) explanation - the above appears by all means to be a logical contradiction. How can all 3 be God yet none be the same? The only way is for us to conjecture that God is not a personage, but something else. Tertullian's way of dealing with this was to say that God is a divine substance - is this what you say?
In addition, while we might accept that all three are called God - it does not take into account alternative interpretations of what this means. For instance, God told Moses that he would make him God. Jesus, when various Jews confronted him and wanted to stone him because they thought him claiming to be God, said that they were all 'gods' - but claimed only the title "Son of God" for himself. Or take the angel in the bush in Exodus - he spoke as if he were God. So then you see that just because one is given the title "god" in scripture it does not mean that they are literally God himself.
Theodosius I. Here's an exceprt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius.
Historians report that Constantine, who had never been baptized as a Christian during his lifetime, was baptized on his deathbed by the Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicodemia.[27][12]
Constantius II, who succeeded Constantine, was an Arian sympathizer[28] Following the abortive effort by Julian the Apostate to restore paganism in the empire, the emperor Valens—himself an Arian—renewed the persecution of Nicene hierarchs. However, Valen's successor Theodosius I effectively wiped out Arianism once and for all among the elites of the Eastern Empire through a combination of imperial decree, persecution, and the calling of the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, which condemned Arius anew while reaffirming and expanding the Nicene Creed.[28] This generally ended the influence of Arianism among the non-Germanic peoples of the Roman Empire.
Constantius II, who succeeded Constantine, was an Arian sympathizer[28] Following the abortive effort by Julian the Apostate to restore paganism in the empire, the emperor Valens—himself an Arian—renewed the persecution of Nicene hierarchs. However, Valen's successor Theodosius I effectively wiped out Arianism once and for all among the elites of the Eastern Empire through a combination of imperial decree, persecution, and the calling of the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, which condemned Arius anew while reaffirming and expanding the Nicene Creed.[28] This generally ended the influence of Arianism among the non-Germanic peoples of the Roman Empire.
csuguy
Well-known member
No - it displays ignorance to continually and blindly insist that the Trinity is what the church has always believed and that it is required for salvation. You are a little better than most, in that you don't believe the Trinity is required, per say, but that they accept that Jesus is God. However, this is still nothing more than man's tradition and it is not a scriptural requirement of salvation.
You, like so many, erroneously believe that to know God is to hold to the proper doctrines. Yet, even if one were to know everything perfectly - they would still not be saved. For possessing knowledge about God is not the same as knowing God.
Upholding justice, seeking righteousness, defending the cause of the poor and needy - is this not what it means to know God?
Lon
Well-known member
If Christ isn't God, how can He indwell you? Who indwells you? If He doesn't indwell us, can we be saved?
So many? :doh: All. It is the 'LAST' days believers will be deceived, not the first or middle or next to last ones. What have we consistently believed until these last days then? You arians are weird in how you turn this around and make it look like you are the right ones. You guys can't read a lick of scriptures. John 1:1 and 20:28 couldn't be any clearer among so many other scriptures. You tiny dissenters are making this stuff up as you go and are horrible at having the scriptures make sense. You ruin language itself.
It is a 23 year old's answer and simply one of many scriptures that tell you what it means to know God but I've already argued that point with you and even this isn't the answer you gave in that thread....so, yes, but don't be a simpleton.
I like that answer!
I mean, whatever the creator of the entire universe has revealed certainly matters!
csuguy
Well-known member
It is the HS which indwells us. Christ, on the other hand, is with God at his right hand.
You all believe whatever the church handbook says, and these handbooks all conflict. Like the Jews before you, you uphold the traditions of men above the truth of God. This is not a model I wish to follow - but rather I seek the truth that I may find it.
And I do not make things up as I go along, but am continually studying and seeking truth. You lot, however, think you have everything correct because that's what you were raised to believed - and therefore mock those of us who actually take the time to study and search out these things.
I am 24 thanks
And it is not my answer - it is God's definition given through his prophet Jeremiah. If you think this definition incomplete - then please provide the definition you abide by, providing scriptural support for your definition.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
You insult your elders by saying we do not study. I have been studying the Scriptures longer than you have breathed life. I was NOT raised as a Christian but have come to orthodox beliefs through God's regenerating grace and personal study of God's word.
You should do yourself a favor, and approach a study of the Divines who compiled the Westminster Confession of Faith. These faithful men were given the commission to protect and preserve the Christian faith according to the Scriptures.
These wise and godly men produced much more than a "church handbook!"
Their depths of study and achievement of true consensus amongst themselves, make your boasts look silly.
Nang
Things were quite a bit more complicated than that. Here is a more detailed quote from another (Protestant) source:
During the six decades between the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople in 381, Arianism experienced many victories. There were periods where Arian bishops constituted the majority of the visible ecclesiastical hierarchy. Primarily through the force of political power, Arian sympathizers soon took to undoing the condemnation of Arius and his theology. Eusebius of Nicomedia and others attempted to overturn Nicea, and for a number of decades it looked as if they might succeed. Constantine adopted a compromising position under the influence of various sources, including Eusebius of Caesarea and a politically worded "confession" from Arius. Constantine put little stock in the definition of Nicea itself: he was a politician to the last. Upon his death, his second son Constantius ruled in the East, and he gave great aid and comfort to Arianism. United by their rejection of the homoousion, semi-Arians and Arians worked to unseat a common enemy, almost always proceeding with political power on their side.
During the course of the decades following Nicea, Athanasius, who had become bishop of Alexandria shortly after the council, was removed from his see five times, once by force of 5,000 soldiers coming in the front door while he escaped out the back! Hosius, now nearly 100 years old, was likewise forced by imperial threats to compromise and give place to Arian ideas. At the end of the sixth decade of the century, it looked as if Nicea would be defeated. Jerome would later describe this moment in history as the time when "the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian."
Yet, in the midst of this darkness, a lone voice remained strong. Arguing from Scripture, fearlessly reproaching error, writing from refuge in the desert, along the Nile, or in the crowded suburbs around Alexandria, Athanasius continued the fight. His unwillingness to give place — even when banished by the Emperor, disfellowshipped by the established church, and condemned by local councils and bishops alike — gave rise to the phrase, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius against the world." Convinced that Scripture is "sufficient above all things," Athanasius acted as a true "Protestant" in his day. Athanasius protested against the consensus opinion of the established church, and did so because he was compelled by scriptural authority.
Movements that depend on political favor (rather than God’s truth) eventually die, and this was true of Arianism. As soon as it looked as if the Arians had consolidated their hold on the Empire, they turned to internal fighting and quite literally destroyed each other. They had no one like a faithful Athanasius, and it was not long before the tide turned against them. By A.D. 381, the Council of Constantinople could meet and reaffirm, without hesitancy, the Nicene faith, complete with the homoousious clause. The full deity of Christ was affirmed, not because Nicea had said so, but because God had revealed it to be so. Nicea’s authority rested upon the solid foundation of Scripture. A century after Nicea, we find the great bishop of Hippo, Augustine, writing to Maximin, an Arian, and saying: "I must not press the authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both — the testimony of the Holy Scriptures."
During the course of the decades following Nicea, Athanasius, who had become bishop of Alexandria shortly after the council, was removed from his see five times, once by force of 5,000 soldiers coming in the front door while he escaped out the back! Hosius, now nearly 100 years old, was likewise forced by imperial threats to compromise and give place to Arian ideas. At the end of the sixth decade of the century, it looked as if Nicea would be defeated. Jerome would later describe this moment in history as the time when "the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian."
Yet, in the midst of this darkness, a lone voice remained strong. Arguing from Scripture, fearlessly reproaching error, writing from refuge in the desert, along the Nile, or in the crowded suburbs around Alexandria, Athanasius continued the fight. His unwillingness to give place — even when banished by the Emperor, disfellowshipped by the established church, and condemned by local councils and bishops alike — gave rise to the phrase, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius against the world." Convinced that Scripture is "sufficient above all things," Athanasius acted as a true "Protestant" in his day. Athanasius protested against the consensus opinion of the established church, and did so because he was compelled by scriptural authority.
Movements that depend on political favor (rather than God’s truth) eventually die, and this was true of Arianism. As soon as it looked as if the Arians had consolidated their hold on the Empire, they turned to internal fighting and quite literally destroyed each other. They had no one like a faithful Athanasius, and it was not long before the tide turned against them. By A.D. 381, the Council of Constantinople could meet and reaffirm, without hesitancy, the Nicene faith, complete with the homoousious clause. The full deity of Christ was affirmed, not because Nicea had said so, but because God had revealed it to be so. Nicea’s authority rested upon the solid foundation of Scripture. A century after Nicea, we find the great bishop of Hippo, Augustine, writing to Maximin, an Arian, and saying: "I must not press the authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both — the testimony of the Holy Scriptures."
Source: http://www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea-
Last edited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NuKvP81hSQ&feature=em-uploademail
Clearly, there is one God, the Holy Spirit is personal vs impersonal, Jesus shares the honors, attributes, names, deeds, seat, titles of the Father (equality=Deity), etc.
The triune understanding alone brings all biblical truths together coherently.
Clearly, there is one God, the Holy Spirit is personal vs impersonal, Jesus shares the honors, attributes, names, deeds, seat, titles of the Father (equality=Deity), etc.
The triune understanding alone brings all biblical truths together coherently.
csuguy
Well-known member
I don't say that of all - only of those who clearly do not study. They may study somethings - but it is clear that they don't study this matter honestly, but just go with what they were raised with.
Aren't you a Calvinist? Since when is that "orthodox"? You might not have been raised Christian, but it is clear that you now faithfully follow your churches dogma - though it is some of the worst doctrine ever produced.
Many people claim to be Christians and read the bibles nth times over the course of their long lives - yet they know little to nothing. Studying as a theologian is much more indepth than what most are willing to do - but rather go along with whatever is preached at their pulpit and written in their churches approved texts.
Furthermore, just because you are older than me doesn't in anyway establish that you know what you are talking about more than I do. Relative age is not an indication of relative understanding. You all paint me as rebellious for not bowing down to you and just accepting whatever you say, yet to me you all appear as old wine skins - unwilling or unable to learn anything new, especially anything that challenges your status quo, lest you burst.
Calvin and associates are so far from the truth that it is not funny. Like the Manicheans, they would rest the blame for sin on God himself - as is the necessary conclusion if you do away with freewill. It is a far worse heresy than can be said of my Arianism, if it is indeed truly heretical vs deemed such by tradition. For Arians maybe excused for their lack of understanding, but Calvinism is blasphemy towards God.
Ok - they produced several large handbooks.
What does it matter if they agree amongst themselves? You can go to any church and find like minded individuals with a high degree of agreement.
Last edited:
csuguy
Well-known member
Of course they were - but I gave you what you asked for.
As for the quote, it is a bit more detailed and a lot more biased.
csuguy
Well-known member
Even if we were to arguably agree that the Trinity is true and the best interpretation of scripture that ever was or will be - that would still not establish it as necessary for salvation.
Lon
Well-known member
My last sentence to you was that you are naive and make simpleton mistakes like your answers to the "knowing God" question.
J.I. Packer, a respected scholar wrote a book of the same name. You should read it then get back to all of us. I already have. Meanwhile:
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him and he with Me.
Right out of the 'arian' handbook. Every JW and other oddball has said this nearly word for word. :doh:
You certainly can't accuse me of it, so who is this indictment most likely to stick against? Use your empathetic brain for a couple of minutes. Yes you are about quoting other cults here but it is you doing the accusations. Stop for about 30 seconds here: We all came to our position the same way you did. We just happen to hold to the majority view for a reason. Of a million people who read the scripture, who is most likely right? Those who all came up with the same answer or the couple of hundred class flunkies who have different answers, even from that small sect?
No, you aren't. You are done. You were done before you even went to school in the first place. Tell me honestly, has your study changed your view on the nature of Christ?
This is a cultic anti-intellectual statement. We all came to this belief without indoctrination. You should know better than this by now. It is an inane accusation that has no research whatsoever behind it. Rather, it is your 'suspicion' and you promote it as if it were a varified fact. Every cult without actual truth does this. Come out from there.
Because you are a kid coming up with these false accusations and assessments. Tell me, honestly, who is really indoctrinated when you say things like this that have no proof of truth behind them other than a half-century of cultists making the accusation?
I am 24 thanks
Awe, so my summation of you hasn't been too far off afterall, good to know, thanks. Not quite opposing your father, but... Thanks, again not too far off.
Different thread. Read Packer however. Jerry Bridges also has one titled "The Pursuit of God" which endeavers to answer a similar question.
Look back over this post: These are my indictments.
zippy2006
New member
Real history ftw. :thumb: Arianism was generally the majority and dominating position.
I have not made it necessary for salvation, but the Deity of Christ is not negotiable since salvation is in no other name/person than Jesus/YHWH and a counterfeit, false, non-existent Christ is worthless.
Unless you are a relativist, Islam, JW, Mormon, Judaism, etc. are simply not salvific like biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity is. What makes the latter unique is that Jesus is God and He rose from the dead, denied by the other groups (Judaism being true as far as it goes, but insufficient in this era).
Not over 2000 years of the best Christian thinking. Majority also does not make something true (if so, trinity view is true by far). The bottom line is that it is a biblical teaching.