toldailytopic: The Holy Trinity.

[keypurr]

Exactly. The Word is the Son, the Creator, the Farther, the Holy Spirit, Grace, the dwelling of God in the human heart.

You would do well to study the use of the word "logos" in John 1 and compare it with other uses of the word "logos" in scripture.

Maybe then you will see light.

 

[Ktoyou]

You would do well to study the use of the word "logos" in John 1 and compare it with other uses of the word "logos" in scripture.

Maybe then you will see light.

I sincerely wish you would find faith in Jesus Christ as truly God, have faith in Him who died for your sins. It would comfort me to know you have found salvation. Forget about the logos.

 

[elohiym]

Christ is God.

Salvation hangs on that fact.

 

[nicholsmom]

:blabla: more denial of salvation.

:blabla:

I'm curious, kmo, did you actually read, or at least skim the linked post?

 

[csuguy]

See here.

Denial of the Trinity is a denial of the "salvation" anyone may claim for themselves. These persons are deluded and worshiping an intellectual idol of their own creation.

AMR

Oh please - the trinity is not talked about in scripture at all - let alone a salvific issue. It's a man made doctrine developed over the course of several hundreds of years.

 

[nicholsmom]

Note other translations of the same verse.

The majority of Bibles including the NAB, NASB, NRSV, NIV, and The Amplified Bible, just to name a few, interpret it as:

"Who though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped."

This word that NASB has translated as "grasped" is from the Greek word "Harpagmos" which is translated:
1. the act of seizing, robbery
2. a thing seized or to be seized
a. booty to deem anything a prize
b. a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained

Christ did not consider his equality with the Father as something to be held fast or retained because His plan entailed His Incarnation. This verse proves that Christ has equality with the Father that he didn't want to use as excuse for avoiding the Incarnation. If He didn't have the equality, then why even mention that He didn't want to hide behind that equality in order to avoid the Incarnation?

 

[godrulz]

See here.

Denial of the Trinity is a denial of the "salvation" anyone may claim for themselves. These persons are deluded and worshiping an intellectual idol of their own creation.

AMR

Modalists are not in the same boat as Arians and can be saved since they correctly affirm the person and work of Christ, the name by which we are saved (vs 'trinity', as important as it is).

 

[godrulz]

You would do well to study the use of the word "logos" in John 1 and compare it with other uses of the word "logos" in scripture.

Maybe then you will see light.

Words have a semantical range of meaning. Jesus is called the Word in I Jn. and Revelation. In other contexts, logos does mean different things (such as a generic spoken word, not the personal Word/Logos/Christ).

 

[Stripe]

I've always been taught that it's wrong to say that there are three Gods and their relationship could be described as them being 'of one mind', hence the three in one mystery.

Is that view wrong for any good and simply explained reason? 'Cos I can't remember the things I was taught.

Essentially whenever you start trying to define exactly what God is rather than what He is not, you're probably going to start getting yourself in trouble.

But anyway here's what the Nicene creed has to say. Since it was written to combat a Trinitarian controversy, its fairly applicable.

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The 'unholy trinity' in Revelation is the Beast/Antichrist, False Prophet, Satan.

A mystery is something hidden. A triune understanding is revelation, not raw reason. We have sufficient revelation to know that God is one God (monotheism) and that He is a compound unity, not solitary being. We can know truth about God, but not exhaustively.

We know that there are not 3 gods (tritheism/LDS/Mormon/Hindu pagan polytheism). We know that there are not 3 mere modes or offices (oneness, modalism, Sabellianism). We know that the Holy Spirit is personal and that Jesus is God Almighty in the flesh (vs Arianism/JW/Unitarian).

We can demonstrate that there is one true God by nature/essence/uncreated spirit substance. We know that the Father is called this God, the Son is called God, the Holy Spirit is called God. We also know that the Father is not the person of the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, etc.

So, within the one uncreated nature of God are 3 personal distinctions/conscious centers who are co-equal, co-eternal, co-essential. They are ontologically and relationally one yet distinct (absolutes). This is biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity, truth that is attacked by pseudo-Christian cults.

www.bible.ca/trinity

Uh .. I'm even more confused now. Anyone else have an answer? Preferably from the bible.. lain:

AMR?

 

[csuguy]

Modalists are not in the same boat as Arians and can be saved since they correctly affirm the person and work of Christ, the name by which we are saved (vs 'trinity', as important as it is).

Scripture doesn't support the idea that we have to accept Jesus as God to be saved :hammer:

 

[godrulz]

Scripture doesn't support the idea that we have to accept Jesus as God to be saved :hammer:

It does say that salvation is found in no one else (Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:9-10; I Jn. 5:11-13).

Using your logic, Muslims, Mormons, JWs, Evangelicals, Unitarians, etc. are equally saved despite diametrically opposing, mutually exclusive views of Christ. False messiahs cannot save. Jesus warned about following them. False gods, false christs, false gospels are worthless counterfeits. Our faith must be in the real, biblical Jesus, not a fake (2 Cor. 11:4; Jude 3; Gal. 1:6-10).

You want a proof text, but you are getting principles (it does say that unless you believe that 'I AM'/Jehovahistic identity, you will perish in your sins). Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Acts 4:12, etc. is not divorced from Jn. 1:1. To confess Jesus as Lord is also to confess Him as God, not a lord/sir.

You are blind and do not see. Believe and you will see.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

See also here.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Oh please - the trinity is not talked about in scripture at all - let alone a salvific issue. It's a man made doctrine developed over the course of several hundreds of years.

You have already demonstrated your willingness to be blown about by every wind of doctrine, so anything you have to say on the matter is suspect at the outset. Your youth betrays your ignorance.

AMR

 

[Ktoyou]

This word that NASB has translated as "grasped" is from the Greek word "Harpagmos" which is translated:
1. the act of seizing, robbery
2. a thing seized or to be seized
a. booty to deem anything a prize
b. a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained

Christ did not consider his equality with the Father as something to be held fast or retained because His plan entailed His Incarnation. This verse proves that Christ has equality with the Father that he didn't want to use as excuse for avoiding the Incarnation. If He didn't have the equality, then why even mention that He didn't want to hide behind that equality in order to avoid the Incarnation?

This is really quite good, I would have worded it differently; however, you may be saying it with more clarity. I will have to give this some thought.

The point is God is equal only to Himself.

 

[csuguy]

It does say that salvation is found in no one else (Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:9-10; I Jn. 5:11-13).

It does - but that doesn't mean that you have to accept the trinity or the idea that he is God.

John 3:16-18 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

We must believe in Christ who is the SON of God to be saved. Furthermore, perfect knowledge of Christ (especially if he is God) is not required to be saved. Those things which are required of us to know to be saved are clearly and explicitly outlined in scripture - and the trinity is not among them.

Using your logic, Muslims, Mormons, JWs, Evangelicals, Unitarians, etc. are equally saved despite diametrically opposing, mutually exclusive views of Christ. False messiahs cannot save. Jesus warned about following them. False gods, false christs, false gospels are worthless counterfeits. Our faith must be in the real, biblical Jesus, not a fake (2 Cor. 11:4; Jude 3; Gal. 1:6-10).

They may or may not be saved - but their acceptance or denial of Christ as God is not a determining factor in their salvation.

You want a proof text, but you are getting principles (it does say that unless you believe that 'I AM'/Jehovahistic identity, you will perish in your sins). Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Acts 4:12, etc. is not divorced from Jn. 1:1. To confess Jesus as Lord is also to confess Him as God, not a lord/sir.

You are blind and do not see. Believe and you will see.

He says if you don't believe that he is the Messiah then you will perish in your sins - not that you will perish in your sins if you don't accept him as God. "I AM" is not a name/title of God. "The One Who Is" is a title of God, but "IAM" is a false title implanted by corrupt translators trying to support the trinity.

Jesus is the Son of God, he was sent by God, he is the first born of all creation, he is the Wisdom of God, he is the IMAGE of God, he is God's representative, he is the sole mediator BETWEEN God and men - and in all this he is shown to not be God.

 

[csuguy]

You have already demonstrated your willingness to be blown about by every wind of doctrine, so anything you have to say on the matter is suspect at the outset. Your youth betrays your ignorance.

AMR

You are an old wine skin, stuck in your indoctrination.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

For the genuinely seeking to know and learn more, see also:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/DabneyRLTrinity.htm

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/BostonThomasOfTheHolyTrinity.htm

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/BavinckHermanDivineTrinity.htm

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/WarfieldBBTrinity.htm

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/BerkhofLouisTrinity.htm

http://www.apuritansmind.com/JohnOwen/JohnOwen-VindicationTrinity.htm

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=46|46|47

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=48

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=13|46|49


AMR

 

[freelight]

non-conceptual truth

non-conceptual truth

Denial of the Trinity is a denial of the "salvation" anyone may claim for themselves. These persons are deluded and worshiping an intellectual idol of their own creation.



AMR

And how do you know your own conception of the 'Trinity' is not an "intellectual idol" ?

God is One, no matter any differentiation of personality within the One Essence, however conceived or assumed.

Knowing 'God' first as Spirit, a Singular Universal Reality is most fundamental. It alone is essential. From the Infinite One... all forms, relativity and relationships emerge.







pj

 

[freelight]

One

One

Ancient, condemned heresy of Arianism.

Yah,....condemned by those who assumed their own 'position' of 'orthodoxy' over/against all other views. Just because the 'victors' in the Arian controversy gained the upper hand doesnt mean their dogma is any better or 'accurate' than the Arians.

The same God is worshipped by Arians and non-arians alike,....only 'concepts' and doctrinal points differ. There is Only One God....but many conceptions.




pj

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

This word that NASB has translated as "grasped" is from the Greek word "Harpagmos" which is translated:
1. the act of seizing, robbery
2. a thing seized or to be seized
a. booty to deem anything a prize
b. a thing to be seized upon or to be held fast, retained

Christ did not consider his equality with the Father as something to be held fast or retained because His plan entailed His Incarnation. This verse proves that Christ has equality with the Father that he didn't want to use as excuse for avoiding the Incarnation. If He didn't have the equality, then why even mention that He didn't want to hide behind that equality in order to avoid the Incarnation?

This is really quite good, I would have worded it differently; however, you may be saying it with more clarity. I will have to give this some thought.

The point is God is equal only to Himself.

I think John Murray (Collected Writings, 3:236) captures the proper sense of the passage:

"There is also the dignity of his station, 'equal with God.' He was on an equality with God. This equality is not an accession either by robbery or attainment. He did not consider his being on an equality with God something he had gained or was to gain. It was not something of precarious tenure; it was the consequence of his being and continuing to be in the form of God and, therefore, his natively, essentially, and immutably. The thought of the clauses may be paraphrased thus: being in the form of God and, therefore, not considering his being on an equality with God a prize or booty but an inalienable possession, he made himself of no reputation."

AMR