Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Trinitarians ONLY) Objections to the Doctrine of the Trinity
ChristianDefenseOrg ^ | ChristianDefenseOrg

Posted on 02/27/2003 6:58:37 AM PST by xzins

 


JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: OBJECTIONS TO THE TRINITY

(Based on the Watchtower publication: SYBT and other standard arguments used by JWs)



OBJECTION #1: THE WORD TRINITY

    The SYBT says that the word, "Trinity" is not in the Bible."

RESPONSE: Also see the Oneness Objections to the Doctrine of the Trinity. As mentioned above In point of fact, virtually all anti-Trinitarian groups make this same objection. 

To assume: what is not stated must not be true is an argument from silence. Further, to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is not true because the exact word "Trinity" is absent from the Bible is self-refuting. For if that kind of reasoning were true, it would then follow, that Watchtower doctrine could not be true, for in the original Hebrew and Greek text Watchtower terms like, “theocracy,” (which they claim their under), "Jehovah," (Note: "Jehovah" is an Eng.  transliteration. Orig. Heb. had no vowels only consonants: YHWH) are not contained in Scripture either. It also does not follow that because a particular word is not contained in Scripture that we cannot use that word to communicate a truth of God. 

What is not at all considered is that even terms like, "Bible," (a Lat. term) or "self-existent," are not mentioned in Scripture and both are biblical truths, which all JWs   agree upon. If we were only limited to strict biblical words, then, we would have to, when teaching out of the New Testament, use only Koine Greek words that the New Testament authors utilized! Employing unbiblical words does not violate the rules of sola-Scriptura, which says Scripture alone is the sole infallible regula fidei ("rule of faith") for the church, as long as the unbiblical words are wholly consistent with Scripture. Holding firm to the regula fidei the early church would use unbiblical words to explain and define the biblical data revealed within the pages of the Holy Writ.   

In other words, “Trinity” is merely a precise doctrinal word that defines the biblical revelation that is so overwhelmingly found in Scripture: God the Father sent God the Son; the Eternal Word, in which He became flesh (cf. John 1:1; 6:37-40; 17:5). After which God the Son died in the place of the believer whereby His death provides full atonement for the sins of His people (cf. Matt. 1:21; Rom. 8:32), and God the Father and God the Son sent the God the Holy Spirit to empower the church, and dwell with believers:

 

“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me” (John 15:26; emphasis added).

 

Again, this point must be understood: We cannot confuse biblical data with doctrinal words that merely define that data. The doctrine of the “Trinity” was derived from the Scriptural data. Biblical scholar Benjamin B. Warfield explains the difference:

 

Precisely what the New Testament is, is the documentation of the religion of the incarnate Son and the outpoured Spirit, that is to say, of the religion of the Trinity, and what we mean by the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing but the formulation in exact language of the conception of God presupposed in the religion of the incarnate Son and out poured Spirit. (Benjamin B. Warfield, Biblical Doctrines (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1929, 146.)

 

    Thus the Tri-Unity of God is based on biblical data. The formulation of doctrinal words, however, came later when Christians,  developed the precise term "Trinity" that simply defined the biblical data, because of the heresies that denied the biblical data in some way or other. As with the doctrinal terms like "Substitutionary Atonement," "Incarnation" or even the term "Gospel." All these terms came later after the apostolic age, which the church used to define the revelation or data that is clearly contained in Scripture. 

    Moreover, salvation is completely dependent on the Tri-Unity of God (i.e., soteriological Trinity). Example: The Covenant of Redemption, that is, all that the Father gives to Christ will come and He will raise them up at the last day (cf. John. 6:37ff). That Jesus is the Mediator between God (the Father) and man (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5) can only be true if Jesus is God and is a distinct Person from the one He is mediating for. Again, this point must be understood: we cannot confuse the Scriptural data of the Trinity with the doctrinal word, "Trinity" that defines the biblical data

 


OBJECTION # 2: CHURCH FATHERS

    The SYBT booklet asserts that the early (Anti-Nicene; before the Council of Nicene; A.D. 325) church Fathers did NOT believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.

    The JWs booklet quotes from the Anti-Nicene church Fathers: Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 160); Irenaeus (c. A.D. 180); Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 195);  Hippolytus (c. A.D. 205); Tertullian (c. A.D. 213); and Origen (c. A.D. 225). However when we refer to actual statements contained in many works (e.g., The Anti-Nicene Fathers, found at most city libraries and seminaries) clear is the fact: the SYBT booklet grossly misquotes or misrepresents what they said and believe. Not surprising is that the SYBT does not provide the addresses of the citations; for obvious reasons.

Response: This an argument from ignorance. They all, unequivocally, believed in the full Deity of Christ (the quotes below are from the Ante-Nicene Fathers [hereafter ANF], (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887; reprint, 10 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).


Ignatius bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 105). The SYBT does not quote him, however, Ignatius was an early church Father that was a disciple of the Apostle John.

God Himself was manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life (1:58).

Continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ, our God (1:68).

I pray for your happiness forever in our God, Jesus Christ (1:96).


Justin Martyr (A.D. 150). The SYBT booklet says that Justin called Jesus "a created angel" (p. 7). Justin did call Christ an angel, however only in the sense that He came as a messenger, to the people of the Old Testament (e.g., the angel of the LORD who spoke to Moses and claimed to be the "I AM"; cf. Exod. 3:14ff; see ANF, 1. 223). The English word "angel" has the denotative meaning, in both Hebrew and Greek, as simply "messenger."

    Jesus certainly was active in the Old Testament as a "messenger," and that is what Justin meant. John 1:18 says: "No man has ever seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." Jesus in the Old Testament interacted with the people of God (e.g., angle of the LORD; the Rock that accompanied the Israelites, see 1 Cor. 10:4).

Never once did Justin say or infer that Christ was created only the converse is asserted: Jesus Christ was the Eternal God. But again the quotes in the SYBT booklet are without addresses. Let us read what Justin really said:

He deserves to be worshipped as God and as Christ (1:229).

For Christ is King, Priest, God, Lord, Angel and man (1:221).

The Father of the universe has a Son. And He, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God (1:184).

David predicted that He would be born from the womb before the sun and moon, according to the Father's will, He made Him known, being Christ, as God, strong and to be worshipped (1:237).

Next, the SYBT cites Irenaeus bishop of Lyons (c. A.D. 185), as saying that Jesus was inferior and not equal with the Father. However Irenaeus clearly believed and defined the full Deity of Christ:

I have shown from the Scriptures that none of the sons of Adam are, absolutely and as to everything, called God, or named Lord, But Jesus is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, Lord, King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word… (1:449).

Thus He indicates in clear terms that He is God, and that His advent was in Bethlehem… God, then, was made man, and the Lord Himself save us (1:451).

He is God for the name Emmanuel indicates this (1:452).

Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers (1:467).

He was man, and He was God. This was so that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us (1:545).

Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 195) who is cited as saying that Jesus, was not equal to the Father. But read what he actually said:

He is God in the form of man… the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father's right hand. And with the form of God, He is God (2:210).

The Word itself, that is, the Son of God, is one wit the Father by equality of substance. He is eternal and uncreated (2:574).

Hippolytus (c. 203) is cited as believing that prehuman Jesus was created. But notice what this great Christian apologist really stood for and believed:

Having been made man, He is still God for ever. For to this effect, John also had said, 'Who is and who was, and who is to come--the Almighty.' And he has appropriately called Christ the 'Almighty' (5:225)

They killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is co-eternal with the Father (5:220)

For, as the Only-Begotten Word of God, being God of God, He emptied Himself, according to the Scriptures… (5:167)

The Logos alone of this One is from God Himself. For that reason also, He is God. Being of the substance of God. In contrast, the world was made from nothing. Therefore, it is not God (5:151).

Therefore, a man… is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God--who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject (Himself excepted)--and the Holy Spirit; and that these are three [Persons] (5:226).

"Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." By this, He showed that whoever omits any one of these three, fails in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, and the Spirit manifested (5:228).

 

Tertullian Carthage (c. A.D. 213)  is cited next as saying, "there was a time that the Son was not" ( 7). However, what Tertullian meant (in his argument against the modalism of Praxeas) was that he believed the Word was the Eternal God but yet distinct in His Person from God the Father, and that the Word took on the title "Son" which was a common belief among many church Fathers (esp. the apologists).

    That Tertullian said that Jesus was created or came to be (in terms of His existence as a Person) is completely and diabolically distorting what Tertullian meant. In fact, it was Tertullian,  that first coined the word "Trinity" (Lat. trinitas, the cognate of Gk. triados). Odd that the SYBT booklet would even cite this church Father. Tertullian taught:

For the very church itself--properly and principally--the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity [trinitas], of the One Divinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (4:99; emphasis added; cf. Against Praxeas).

This opens the ears of Christ our God (3:715; cf. ibid.).

Surely I might venture to claim the very Word also as being of the Creator's [Father] substance (3:356; cf. ibid.).

Now, if He too is God, for according to John, 'The Word was God,' then you have two Beings-- One who commands that the thing to be made, and the other who creates. In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another. I have already explained: on the ground of personality, not of substance. And in the way of distinction, not of division. I must everywhere hold only one substance, in three coherent and inseparable [persons] (3. 607; cf. ibid.).

It should be noted as well that in the East, as early as A.D. 180, church apologist Theophilus bishop of Antioch first uses the term “Trinity” to describe God:

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity [triados] of God, and His Word, and His wisdom (Theophilus To Autolycus 2.15, in ANF, vol. 3).

Origen (c. 228) was also cited by SYBT as denying that Jesus was God. However, Origen contradicts these Watchtower assertions:

The Word that was in the beginning with God (who is also very God) may come to us (4:449).

The Son is not different from the Father in substance (9:336).

Saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all. That is, it is made complete by naming the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In this, we join the name of the Holy Spirit to the Unbegotten God (the Father) and to His Only-Begotten Son (4:252).


    My web space could never hold the libraries of quotations and apologetic works of church Fathers teaching and defending the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. To the church Fathers, teaching, and defending the Deity of Christ and the Trinity was extremely important to them. Many of them spilled their own blood defending these doctrines. Why? Because in Trinity is how God revealed Himself to man: FATHER, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT.


The SYBT ends this page entitled: "What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught" by this:

"Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter" (p. 7).

Unknown?



OBJECTION #3: PAGAN ORIGINS

    The book also asserts, as do most anti-Trinitarians, that the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from pagan sources. 

Response: This is a fallacy of false cause (misrepresents the cause). The Trinity is an utterly unique Christian doctrine. Pagans worshipped and believed in many gods (as with the Mormons) hence, the references in SYBT to the so-called parallelisms of the pagans were to THREE separate gods NOT one God in existing in three distinct Persons.


OBJECTION #4: THE CHURCH FELL INTO TOTAL APOSTASY

    JWs assert that the Early Christian church fell into Complete Apostasy after the death of the Apostles.

Response: This is an argument from ignorance. When did so-called apostasy happen? What year? In point of fact, there is not a shred of anything that would indicate or even infer that the entire Christian church fell into apostasy. The verses that they use say that only "some" will fall away or that "many" will abandon the faith but never once does Scripture say that ALL will apostatize.

    To assert this notion is an "easy-out" for JWs that say that: The original Christian Church did not teach Jesus was God. Both Mormons and JWs maintain this idea of a total apostasy only to avoid the truth that the early Christians taught what Christians believe today: THERE EXIST ONE TRUE GOD and JESUS IS THE ETERNAL GOD DISTINCT FROM HIS FATHER.

    If the early Christian church apostatized, why do we read in Revelation 2:1, that the Ephesus church was commended by God for not tolerating wicked men and testing those who claimed to be apostles but were false. And we read of six other functioning Christian churches. The point is this: the Apostle John wrote Revelation, in or around A.D. 90! That is sixty years after Christ!

    So, did the entire Christian church fall after that? How could this happen? What does that say about the condition of the early Christians? Where they so spiritually bankrupt that they suddenly fell to paganism? Or suddenly just quit believing? What does that say about God? Could He not hold His own church together? Where is the evidence for this?

That the whole Christian church is even able to fall-away is notion that is sharply refuted by the apostles and Jesus Christ Himself:

Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God… And Jesus answered and said unto him… "That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:16-18; KJV).

"All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (Matt. 28:18-20; emphasis added).


Jesus promised that He would never leave His church, nor would the gates of hell come against her. Likewise, the apostle Paul explains:

…to him [Jesus] be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen (Eph. 3:21).

In contrast to the assertions made by the JWs, that His teachings were somehow lost, Jesus made a clear promise that His teachings would indeed last.

"You did not choose me, but I choose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit -- fruit that will last" John 15:16; emphasis added)

As seen above, the church Fathers from Ignatius, to the great defender of the Trinity, Athanasius, and after, believed and taught that: JESUS CHRIST WAS THE ETERNAL GOD CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH.

    Think about it, if there were no true Christians until the JWs emerged (1870), then, would it not follow that we would find distinctive Watchtower theology somewhere in church history? We have records of virtually every teaching that was prorogated from the first century. Where in church history though were the teachings of the JWs? And of course the Mormons (who make the same church fell in total apostasy claim) have the same problem: where was distinctive LDS doctrine before Joseph Smith (1830)? 

    Historically, we do have records of virtually every promulgated theology. However we do not have ANY historical record of distinctive Watchtower theology. Hence, are we to believe that for over 1800 years Jehovah did not have a witness until Charles Taze Russell (JW's founder) came on the scene? The only teaching that even resembles Watchtower theology (esp. Jesus as a created being) was Arianism.1 Accordingly, the Christian church roundly and sharply condemned Arianism because it denied Jesus Christ as eternal God, as the JWs teach.

OBJECTION #5: THE TRINITY IS THREE GODS

    Most JWs grossly misrepresent the doctrine of the Trinity by asserting that the Trinity is three separate Gods.

Response: Again, this a typical straw man argument. The doctrine of the Trinity is not three Gods. The doctrine of three Gods is tritheism, not Trinitarianism. Three Gods is how Mormons view the Godhead. The foundation of the Trinity is pure ontological monotheism: ONE GOD. One Being revealed in three distinct Persons, coexistent, coequal, and coeternal.


OBJECTION #6: THE TRINITY IS ILLOGICAL

    The SYBT says that the Trinity is, "Beyond the grasp of human reason" (4). And that God is, "Not a God of confusion" (ibid.). From that line of thought, JWs will argue that Trinity cannot be true, it too confusing.

Response: For something to be illogical, it would have to contradict reason. The doctrine of the Trinity does not contradict reason. The Trinity is not 1 person in 3 persons or 1 God in 3 Gods. It does not follow that because something is not completely explicable that it cannot exist or cannot be true. For example, many of the formulations in physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind.2

    Does anyone completely understand how light travels? Does it travel as a wave, corpuscular or quantum phenomenon? Yet, we believe in the reality of light, even though we cannot totally comprehend it.

    The Trinity may not be totally comprehendible but we can surely apprehend how God has revealed Himself to us through Scripture: There is ONE TRUE GOD; the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. And the three are clearly differentiated. One God revealed in three distinct Persons. We cannot simply put God in easy-to-understand categories to gratify our feeble minds. We are called to worship God how He revealed Himself to us in His Word, anything less, is not worshipping, or honoring the true God.

    The JWs reject the Trinity and hence they reject God. God is tri-personal He is not a unipersonal God as taught by the JWs. They are without excuse:

"Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth." (Isa. 40:28).

Notes

1, Early in the fourth century, Arius of Alexandria, postulated his teaching that Jesus was a different substance ( heteroousios) than that of the Father. He used some of the same argumentation that the JWs use today. And of course, Arianism was completely refuted as heresy at the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325).

2, Example taken from: Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses (Baker House Books, Grand Rapids Michigan), 17.

 
copyright:© 2003 Department of Christian Defense, all rights reserved

Back to the top



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Mainline Protestant; Ministry/Outreach; Orthodox Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: father; heresy; son; spirit; trinity; unity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-443 next last
PLEASE COMPARE WITH THE ATHANASIAN CREED

Athanasian Creed


1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

1 posted on 02/27/2003 6:58:38 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; winstonchurchill; ShadowAce; P-Marlowe; Revelation 911; The Grammarian; ...
Ping for a discussion of the blessed trinity...God forever. Amen.

2 posted on 02/27/2003 7:01:27 AM PST by xzins (I would know nothing but Christ and Him crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"Only" LOL...you guys are acting like little girls.

BigMack

3 posted on 02/27/2003 7:13:22 AM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
1. This is an experiment in group-specific labels, therefore, this is for trinitarians only.

2. Trinitarians should feel free to rock and roll with their evaluation of the heresy of non-trinitarianism

3. Any who might be non-trinitarian are asked to recognize that they enter this thread as guests and their behavior should politely reflect the same.
4 posted on 02/27/2003 7:15:05 AM PST by xzins (I would know nothing but Christ and Him crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
Are you aware that a previous discussion of the trinitarian creeds was deleted for not being inclusive?

In any case, are you having trouble accessing the FreeRep server. I keep getting a "not found" notice.

Or is it my local server that's having trouble?
5 posted on 02/27/2003 7:18:26 AM PST by xzins (I would know nothing but Christ and Him crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: drstevej; Corin Stormhands
The first objection is that the word "trinity" does not appear in the bible. I would submit that the word "omniscience" does not appear in the bible either, but that that doesn't mean it isn't a true description of God.
6 posted on 02/27/2003 7:22:20 AM PST by xzins (I would know nothing but Christ and Him crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I've noticed considerable slowness when accessing the site. Could be any number of reasons.
7 posted on 02/27/2003 7:23:11 AM PST by Frumanchu (mene mene tekel upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xzins
read later
8 posted on 02/27/2003 7:27:01 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu
Athanasius says that non-trinitarians are lost.

Do you agree?

(Check out the tag line)
9 posted on 02/27/2003 7:28:05 AM PST by xzins (mini me, tickle your parson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: xzins
To the best of my knowledge, the phrase "original sin" is not there either, but that doesn't make it an invalid concept.
10 posted on 02/27/2003 7:29:02 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins
There are many who claim that if a specific word is not in the Bible the concept is not true and a false doctrine. Those who make that claim present an illogical (invalid) argument. Just because a specific word is not in the Bible does not mean that the concept is not present and taught there.


11 posted on 02/27/2003 7:45:40 AM PST by snerkel (WARNING: My posts have been know to offend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Three references with some good input to this questions:

Do you have to believe in the Trinity to become a Christian?

How could there be three in one?

Christians are polytheistic.

12 posted on 02/27/2003 7:46:10 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I believe I have sometimes done this.

"Fine, for the sake of argument, we'll just set the word 'Trinity' aside. So that leaves us a Bible which insists that God is one (Deut. 6:4), and which equally insists that the Father is God (1 Peter 1:2), the Son is God (John 1:1), and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3, 4). One God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That's what the Bible teaches, right?"

Dan
Biblical Christianity web site

13 posted on 02/27/2003 7:57:36 AM PST by BibChr (Jesus -- not our feelings -- is the truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xzins; BibChr
" The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible."

"So that leaves us a Bible which insists that God is one (Deut. 6:4), and which equally insists that the Father is God (1 Peter 1:2), the Son is God (John 1:1), and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3, 4). One God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

And those who make their life work out of mounting an assault on something that their mind is incapable of comprehending succeed only in pointing out to the world their own inadequacy.

Attempting to have a discussion with a JW is like having a debate with a pre-recorded tape that you found laying in the street.

14 posted on 02/27/2003 8:27:54 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Best policy RE: Environmentalists, - ZERO TOLERANCE !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: snerkel; LiteKeeper; BibChr
Doctrine is the teaching of the tenets of the bible.

If a particular tenet/concept exists, then to give the concept a name is really no different that creating an acronymn. If we say, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are Separate But One" we would use the acronym, FSAHSASBO, to describe that. Really, the word Trinity is no different than applying an acronymn.

The issue is not the word used to describe a teaching, but whether the teaching is truly biblical
15 posted on 02/27/2003 8:29:21 AM PST by xzins (Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Calvinist_Dark_Lord
"10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. "

If you deny that the Son is eternal (that he only became the "Son" at the Incarnation), are you legitimately a Trinitarian?

Jean

16 posted on 02/27/2003 8:31:29 AM PST by Jean Chauvin ("The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly from the LORD" (Proverbs 16:33))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Is it possible that someone responding to a non-trinitarian presentation of Christ is saved by that act?
17 posted on 02/27/2003 8:37:33 AM PST by xzins (Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin
Absolutely not.

In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

Such a peculiar ordering of words on the part of the Apostle John can only be explained by the fact that John was led by the Holy Spirit to create an irrefutable doctrine of the trinity. It makes no sense outside the doctrine of the Trinity.
18 posted on 02/27/2003 8:47:26 AM PST by xzins (Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xzins
There within lies the problem. Some will not consider it truly biblical unless the word(s) appear in the Bible. They ignore the concept and adhere to a legalistic viewpoint.
19 posted on 02/27/2003 8:47:33 AM PST by snerkel (WARNING: My posts have been know to offend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Attempting to have a discussion with a JW is like having a debate with a pre-recorded tape that you found laying in the street

You know, that's really very well put. I've talked to dozens over the decades. I've used a variety of approaches. I help them when they forget their own proof-texts. What I bring absolutely stumps them — but nothing changes.

Perfect illustration of fallen man apart from the sovereign, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

Dan

20 posted on 02/27/2003 8:50:52 AM PST by BibChr (Jesus -- not our feelings -- is the truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I think of a lady to whom a friend had witnessed, without success. Then one day she called him out of the blue, she calls him and says, "I don't know how to say this, but -- Jesus is Lord!" He agreed heartily and began talking with her.

Seems she'd been converted through contact with Jehvah's Witnesses.

Now here's the kicker: when he explained to her who Jesus really was, over against what the JW's told her, she left the JW's. She had accepted the Jesus of the Bible; when she found out that the Watchtower held to a different Jesus, she left it to cling to Christ.

Dan
21 posted on 02/27/2003 9:06:02 AM PST by BibChr (Jesus -- not our feelings -- is the truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; CCWoody; Wrigley
"Absolutely not."

"The Son is created as a Son, when He became Incarnate (Psa.2)" Post #1245 by ftD on 1/21/2003 on the "Do Babies go to heaven?" thread.

Thank you for your clarification.

Jean

22 posted on 02/27/2003 9:09:31 AM PST by Jean Chauvin ("The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly from the LORD" (Proverbs 16:33))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin
Do you believe/suspect there were pre-incarnate appearances of the Son in the OT?

The 4th person in the furnace with Shad,Mesh,Abed in Daniel?

The personage seen by Daniel at the river Ulai?

The Lord who spoke to Abraham before the destruction of Sodom?

Any/all of the above?
23 posted on 02/27/2003 9:24:03 AM PST by xzins (Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin
Do you believe/suspect there were pre-incarnate appearances of the Son in the OT?

The 4th person in the furnace with Shad,Mesh,Abed in Daniel?

The personage seen by Daniel at the river Ulai?

The Lord who spoke to Abraham before the destruction of Sodom?

Any/all of the above?
24 posted on 02/27/2003 9:24:08 AM PST by xzins (Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
I'm befuddled, then. Why not just have the JW's go around a do evangelism would be a legit question.

Is this one of those calv/arminian differences?

I assume that by-and-large you'd think the above was an anomaly, that folks are led to Christ via a presentation of Christ by Christians.
25 posted on 02/27/2003 9:28:48 AM PST by xzins (Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: xzins
1. This is an experiment in group-specific labels, therefore, this is for trinitarians only.

So now within the Religion forum Ghetto we set up little individual ghettos is that it ? Sort of 5 or 6 seperate groups so we do not offend each other? How "democratic" of you .

The Rodney King School of Theology strikes again...Good thing that Peter and Paul were not grads of that school

26 posted on 02/27/2003 9:37:22 AM PST by RnMomof7 (Pro 16:2 All the ways of a man [are] clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins
No way, you never got that from MY post. I think it is ABSOLUTELY the exception. That's the only way I think there are a relative few saved people in Mormonism and Roman Catholicism. They hear what they're being told through a filter; they don't really understand what their sects teach. But when they do finally realize it, they flee the false shepherd, and follow the Good Shepherd.

No, we assume that most people do understand these cultists, and do embrace their heresies.

Dan

27 posted on 02/27/2003 9:53:05 AM PST by BibChr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Jean Chauvin; drstevej
Response: This is a fallacy of false cause (misrepresents the cause). The Trinity is an utterly unique Christian doctrine. Pagans worshipped and believed in many gods (as with the Mormons) hence, the references in SYBT to the so-called parallelisms of the pagans were to THREE separate gods NOT one God in existing in three distinct Persons.

X, i really hate to be nit picky, but it is my job to be so. In light of the present difficulties and very real persecution of the FReerepublic Christian community of faith (let's be honest, that is what we are coming to be, Solo Deo Gloria!), i believe we need to correct the above inadvertant mistake.

Our LDS "associates" are not Polytheistic. The term is far too general to accurately describe them.

The LDS are actually what is known as HENOTHEISTIC. That is to say, that they believe in the existence of many Gods, yet worship only one God. Even "Bring-em Young", was careful to state (can't remember entire citation) ..."the only God with which we have to do".

Quite a few good Christian apologists have made this slight bit of error. It is not an absolute mistake, rather a mistake of inprecision that we need begin to correct.

28 posted on 02/27/2003 9:55:26 AM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord (He must increase, but I must decrease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
3. Any who might be non-trinitarian are asked to recognize that they enter this thread as guests and their behavior should politely reflect the same.
29 posted on 02/27/2003 9:59:40 AM PST by snerkel (WARNING: My posts have been know to offend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: xzins; All
In any case, are you having trouble accessing the FreeRep server. I keep getting a "not found" notice.

Or is it my local server that's having trouble?

It's not local, i'm having the same problem, everything is moving slow today.

Indulge my paranoia will you? How about seeing how fast things are moving on the OTHER forums.

30 posted on 02/27/2003 10:03:31 AM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord (He must increase, but I must decrease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; snerkel; drstevej
Are you aware that last week a thread on the classic Christian creeds was deleted because Trinitarianism is not sufficiently inclusive? Sad.

These are the choices as I see them: (1) Try to establish free speech zones on our own where we can discuss these things, or (2) Not get to discuss them anywhere.

Others are asked to be polite guests amidst our discussions or leave. Within these "groupX ONLY" threads, if you aren't part of the group, and you want to complain about the free speech going on, then you have a choice: leave, turn the channel, shut up....you weren't on the invitation list in the first place.

If these free speech zones don't work, then we might as well vote for the religious forum to be killed.
31 posted on 02/27/2003 10:13:33 AM PST by xzins (Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin; fortheDeclaration; xzins; CCWoody; Wrigley
"Absolutely not."

"The Son is created as a Son, when He became Incarnate (Psa.2)"

Post #1245 by ftD on 1/21/2003 on the "Do Babies go to heaven?" thread.

Thank you for your clarification.

Having been one of the principles in that particular discussion, i can assure you that ftD does believe that the second person of the trinity is eternal, and has stated that he is absolutely opposed to Arianism. He holds that Jesus became the Son of God at the incarnation, i would imagion as one "becomes" President. It is not a statement against preexistence, but rather a statement of when God the Son entered into the office of Son of God.

i am still too fuzzy headed to attempt much deep thought, but One could not lump ftD in with Arians. While we can disagree with his position, and the thread that Jean cited demonstrates that disagreement, it is a clearly defined position. For anyone curious, i recommend that the entire discussion be followed. ftD may be wrong, i believe so, but he absolutely is clear on this point in that particular thread.

i imagion that he will be here later today to make further comment for anyone interested. It should provide for some interesting discussion.

32 posted on 02/27/2003 10:27:00 AM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord (He must increase, but I must decrease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
I'm not trying to implicate ftD as an Arian -simply that he is outside of orthodoxy on his view of the Trinity (He could ~not~ profess the Athanasian Creed).

As such, I do not regard him as a legitimate Trinitarian. His clarity is not the issue, the fact that he denies the eternal nature of the Son is the issue.

Jean

33 posted on 02/27/2003 10:41:54 AM PST by Jean Chauvin ("The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly from the LORD" (Proverbs 16:33))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: xzins; angelo
You guys need to grow up.

Posting arguments against an issue and "politely requesting" that those who hold the other side refrain from responding is juvenile. It is the last thing this forum needs.

It is one thing to have an intra-group discussion about some internal matter, but this is ridiculous. It is self-stimulatory.

It's as if a Catholic posted "Luther -- First of Protestantism's Damned" and marked it "Catholics only"

Or if a Calvinist posted "Arminians and why they are so damn wrong" and marked it "Calvinists only."

Grow up.

SD

34 posted on 02/27/2003 10:45:58 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Polycarp
These are the choices as I see them: (1) Try to establish free speech zones on our own where we can discuss these things, or (2) Not get to discuss them anywhere.
Others are asked to be polite guests amidst our discussions or leave. Within these "groupX ONLY" threads, if you aren't part of the group, and you want to complain about the free speech going on, then you have a choice: leave, turn the channel, shut up....you weren't on the invitation list in the first place.
If these free speech zones don't work, then we might as well vote for the religious forum to be killed.

Why are you trying to tell JR how to run his forum?

It is bad enough that we are in one ghetto now you want to subdevide it? There are a million fourms out there that have a restricted policy. What used to be unique about FR was the free exchange of ideas..well it looks like that idea is dead in the water.. If the day comes when there are restricted threads I vote to close down the religion forum..

35 posted on 02/27/2003 10:46:47 AM PST by RnMomof7 (Pro 16:2 All the ways of a man [are] clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin
My position is fairly simple. It is not possible to be a Christian and a non-trinitarian at the same time. If you come to less than the triune God, then you've come to a different God.

At the same time, I grant leeway for those struggling to define the trinity as a DOCTRINE. We should reject any encroachment on classical trinitarianism. At the same time we should be accepting of those who believe the trinity but can't yet explain the doctrine. Otherwise, no new Christian would ever be acceptable.

The Son is eternal. I don't know what distinction ftD is making about the office and the existence, but it's a distinction so fuzzy that it only baffles.

If the Godhead has eternally been three in one, then who was the one in the place of the Son before the Son became the Son? Who was the preincarnate 2nd person of the Trinity before the incarnation?
36 posted on 02/27/2003 10:55:48 AM PST by xzins (Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Your point has already been addressed. Confrontational titles render the group-specific label void.

Other than that, are you a trinitarian?
37 posted on 02/27/2003 11:00:56 AM PST by xzins (Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
The LDS are actually what is known as HENOTHEISTIC. That is to say, that they believe in the existence of many Gods, yet worship only one God. Even "Bring-em Young", was careful to state (can't remember entire citation) ..."the only God with which we have to do". ~ Calvinist_Dark_Lord Your friendly neighborhood Charming Calvinist
Woody.

P.S. The slowdown is across the entire FR system.
38 posted on 02/27/2003 11:04:15 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
The LDS are actually what is known as HENOTHEISTIC. That is to say, that they believe in the existence of many Gods, yet worship only one God. Even "Bring-em Young", was careful to state (can't remember entire citation) ..."the only God with which we have to do". ~ Calvinist_Dark_Lord Your friendly neighborhood Charming Calvinist
Woody.

P.S. The slowdown is across the entire FR system.
39 posted on 02/27/2003 11:05:04 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
The LDS are actually what is known as HENOTHEISTIC. That is to say, that they believe in the existence of many Gods, yet worship only one God. Even "Bring-em Young", was careful to state (can't remember entire citation) ..."the only God with which we have to do". ~ Calvinist_Dark_Lord Your friendly neighborhood Charming Calvinist
Woody.

P.S. The slowdown is across the entire FR system.
40 posted on 02/27/2003 11:05:47 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; snerkel
Well-considered ideas. I support a few of them.
41 posted on 02/27/2003 11:06:20 AM PST by xzins (Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
The LDS are actually what is known as HENOTHEISTIC. That is to say, that they believe in the existence of many Gods, yet worship only one God. Even "Bring-em Young", was careful to state (can't remember entire citation) ..."the only God with which we have to do". ~ Calvinist_Dark_Lord Your friendly neighborhood Charming Calvinist
Woody.

P.S. The slowdown is across the entire FR system.
42 posted on 02/27/2003 11:06:59 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Posting arguments against an issue and "politely requesting" that those who hold the other side refrain from responding is juvenile. It is the last thing this forum needs.

gee amazing we agree on something on the religious forum..

" intra-group discussion" discussions are best held on freep mail..I ~thought~ the purpose was discussion..I would be kinnda interested in how the mormons see this doctrine and how Jews see it in light of their belief..but this thread is sealed..

43 posted on 02/27/2003 11:08:25 AM PST by RnMomof7 (Pro 16:2 All the ways of a man [are] clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Your point has already been addressed. Confrontational titles render the group-specific label void.

My point is that this thread is such as to make the group-specific label void. People in here are baiting Mormons and JWs. The entire thesis laid out is non "group specific," it is exactly confrontational.

Other than that, are you a trinitarian?

I am a Catholic -- we were Trinitarian when Trinitarian wasn't cool. ;-)

SD

44 posted on 02/27/2003 11:14:07 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; OrthodoxPresbyterian
As such, I do not regard him as a legitimate Trinitarian. ~ Jean Chauvin Your friendly neighborhood Charming Calvinist
Woody.

P.S. Sorry about the spasm of posts. The slow down has my computer thouroughly confused.
45 posted on 02/27/2003 11:17:32 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
gee amazing we agree on something on the religious forum..

We agree on many things. We just don't usually focus on them

I do have to disagree somewhat. I think that if people coudl behave, certain closed threads could be beneficial. For instance, if Catholics want to discuss what we gave up for Lent, ther is no need for a thread of that nature to turn into the usual mess.

Ditto if you Calvinists want to talk about something internal. But it does require people to act civilized.

SD

46 posted on 02/27/2003 11:20:47 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave; RnMomof7; snerkel
I've been here all throughout and all we've done is discuss the issue. There's no baiting of any non-trinitarian going on here, because they aren't here.

Discussion is free to be wide ranging.

You are perfectly entitled to start another discussion thread under a different title that has no group-specific label.

In fact, if your point is that ALL types of threads should be allowed, then to oppose THIS type of thread is a violation of your own argument.
47 posted on 02/27/2003 11:23:24 AM PST by xzins (Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
FWIW, SD, I'm with you. I think that all this does is give somebody an avenue to bash without any worry about somebody else coming in to defend their beliefs.
48 posted on 02/27/2003 11:28:28 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
I do have to disagree somewhat. I think that if people coudl behave, certain closed threads could be beneficial. For instance, if Catholics want to discuss what we gave up for Lent, ther is no need for a thread of that nature to turn into the usual mess.

Then you see where we're driving. Good.

It is perfectly rational for trinitarians to discuss objections to trinitarianism. It would be a common discussion in seminary, catechism, etc. There's nothing confrontational about that.

Likewise, the title is not confrontational. If it said, "All Non-Trinitarians are going to hell" then I'd consider that confrontational.

However, if within the conversation someone voiced a common trinitarian belief that non-trinitarians are going to hell, then that would not void the thread group-specific nature. In fact, they could even slam other groups, imho, and that would be common conversation that you'd find in any seminary class, sunday school class, sermon, or group discussion.

We are in a free speech zone provided there is no threatening or seditious language.

49 posted on 02/27/2003 11:32:26 AM PST by xzins (Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
In fact, if your point is that ALL types of threads should be allowed, then to oppose THIS type of thread is a violation of your own argument.

Woody...you are perfectly free to go start a non group-specific thread that does invite everyone to a free for all. Nothing is stopping you.

Variety is the spice of life.

50 posted on 02/27/2003 11:38:12 AM PST by xzins (Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-443 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson