Interesting Trinitarian Statement - trithestic?

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Ferd

MOW asked me the question yesterday if I believe a trinitarian that had been baptized in Jesus name and had recieved the HG was saved.

my answer is yes. I dont think a person necessarily needs to have a complete understanding of God to be obedient to scripture. IMOH it is the obedience to scripture that is most important. I do know that some disagree with that view.

I still say that in the vast majority of cases adhearence to the doctrine of the trinity, leads one to believe they are saved well short of the biblical perscription and thus the doctrine is damnable.

Sorry I guess I had missed your answer. I just do not think that the doctrine of the trinity is damnable. I think it is all a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of scripture. I would rather know that someone followed the mindset of baptism in the titles, plus praying a simple prayer and being saved than to deny God altogether. Or them just not seeing the oneness. God will judge the heart and judge them accordingly. I believe there will be trinitarians in heaven. If there are would you be upset God let people in that believe the "damnable message?"

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

You are right if you are talking about a Tritheist. Most Trinitarian believe the very same as you except do not know God's name as Jesus and they explain the attribute of Jesus in correctly. Most of them accually see the God head not as three different individuals, but ONE with different attributes. Depends on who you talk to.

There is a problem with your assessment of what trinnys believe. It is their own creed.

One God, three persons.

Coequal, coeternal, coexistent.

Doesn't sound like a different understanding. Sounds like a different doctrine.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Actually there were MANY early church history "heresies" that were called Trinitarian heresies because they all believed in FAther, Son and Holy Ghost and that they were distinct from one another. When did Trinitarians begin using the word Person...so you know Sola?

Trinitarians didn't start using the word "person" of "persons" in the trinity until it came to exist in the English language (which did not exist at the time the Nicene fathers formulated the Nicene and Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creeds). The Nicene and Ante-Nicene fathers used the Greek word prosopon or the Latin word persona to individually describe Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the fifth century, Cyril insisted that hypostasis should be used in the places of prosopon, contrary to the way hypostasis is used in Hebrews 1:3 for God alone and not individually for Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[H2H]

Originally Posted by Chan

Trinitarians didn't start using the word "person" of "persons" in the trinity until it came to exist in the English language (which did not exist at the time the Nicene fathers formulated the Nicene and Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creeds). The Nicene and Ante-Nicene fathers used the Greek word prosopon or the Latin word persona to individually describe Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the fifth century, Cyril insisted that hypostasis should be used in the places of prosopon, contrary to the way hypostasis is used in Hebrews 1:3 for God alone and not individually for Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

OK Chan - that was just enough to make me want to get your book - Where is it available??

[H2H]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So then if it's the same authority isn't it like saying "I baptize you in jesus name in jesus name"?

Nothing like getting a double wammy in Jesus, eh?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Chan

Trinitarians didn't start using the word "person" of "persons" in the trinity until it came to exist in the English language (which did not exist at the time the Nicene fathers formulated the Nicene and Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creeds). The Nicene and Ante-Nicene fathers used the Greek word prosopon or the Latin word persona to individually describe Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the fifth century, Cyril insisted that hypostasis should be used in the places of prosopon, contrary to the way hypostasis is used in Hebrews 1:3 for God alone and not individually for Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I smell a smackdown!!!

[H2H]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I will say it again, it is amazing to me how God has used primarily trinitarians to "evangelize" this world and do the majority of the work of the church, write books etc.

Apparently God doesn't have the same problem hanging around trinitarians, answering their prayers, healing their sick, receiving their martyrs, showing up in their church services etc. as we do!

With one fell swoop, God could give the AOG the oneness revelation or a host of other Spirit filled groups, for that matter. For some strange reason, He chooses not to do so. It must be so that the oneness orgs could fight over who gets the credit for it when THEY give the revelation to them.

interesting post MOW.

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

There is a problem with your assessment of what trinnys believe. It is their own creed.

One God, three persons.

Coequal, coeternal, coexistent.

Doesn't sound like a different understanding. Sounds like a different doctrine.

Which of the early Creeds (the Nicene, Nicene-Constantinopolitan) says "one God, three persons" or "co-equal, co-eternal, co-existent"? Quoting from the Athanasian Creed (which was not written by Athanasius and didn't even come about until a couple of centuries later) doesn't count.

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

There is a problem with your assessment of what trinnys believe. It is their own creed.

One God, three persons.

Coequal, coeternal, coexistent.

Doesn't sound like a different understanding. Sounds like a different doctrine.

You know I have read the creed and talk with many people that have studied on it. There is a common denominator in these discussions. Most of them believe that when it is using the term "three persons" that it is accually meant to be that the word "persons" should have been manifestaions. That it was not intended to be the word "persons" as we understand it today. Like you, MOW and I are three different people. It was intended to mean three offices or manifestations.

Also with the Co's, it was intended to be that the offices of God are Coequal, Coeternal, and Coexistent from the mindset that if Jesus is Father, Son and Spirit that He did not stop being the Father when He came as Jesus and was never the Spirit until Jesus died. It accually means that God is all the Co's because He is all of the offices, manifestations, persons, forms, etc. all at one time. It is not intended that there is three individual bodies 1 God, 2 Jesus, 3 Spirit. It is accually saying that He can exist in all forms at all times.

Originally Posted by H2H

OK Chan - that was just enough to make me want to get your book - Where is it available??

http://www.amazon.com/God-Three-What...2271074&sr=8-1