Which is More Biblical: Oneness or Triniarianism?

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

The Oneness model to understanding our God is easiest for me to comprehend for many reasons ... most probably because I grew up in it...

I think this issue is mostly about focus, my friends.

Oneness believers focus heavily on the deity of Jesus Christ while still acknowledging the distinctions in how God has chosen to reveal himself to humanity ....

Trinitarians focus a lot of their energies on celebrating the distinctions of God while still acknowledging the deity of Jesus Christ ....

Two sides of a coin that need examination.

I truly believe:

... the existence of this often circular debate revolves around:

1. semantics over words such as persons, distinctions, modes, etc.

2. pride in presenting facts, figures,scripture, grammar, logic, scholarship and Church history while debunking the other side's facts, figures, logic, interpretation of scripture, grammar, scholarship and Church history. {I want to be right and prove you wrong while never admitting when I am wrong}

3. prejudices and hatreds based on a century old feud

eventually leading to more circular debates on:

4. the proper baptismal formula and questioning the other's salvation

and most often culminates in:

5. name calling, sensitivities hurt, and insults
---------------------------

In the end, this is what matters ... both sides whole heartedly agree and believe in:

1. One God
2.The Mighty God in Christ
3. Jesus is fully man and fully God
4. Jesus is the Son of God
5. Jesus died for our sins and was raised to give us new life.
6. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

I'd like to see us discuss this issue responsibly, in a Christ-like manner, and w/o the hurt feelings and defensive postures.

Once again, I'll reiterate ... the minute I can fully explain and define an infinite and Almighty God ... He ceases to be God ....

and I've become an idolater.

Lastly, I am yet to meet a Trinitarian that believes in 3 Gods ... most modern trinitarians use a lot of Oneness language, also.

I know to some their God box means everything ... but when will we let God be God?

If we have His Spirit we are all His.

I'm for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ ... him crucified and resurrected ... not the Gospel of Full Understanding.

So you guys continue to wrap your minds around the I am .... have fun.

Daniel: this one of the wisest posts I have ever seen on the topic.

I only wish I could type half as good as you, as to convey what I believe on htese threads.

I type like Moses talked.

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

The Oneness model to understanding our God is easiest for me to comprehend for many reasons ... most probably because I grew up in it...

I think this issue is mostly about focus, my friends.

Oneness believers focus heavily on the deity of Jesus Christ while still acknowledging the distinctions in how God has chosen to reveal himself to humanity ....

Trinitarians focus a lot of their energies on celebrating the distinctions of God while still acknowledging the deity of Jesus Christ ....

Two sides of a coin that need examination.

I truly believe:

... the existence of this often circular debate revolves around:

1. semantics over words such as persons, distinctions, modes, etc.

2. pride in presenting facts, figures,scripture, grammar, logic, scholarship and Church history while debunking the other side's facts, figures, logic, interpretation of scripture, grammar, scholarship and Church history. {I want to be right and prove you wrong while never admitting when I am wrong}

3. prejudices and hatreds based on a century old feud

eventually leading to more circular debates on:

4. the proper baptismal formula and questioning the other's salvation

and most often culminates in:

5. name calling, sensitivities hurt, and insults
---------------------------

In the end, this is what matters ... both sides whole heartedly agree and believe in:

1. One God
2.The Mighty God in Christ
3. Jesus is fully man and fully God
4. Jesus is the Son of God
5. Jesus died for our sins and was raised to give us new life.
6. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

I'd like to see us discuss this issue responsibly, in a Christ-like manner, and w/o the hurt feelings and defensive postures.

Once again, I'll reiterate ... the minute I can fully explain and define an infinite and Almighty God ... He ceases to be God ....

and I've become an idolater.

Lastly, I am yet to meet a Trinitarian that believes in 3 Gods ... most modern trinitarians use a lot of Oneness language, also.

I know to some their God box means everything ... but when will we let God be God?

If we have His Spirit we are all His.

I'm for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ ... him crucified and resurrected ... not the Gospel of Full Understanding.

So you guys continue to wrap your minds around the I am .... have fun.

Dan, you sound confused, mystified....unsettled.

Let me know if I can clear some things up for you, okay?

See ya buddy!

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

Do you believe there are three persons in the Godhead?

Do you believe those three persons are coequal, coexistant and coeternal?

This is un biblical language.

i have seen many condemn trinnys for say saying three persons, while in the same breath say there are three offices.

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

This is un biblical language.

i have seen many condemn trinnys for say saying three persons, while in the same breath say there are three offices.

Classic trintarianism states there is one God in three persons who are coequal, coexistant and coeternal.

Are you saying that statement is a wrong view of God?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

This is un biblical language.

i have seen many condemn trinnys for say saying three persons, while in the same breath say there are three offices.

True. My mother and sister believe this and they claim to be Trinitarian. They also believe that Jesus is God.

[ILUVHIM]

Here is a presentation on the Trinity from a trinitarian perspective.
http://www.bible.org/assets/ttp/tr-session7_video.asx

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

That too.

All One.


One, by the joining of many... not 'persons' but rather attributes or character qualities... like threads of a rope, or facets of a diamond.

NOTHING is singular in this world. Even a rock is made up of many components. It's made up of different compounds. Those compounds are made up of elements. The elements are made up of atoms. The atoms are made up of particles. The particles are made up of sub-particles, etc...

Biblical Hebraic thought is much different than our westernized modern thought. They use the word Ekhad to describe God being 'one'. It means one by the joining of many. It's exactly the picture I just described. One, not singular in number, but combined, by the joining of many. And again, it's not referring to 'persons'. It's referring to attributes. This is why the Hebrew word for God is Elohim. It's multiples. It's the word they use for the one true God and also for gods. When referring to God himself, it's still used in plural sense. Not because they see him as a bunch of gods, but because they recognize that there's just SO MUCH to him that you can't simply say "God" and include it all. It's taking into consideration his infinite attributes, too many to number.

When they use the word "face" they are really saying faces, because we all have many faces. When you look at someone, they are rarely ever making the exact same face. It moves, it morphs, it changes as you or they speak. Same concept.

There is a huge object lesson here.

People, being made in the image (a faint image mind you) of God, are the same way. You are not just you. You're made up of all the different things that make you YOU. Your wants, your needs, your desires, your experiences, your history, your environment, your emotions, your thoughts... everything combines to make you who you are.

Each thread of the rope is different, but they all combine to make one rope. The rope does not exist without the threads. Each thread ties into the next to make the rope stronger and more robust.

Each facet of a diamond adds to the beauty of the stone. They enhance one another and play off one another as the light sparkles within it. Each one plays a part in making the diamond gorgeous, yet the diamond does not exist without them.


To limit God to 'three' strands or facets is showing a lack of understanding of his nature. It's over simplifying him. It's doing him an injustice, and it's insulting to him.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

Classic trintarianism states there is one God in three persons who are coequal, coexistant and coeternal.

Are you saying that statement is a wrong view of God?

Some may say this and view God corectly while others may say this and have an imprpoer view of God.

I do think the one God of the bible should be describd as three persons. So in my opinion i would not agree with the staement as it stands.

[nahkoe]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

In the current stance propagated by either position, Neither is 'more biblical'.

No fair, you took my answer.

I'm another "neither" vote.

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

All One.


One, by the joining of many... not 'persons' but rather attributes or character qualities... like threads of a rope, or facets of a diamond.

NOTHING is singular in this world. Even a rock is made up of many components. It's made up of different compounds. Those compounds are made up of elements. The elements are made up of atoms. The atoms are made up of particles. The particles are made up of sub-particles, etc...

Biblical Hebraic thought is much different than our westernized modern thought. They use the word Ekhad to describe God being 'one'. It means one by the joining of many. It's exactly the picture I just described. One, not singular in number, but combined, by the joining of many. And again, it's not referring to 'persons'. It's referring to attributes. This is why the Hebrew word for God is Elohim. It's multiples. It's the word they use for the one true God and also for gods. When referring to God himself, it's still used in plural sense. Not because they see him as a bunch of gods, but because they recognize that there's just SO MUCH to him that you can't simply say "God" and include it all. It's taking into consideration his infinite attributes, too many to number.

When they use the word "face" they are really saying faces, because we all have many faces. When you look at someone, they are rarely ever making the exact same face. It moves, it morphs, it changes as you or they speak. Same concept.

There is a huge object lesson here.

People, being made in the image (a faint image mind you) of God, are the same way. You are not just you. You're made up of all the different things that make you YOU. Your wants, your needs, your desires, your experiences, your history, your environment, your emotions, your thoughts... everything combines to make you who you are.

Each thread of the rope is different, but they all combine to make one rope. The rope does not exist without the threads. Each thread ties into the next to make the rope stronger and more robust.

Each facet of a diamond adds to the beauty of the stone. They enhance one another and play off one another as the light sparkles within it. Each one plays a part in making the diamond gorgeous, yet the diamond does not exist without them.


To limit God to 'three' strands or facets is showing a lack of understanding of his nature. It's over simplifying him. It's doing him an injustice, and it's insulting to him.

Interpretation seems to be....

* we can't possibly know or understand God
* doctrine isn't as important as relationship to a completely undefinable, unknowable God.


Which often seems to lead to....


*doctrinal shipwrecks
*paganism
*judgementalism towards moral absolutists.