Interesting Trinitarian Statement - trithestic?
 

I was going through some files today, cleaning out my desk and happened upon this article from Robert M. Bowman Jr. Many of you are probably familiar with him as he is/was part of the CRI, that I think Walter Martin was a part of. As I perused the article, I read the statement below. The article is an outline of "The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity."




"Over 7000 times God speaks or is spoken of with singular pronouns (I, He, etc.); but this is proper because God is a single individual being; thus these singular forms do not disprove that God exists as three "persons" as long as these persons are NOT separate beings."




I know that many trinitarians are confused, but I thought that this was a very interesting statement.

"Who is on first?":sly

Roses are red
Violets are blue
I’m schizophrenic
And so am I!

I know you are.... I thought I recognized you from Therapy... :friend

When we try explain the Godhead to a monotheistic Jew or Muslim ... whether we use the word MANIFESTATION OR PERSON ... both Trinitarians and Oneness Christians sound like they are dividing God.

The Jew or Muslim has no tolerance for these type of nuances ...

We keep on playing this game of semantics .... and it makes us feel so proud that we UNDERSTAND it ALL .... yet, its simple, both believe in ONE GOD ... there has never been any debate about this point.

Trinitarians will say a 'nature' cannot pray or talk, only 'persons' can. I've asked them if this is the case then who said "Let there be light" or who was the one who spoke the 10 commandments from Mount Sinai to the Israelites in the wilderness. They say, God spoke. Then I'll ask if God can speak as a collective of the persons. They skirt around this and usually don't answer it.

None of them have explained to me how God can say "I AM" as one being unless it is the collective voice of the persons of the Trinity speaking as one. And if that was the case then 'WE ARE' would be the more appropriate wording. They are masters at equivocating the word, God. :13loads

Daniel,

If we both believe there is only one God, who would a Trinitarian say came in the flesh?

God did ... both believe this also ....

:club

a true mark of Christian doctrine... If one denies that Jesus was God with us he is preaching another christ.

Be mad all you want ... the bible says we must believe and confess he is the Son of God .... anything else IMO is a royal waste of energy ....

I want to know HIM IN HIS POWER, FELLOWSHIP OF HIS SUFFERING AND RESURRECTION ... not to argue nuances of his infinite nature.

Trins say the SECOND PERSON of God came in the flesh. This is error.

Though they say the second person of the Trinity is fully God (as in nature), but the second person of the Trinity is not 100% of God. If the Trinitarian God was truly incarnate, then all three persons would have become man, making for very interesting conversation. :killinme

I want to worship him in Spirit and in Truth. :search

Can't speak for other oneness here, but I for one certainly believe God existed outside and apart from (or in addition to) the incarnation.

I agree with you.

But if the Trinitarian God is composed of three persons, then only one person was incarnate. Not all three persons were incarnate. That is what I was getting at.

The Trinitarians choose to explain God and the distinctions between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as persons. While Oneness recognizes the same distinctions they do not use the same language. I am not comfortable with "persons".

I think distinctions arose when God took on flesh and blood.

The sad thing is, none of you know the trinitarian doctrine on any real level. You know what others have told you. This is the biggest problem by and large. Fear and ostracization keep you from finding the truth on the matter.

I love the attempts at humor. Would you be so kind if other threw them in your direction.... Oneness would mean Jesus was talking to Himself in the garden :killinme

oneness would mean Jesus would have to say not my will be done by mine :lol

How about God the ventriliquist? God in heaven with using his "big voice" "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" God now in His little voice "thank you Father, I have fulfilled all righteousness" :lol

Crude? Yes, it is, but it demonstrates the coursness of which most unknowing oneness folks use in their attempts to demean a doctrine they know nothing about

this is a little closer - I commend your respect and honsety! Oneness uses "roles" Both groups use "aspects".

modalists use "modes", or "dispensations"... which early church fathers to this day describe as "heresy"

NO TRINITARIAN DENIES JESUS AS GOD!

No demeaning from this Oneness poster regarding Trinitarians or Trinitarian thought.

being the one that made the funny.... sure. if a trinitarian wants to crack wise, then have at it. that doesnt change anything. God is still One. Jesus was still both God and Man.

More particularaly being that this is a Oneness board, then i will say things here among my brothers that i would not say in conversation with a trinitarian. Certainly not one with whom I am having a serious discussion with in an attempt to win them to the Lord.

speaking of things I would say here, (this is where I go all Epley on you)

I believe that the doctrine of the trinity is the devils single greatest weapon. It is delusion on the grandest scale and has caused more people to go to hell than any other thing that has ever come to us.

:) And that is precisely why I posted what I did.

right! Trinitarians expressly beleive that Jesus was both The Man Christ Jesus and the Second Person in the Godhead.

(Godhead refering to the Single God in Three Persons)

oh, and I DO know what the trinity believes from a trinitarian viewpiont and I stand by the poem.

"How about God the ventriliquist? God in heaven with using his "big voice" "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" God now in His little voice "thank you Father, I have fulfilled all righteousness"

This actually has some truth in it! It really only is problematic when we view it as Jesus (the begotten Son) the ventriliquist!

Gee I'd love to see you prove that

Not for a trinitarian

The Trinitarian doctrine was formulated primarily by well-meaning church leaders who wished to purge the church of heresies much more damnable than Trinitarianism it'self.

I am saying if one believes the Son was speaking in the garden and then answering from heaven it becomes problematic - and ventriliquism.

But if it is viewed as the Son (God incarnate) speaking to the Father (God apart from the incarnation) it makes perfect sense.

I agree with this....I think.... unless the "damnable" is linked to the "Trinitarianism"

I've heard them all. I've spent quite a bit of time on CARM for the past year. I also know about their doctrine from their own mouths. So please don't think I'm ignorant of their doctrines of the Trinity, of salvation, of the hypostatic union, of perichoesis, etc. I've thought about their doctrines and don't find them scriptural. And though I most certainly don't have all the answers regarding the incarnation, I know God is not triune.

And to be even more direct, less then 6 months ago I seriously considered whether the doctrine of the Trinity might possibly be true. God even gave me a dream months before this time of testing that I was being led into false doctrine. I didn't understand at the time what was meant but when it came to pass, I understood. The Spirit within me also witnessed to my spirit that something was terribly wrong. For over four days as I was contemplating whether the doctrine of the Trinity could be the truth, I had a sick sinking feeling within the pit of my being. I prayed and fasted for God to lead me and preserve my way in his truth. And He did.

The sinking feeling went away. Peace of mind came back to me when I realized there is absolutely no way God is a Trinity. It's a seducing doctrine of devils.

Are you Trinitarian yourself?


The Trinitarian and Oneness doctrines are much closer than some of the Christology the early church Fathers were fighting.

SG is a special breed .. a hybrid that I love!!!!

The trinity is not the Devils greatest tool, IMO. He is the chiefest of all liars. He is a Liar. If you are saying that the "trinity" is the biggest thing the devil has used to confuse some people that is true. If he can get someone confused he can draw them away. But to say the Trinity is sending someone to hell that is a stretch. I believe one God only and Jesus is His name. The devil will never stop at trying to get someone to see a Trinity. He may use that to take them away from God altogether. But God on the other hand can use the thought of a Trinity to lead people to HIM and HIM alone.

Think about it.

Well - I'd love to talk to you about it some more sometime. I think you missed a few things. The trinitarians at CARM are about as knowledgable as the oneness folks there.. so not sure that was a great place for you to "check into it" - Your wrong on your conclusions at least partly - if your ever interested... I'd be available.. not looking for converts your understand.. just truth

I'd rather not apply a label to it... Particularly in this setting. Honestly we are all oneness, and all trinitarians... with the exception of the extremists on both sides, neither of which would have escaped: correction, rebuke and sound instruction... in the first church



thanks Bro

I will have to disagree with you again. TKN, a presbyterian, knows his doctrine. JWBII just finished his second year at Dallas Theological Seminary, and TheLayman, who's been banned from CARM but is posting on GNC, knows the doctrine inside and out.

I'm interested in knowing what things you think I've missed?

Sure! But that would require you listing a few of your objections........ lets start with one or two objections and see how I fair on the sensibility scale, as well as biblical integrity.

I'll keep checking back to see if your game

For starters:

1) the teaching of the eternal Son
2) the equivocation of the word, God
3) the absence of a Trinity in the OT See the first post on this thread by MOW and also click onto the link below:
http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/s...ad.php?t=10490

4) The attempts at twisting the meanings of the words, Elohim and Echad.
5) The lack of any clear cut teaching of the Trinity in the NT
6) Jesus never acknowledged the concept of a Trinity when he had ample opportunity. ie: John 4:22-24 and Matt 12:28-29
7) The creed recongnizing a Trinity took hundreds of years to formulate
8) The doctrine of the Trinity was developed over time.

You pick what you want to discuss first.

Great - thank you - give me just a bit of time and I'll post you something