Responding to a Trinitarian

[JamDat]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

Since what you said did not make a lick of sense to me, could you expand it a little please? Trinitarian theology has been the majority since 325 AD... what is on 'the uprise'?

I didn't get the rest of what you said either... can you rephrase maybe?

I'm sorry it was early and I was trying to get out the door. In light of the TD Jakes and the Elephant Room 2 controversy (which is not a big deal to us, but to the Evangelicals it was) the reformed crowd is pushing for more tinitarian teaching in the churches to combat oneness theology. That should make the battle over the Godhead much more prevalent.

If their god is co equal did god the father who poured out his wrath on god the son share in receiving of the wrath? Was god the holy spirit also manifested in the flesh? In my mind co equal would mean that god the father and god the holy spirit died on the cross too. This is what they say is heresy about oneness. That we have crucified the father.

So are they co equal in everything or not?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by JamDat

I'm sorry it was early and I was trying to get out the door. In light of the TD Jakes and the Elephant Room 2 controversy (which is not a big deal to us, but to the Evangelicals it was) the reformed crowd is pushing for more tinitarian teaching in the churches to combat oneness theology. That should make the battle over the Godhead much more prevalent.

If their god is co equal did god the father who poured out his wrath on god the son share in receiving of the wrath? Was god the holy spirit also manifested in the flesh? In my mind co equal would mean that god the father and god the holy spirit died on the cross too. This is what they say is heresy about oneness. That we have crucified the father.

So are they co equal in everything or not?

If they are co-equal and crucifying the Father would be blasphemy... wouldn't crucifying the Son be blasphemy also?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If they are co-equal and crucifying the Father would be blasphemy... wouldn't crucifying the Son be blasphemy also?

Yep its clear they mean something different than all that when they call them coequal...

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If they are co-equal and crucifying the Father would be blasphemy... wouldn't crucifying the Son be blasphemy also?

Dunno, but I still don't get how, in Oneness, someone could blaspheme the Son (forgivable) without also blaspheming the Holy Spirit (unforgivable).

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Dunno, but I still don't get how, in Oneness, someone could blaspheme the Son (forgivable) without also blaspheming the Holy Spirit (unforgivable).

I do!!!

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I do!!!

Well, lay it out for us? Ty

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I do!!!

Well, I suppose God can make the rules any way He wants. "When I'm holding the 'Son' sign, I'll forgive you if you blaspheme me, but not when I'm holding the 'Holy Spirit' sign."

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by JamDat

I'm sorry it was early and I was trying to get out the door. In light of the TD Jakes and the Elephant Room 2 controversy (which is not a big deal to us, but to the Evangelicals it was) the reformed crowd is pushing for more tinitarian teaching in the churches to combat oneness theology. That should make the battle over the Godhead much more prevalent.

If their god is co equal did god the father who poured out his wrath on god the son share in receiving of the wrath? Was god the holy spirit also manifested in the flesh? In my mind co equal would mean that god the father and god the holy spirit died on the cross too. This is what they say is heresy about oneness. That we have crucified the father.

So are they co equal in everything or not?

If a person was equivalent to another person with respect to "person" then everything about those two persons would be equal. Whatever the one person did, thought, said or even had the potential to do would have to also be true of the other person. It is obvious that trinitarians do not make this kind of claim of equality by the fact that they constantly proclaim the persons are different or distinct. Since the persons of the trinity are different and distinct then they are not equivalent with respect to "person."

However, trinitarians still make the claim that the persons of the trinity are equivalent in some way and its obvious that way is not with respect to "person." So the real question is in what way are they saying the 3 members of the trinity are equal with each other because its clear they don't mean it in the same respect as you are denouncing.

[JamDat]

Originally Posted by jfrog

If a person was equivalent to another person with respect to "person" then everything about those two persons would be equal. Whatever the one person did, thought, said or even had the potential to do would have to also be true of the other person. It is obvious that trinitarians do not make this kind of claim of equality by the fact that they constantly proclaim the persons are different or distinct. Since the persons of the trinity are different and distinct then they are not equivalent with respect to "person."

However, trinitarians still make the claim that the persons of the trinity are equivalent in some way and its obvious that way is not with respect to "person." So the real question is in what way are they saying the 3 members of the trinity are equal with each other because its clear they don't mean it in the same respect as you are denouncing.

They are now (and it could be that it has been said in times past) saying that it is one what and three who's.

If the what had something done to it, wouldn't the whole what be affected?

I understand that what I've proposed is not what they mean, but that doesn't mean that the conclusion can't be drawn.

Is it fair? Yes, when the same is done to modalism.

What is the equivalency that they propose?