Why do we use trinitarian..........

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Would you rather call it a 'misunderstanding' about WHO God is? I can't find the Trinity in scripture so that tells me, it doesn't exist and is a false teaching about WHO God is.

The word "oneness" isn't in scripture either. Neither, for that matter, is the word "Pentecostal." Oh, if you're going to quote from the Creeds, please quote from the Orthodox versions and not the Roman Catholic versions that actually changed the doctrine.

Trinitarians call each person of the Trinity, God. So The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Then they equivocate on the meaning of the word, God. When you read the definition of the Trinity above, how do you envision this God who is a Trinity? Can this God say 'I AM' truthfully?

Yes, trinitarians do say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all "God" by nature, i.e. "God" is what they are, though some trinitarians say God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yet others say that the three "persons" (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are in God or that God is in the three persons ("God in three persons, blessed trinity").

Is your understanding of God the same as in the two references I quoted? Is your God and their God the same God by definition? Be truthful and honest with yourself.

Well, I don't agree with the Roman Catholic version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed - because it has the oxymoron of a Son that is "eternally begotten" and because it says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son" (contrary to Jesus' saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father).

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Chan

The word "oneness" isn't in scripture either. Neither, for that matter, is the word "Pentecostal." Oh, if you're going to quote from the Creeds, please quote from the Orthodox versions and not the Roman Catholic versions that actually changed the doctrine.

Sorry, Chan, I wasn't clear. I can't find the teaching or concept of the Trinity in the Bible. It's not taught in the OT or the NT. I didn't mean the word, Trinity. I quoted from the creed CARM had listed. I believe those at CARM think of themselves as being ORTHODOX.

Yes, trinitarians do say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all "God" by nature, i.e. "God" is what they are, though some trinitarians say God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yet others say that the three "persons" (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are in God or that God is in the three persons ("God in three persons, blessed trinity").

Then why don't they just say 'same substance' instead of God. The way I understand when God speaks of himself in the Bible, He is not calling himself a substance. ie: Isa 43:12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

Well, I don't agree with the Roman Catholic version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed - because it has the oxymoron of a Son that is "eternally begotten" and because it says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son" (contrary to Jesus' saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father).

I agree with you that eternally begotten is an oxymoron. Also why would the Spirit proceeding from the Father necessitate that the Spirit is a different person than the Father instead of a manifestion of the same God.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Sorry, Chan, I wasn't clear. I can't find the teaching or concept of the Trinity in the Bible. It's not taught in the OT or the NT. I didn't mean the word, Trinity. I quoted from the creed CARM had listed. I believe those at CARM think of themselves as being ORTHODOX.

No, they consider themselves orthodox, not Orthodox. The difference is not just in the capitalizing of the first letter. There are differences between the Eastern Church (which became the Orthodox Church after the great schism) and the Western Church (which became the Roman Catholic Church after the great schism).

Then why don't they just say 'same substance' instead of God. The way I understand when God speaks of himself in the Bible, He is not calling himself a substance. ie: Isa 43:12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says "of one essence with the Father." The Greek word they used was homoousion (same substance/essence).

I agree with you that eternally begotten is an oxymoron. Also why would the Spirit proceeding from the Father necessitate that the Spirit is a different person than the Father instead of a manifestion of the same God.

The term "person" was never used in the earliest Creeds (and not just because English didn't exist as a language then). Where the problem arises is in the confusion that came about when translating the Greek word "hypostasis" that Cyril in the fifth century insisted should be used for Father, Son and Holy Spirit individually instead of prosopon. Hebrews 1:3 translates "hypostasis" as "person" in the KJV and applied it to God ("the express image of [God's] person") but Cyril changed the trinity doctrine (at least "changed" if we look at how people today think of the doctrine) by applying the Greek equivalent of "person" individually to Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It was mainly under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology (hypostasis) was clarified and standardized, so that the formula "Three Hypostases in one Ousia" came to be everywhere accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity. This consensus, however, was not achieved without some confusion at first in the minds of Western theologians, who had translated hypo-stasis as "sub-stantia" (substance, and see also Consubstantial) and understood the Eastern Christians, when speaking of three "Hypostases" in the Godhead, to mean three "Substances," i.e. they suspected them of Tritheism. But, from the middle of the fourth century onwards the word came to be contrasted with ousia and used to mean "individual reality," especially in the Trinitarian and Christological contexts. With regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, hypostasis is usually understood with a meaning akin to the Greek word prosopon, which is translated into Latin as persona and then into English as person. The Christian view of the Trinity is often described as a view of one God existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons. It should be noted, though that the Latin "persona" does not mean the same thing as the English "person."


You might want to read this: http://www.amazon.com/God-Three-What...2970254&sr=8-1

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Chan

No, they consider themselves orthodox, not Orthodox. The difference is not just in the capitalizing of the first letter. There are differences between the Eastern Church (which became the Orthodox Church after the great schism) and the Western Church (which became the Roman Catholic Church after the great schism).

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says "of one essence with the Father." The Greek word they used was homoousion (same substance/essence).

Do you have a link for the Eastern Churches version of the creed? I have a Christian History and Biography magazine that highlights the Eastern Orthodox church. And I also have your book. I haven't read much of either yet. Other books keep bumping up to the top of my reading list. I'm finishing Verbal Bean's book on the gifts of the Spirit, then I was going to read a book by Bounds on prayer that PP recommended.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Do you have a link for the Eastern Churches version of the creed? I have a Christian History and Biography magazine that highlights the Eastern Orthodox church. And I also have your book. I haven't read much of either yet. Other books keep bumping up to the top of my reading list. I'm finishing Verbal Bean's book on the gifts of the Spirit, then I was going to read a book by Bounds on prayer that PP recommended.

Here's the link from one Orthodox source: http://www.antiochian.org/674

E. M. Bounds wrote several books on prayer; all of them are well worth reading.

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

Better question. Ask them if Jesus is the Father.

Bad theology! This is what gets OP's in trouble so many times. Jesus is NOT the Father. Jesus Christ is God manifest in flesh. There was a difference between Jesus and the Father. The Father did not have flesh and bone. He created it. God was IN Christ reconciling the world to Himself. This is why the label "Jesus only" fits the way some think.

I am Oneness through and through and do not believe in more than ONE in God or in heaven, but there was a twoness to Jesus Christ. Spirit and Flesh. God made it that way. Not two persons, two natures. Jesus was the God/Man and not just God or Man.

Get your theology straight and someone might listen.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Bad theology! This is what gets OP's in trouble so many times. Jesus is NOT the Father. Jesus Christ is God manifest in flesh. There was a difference between Jesus and the Father. The Father did not have flesh and bone. He created it. God was IN Christ reconciling the world to Himself. This is why the label "Jesus only" fits the way some think.

I am Oneness through and through and do not believe in more than ONE in God or in heaven, but there was a twoness to Jesus Christ. Spirit and Flesh. God made it that way. Not two persons, two natures. Jesus was the God/Man and not just God or Man.

Get your theology straight and someone might listen.

Very well said!

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Bad theology! This is what gets OP's in trouble so many times. Jesus is NOT the Father. Jesus Christ is God manifest in flesh. There was a difference between Jesus and the Father. The Father did not have flesh and bone. He created it. God was IN Christ reconciling the world to Himself. This is why the label "Jesus only" fits the way some think.

I am Oneness through and through and do not believe in more than ONE in God or in heaven, but there was a twoness to Jesus Christ. Spirit and Flesh. God made it that way. Not two persons, two natures. Jesus was the God/Man and not just God or Man.

Get your theology straight and someone might listen.

Talk about bad theology! Jesus is God but not the Father?

10: Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? Mal. 2:10

If he is God he is the Father. Less than this would not be Oneness in my view.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Chan

Here's the link from one Orthodox source: http://www.antiochian.org/674

E. M. Bounds wrote several books on prayer; all of them are well worth reading.

Thanks for the link.
I have the Complete works on prayer by Bounds.