SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : I found this debate interesting "Trinity in the Old Testament"

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re: Is the spirit of a being a part of Him?

Romans 8:9
"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

Matthew 28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

If the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of God, and also the Spirit of Christ, and they are all One, is it not unreasonable that this same Spirit may be called a member of the Godhead?

1,2,3,....that's a Trinity.

 2010/8/28 16:49
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 The Trinity

I wrote this for a school assembly some years ago. Please feel free to use it or copy it if you think it would be helpful...

http://mp3.biblebase.com/download_119.html


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2010/8/28 17:23Profile
Lysa
Member



Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 3417
This world is not my home anymore.

 Re: The arrogance of saved human beings



One does not have to 'deny' the trinity in order to not believe in it. I don't think so and I do believe in the trinity but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to say Jesus Only people are heretics. BUT I am stating that God doesn't care near as much as "men" do about Jesus Only or the Trinity.

I would like to reiterate my reasons for saying that God doesn't get near as bent out of shape about it as some of you do:

Do you believe in the baptism of the Holy Ghost?
Do you believe in all the gifts in operation in the church today?

#1) SOMEBODY please explain why God gives the SAME giftings to the Apostolic church as those who are in the "Trinity" camp? If God lumps us all together and makes no Biblical distinction between us, why do you persist?

#2) Luke 11.13 - "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"

So if it's heresy, which one of you is going to say that Apostolic's are not the children of God? Do you even dare to know the will of God? Have we become that arrogant?

This is one of the meanings of heresy:
an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma

Dogma:
a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative WITHOUT adequate grounds
http://www.merriam-webster.com

Jesus said, "it is in vain they worship Me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men."
~ Matt 15.9 Philips

God help us all,
Lisa


_________________
Lisa

 2010/8/28 18:44Profile









 Re:

by Brothertom on 2010/8/28 12:49:15

Romans 8:9
"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."
----------------------------------------------------
g:
This verse qouted refers to the Spirit of God dwelling in you as the Spirit of Christ, which is none other than Jesus glorified: unto whom is God's full and complete annointing.

Right?
================================================



Brother Tom:
Matthew 28:19
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
----------------------------------------------------

Having read several mss., not all of them state this; but that's beside the point, this is the recieved text through the accepted standard of Roman Catholicism handed to Anglicans so it must be valid, right?

Welllll... anyway, The verse above it states that the Spirit that is God that dwells in us is Christ, whom is none other than Jesus currently enthroned with the Father...
so this means that if this is indeed a formula, which is seriously doubted that this validates the baptism of John by changing names, we are to...what???

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
a bit of history
(don't ask me to cite this because it was researched years ago and this was recognized as a mere sideline note, and not the basis of study which was how the invented dogma of trinity came to use. i'm not putting up proof as this really is not an important issue (If it were it would have been proclaimed from Gen to Rev.)

When the Bible was translated into the 7 King James versions, all of them used the word baptism, which is actually an English rendering of a Greek word, simply for fear of upsetting the King for synonymously rendering a word such as 'drowing' or 'immersing' or 'engulfing' or 'dunking' in replacement of 'baptising'.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As well, 'in the name of' bears no marks of exactitude in distinction, but represents a principle of purpose and power relagated in the authority given.

Now with these 3 things in mind:
1. That the word 'baptizo' means 'to immerse';
2. "In the name of" is juat as indistinctive as the titles (not names) identified;
and,
3. The Spirit of God in us is the Spirit of Christ
...it can readily be seen as a verse of principle and not some magickal formulae.

We COULD write it like this:


Matthew 28:19
"For this reason, as you go: in your going teach all nations, englufing them in the purpose and power --(name)-- of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

It's either that or:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them (in water)in the name of the El, and of the Jesus, and of the Christ:"
...which doesn't agree with what they did in Acts during water baptism, of accounts mentioning the name used, they were baptising them in the name of Jesus. (which would make perfect sense for the oneness/apostolic folk, who consider Jesus the Father and the Son...
(...and i'm my own grandpa).






If the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of God, and also the Spirit of Christ, and they are all One, is it not unreasonable that this same Spirit may be called a member of the Godhead?

1,2,3,....that's a Trinity.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Brother Tom three is not one.

Father and Son are one (as in being exactly the same except in delegation), Jesus being a spitting image of the Father.

If the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of God,
Then this would be the Spirit of Christ Jesus right? Christ Jesus is God is He not?

If the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, Then this too would be the Spirit of Jesus, right? Jesus is the Christ, is He not?

Then it would make perfect sense that these 'three' are one, wouldn't it.

1,2,3...Now we have made Jesus into a trinity which is not that far off, considering:
1. He is an immortal spirit
2. living in a glorified body,
3. and expressing His soul to and through us
4. by His spirit.


Philogos has plenty of thread wear on here regarding the Holy Spirit, which took me 5 days to read through, arguing with hulsey and all that...amusing.

You might want to listen to his lesson as well if you are stauncly adamant that the Holy Spirit is a person seperate from Jesus and El...
...a personage, God with only a title, and a no-name at that ?????


Why can't ppl. just look at Roman Catholic Church history for starters. Look under 'Trinity' in the New Catholic Theological Dictionary and we can then re-examine this dogma we have been taught to believe... and for what?

Though some will not admit it, it draws attention away from Jesus Christ's death and resurrection.



He made a way for us to come to the Father and have His spirit within us, and the Father who is in Him even as He is in the Father.
(You do not read the paragraph above stating such regarding the Holy Spirit anywhere, do you?)

That are alot of things the Roman Catholics pronounced heresy to promote the one original brand of Babylonian Apostacy.

God Bless you and all others reading,
who follow Jesus
by that same Spirit
of the Lord within,

g


edited: towards clarity, and a spelling error




p.s. Rainman, you are reading along. When time affords, the issues you address will be gone over and considered. If there were more time, it would have been done already. There is so much to detail though...Thanks for the last response. It helps to see more clearly what you are driving at. (i misunderstood you, and here it was thought it you doing that to the texts from here...there is misunderstanding on both ends, yet more-so me of you than you of me...from what i can see.

 2010/8/28 21:07









 Re:

BTW,
who has watched the whole debate yet?????

It's still on the to-do list, as prayer for rgw has taken front seat.

We need to now make a concerted intercession towards the repentance and conversion of Ronald W.Goetz. Please continue in prayer with us towards this end.

God Bless,
g

 2010/8/28 21:12









 Re:

Quote:
I always loved the statement:

"To deny the Trinity is heresy..but it's a mystery that you can't really understand nor can I fully explain. In other words, if you don't believe what I can't fully explain you are going to hell.

I challenge anyone to go through the book of Acts, the best record of absolutely true apostolic preaching we have, and find an instance where the trinity is preached as a doctrine that must be received to be "truly saved". And, in looking at all the sermons where Christ is preached to both Jew and Gentile, I also challenge you to find any instance where Jesus is preached as something other than either "God's Son" or the "Son of Man".



Anyone?

And...if the Apostles of Christ, who laid the foundations of the church, realized that one must believe in the Trinity to be truly saved..why do you think they left this very important part out of their Apostolic preaching that was recorded by God's Holy Spirit for us all to read?

I would highly suspect that those who were converted under the apostles preaching in the book of Acts had NO understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. I would also guess that most people who are converted do not have an understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.

 2010/8/29 23:28









 Re:

Giving oneself over to belief in things not understood is the basis of all superstition.

May God reveal His purpose in Jesus Christ as we walk closer and closer into Him.



Shalom,
g

 2010/8/30 4:26
castling
Member



Joined: 2010/3/10
Posts: 31


 Re:

In John 7:17 is the promise that "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine..." Indeed, God is the source of truth - in fact, He is truth! What better way to receive understanding and revelation than to ask directly of Him?

Another way to look at John 7:17 is that the more you grow in your relationship with God, the clearer it would be as to which doctrines are true and which are not.


A good analogy would be a baby and his mother. A baby is able to recognize the voice, smell of his mother. He knows her intimately! - though he does not know his mother's name, her occupation or even her gender. He will come to know these facts as he grows in his relationship with his mother.

This analogy is particularly strong - especially when our relationship with God the Father is described as a parent-child relationship. Jesus also says that "My sheep will know my voice".

So while Christians might not start out with perfect theology, their understanding will be perfected as they grow in the Lord. This includes the correct Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead.


In light of this, I believe the correct question to ask is not whether one needs to believe in Trinitarian doctrine to be saved - but whether one has a relationship with God, which is the *only* requisite for salvation (Romans 10:9). As you grow in your relationship with God, you will come to see - and experience - Him in His Trinitarian fullness.

Non-Trinitarian views of God, when carried to their natural conclusions, lead to practices which are contradictory to the Christian faith. I have a friend whose church some years ago adopted Arianism, thus denying the deity of Jesus Christ. Some members of his congregation later found themselves difficult in praising or worshiping Jesus - why praise a lesser being than God Himself? Again, it is written that only God is to be worshiped.


Personally, I am contented with the fact that greater saints have wrestled with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity - and they unanimously affirmed it, not only scripturally but also by their own experiences with God. No revival in history has ever emerged from non-Trinitarian churches.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is fundamental, because it goes to the very heart of the character, nature, and being of God, and it also describes the kind of relationship which we have with Him. The Word of God is still the final authority on doctrinal matters - but I would tremble if my theological deductions and understanding of God flatly contradicts that of saints who knew Him far more intimately than I do.


 2010/8/30 8:56Profile









 Re:

Hi Castling,

Quote:
Another way to look at John 7:17 is that the more you grow in your relationship with God, the clearer it would be as to which doctrines are true and which are not.

So while Christians might not start out with perfect theology, their understanding will be perfected as they grow in the Lord. This includes the correct Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead.



Unfortunately that's not the case. There have been godly men throughout the ages who have come to different conclusions regarding many different doctrines and teachings in the bible. Even those whom God used in Revival sometimes had theology that was as different as night and day. And if your assumption was true, that all mens theology would be perfected, there would not be upteen billion Christian denominations. Jesus comment about "knowing if His doctrine was true" was a statement to the Pharasee's regarding Him being the prophesied Messiah and the kindgom truths he was teaching while on earth (many through parables).

Quote:
Non-Trinitarian views of God, when carried to their natural conclusions, lead to practices which are contradictory to the Christian faith



Actually, most of the abhorent practices in Christianity today come from Trinitarian Churches that are totally apostate and compromised...including most denominational Churches which proudly affirm the Trinity in their statement of faith.

Quote:
Personally, I am contented with the fact that greater saints have wrestled with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity - and they unanimously affirmed it, not only scripturally but also by their own experiences with God



A lot of Saints, sometimes whole denominations, have wrestled away all kinds of biblical truth. Some teach that the gifts of the Spirit are no longer for today..some teach that church equals sitting under one man who preaches week after week, some teach that Sunday is a Christian Sabbath...ect. I'm not sure it's wise to place your faith in a conclustion that men have come to that you've never met.

Quote:
but I would tremble if my theological deductions and understanding of God flatly contradicts that of saints who knew Him far more intimately than I do.



I'm sure there are godly men from past ages who have come to different theological conclusions than you have on different issues. In fact, I know it's true because there have been godly men who disagree on many things yet were used of God in mighty ways.

So, I really do think you're whole post is really just an assumption. I still don't see solid biblical proof that is someone does not adhear to the doctrine of the Trinity then they are not saved and will be in Hell. And while I think that there are certain views of God that are completely false I'm not comfortable casting people into Hell because they can't reconcile every verse into the Trinitarian Doctrine and there for don't fully subscribe to it.

Again, if it was "essential" to salvation, as so many say, then where's the example of Trinitarian preaching in the books of Acts?

 2010/8/30 10:16
castling
Member



Joined: 2010/3/10
Posts: 31


 Re:

You've misunderstood my post for the most part.


As I've said, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is fundamental to the character, being, nature of God, and also our relationship with Him. There can be charitable differences on certain points e.g. on water baptism - that is not to say there isn't a correct answer to these matters, but unlike Trinitarian doctrine they do not fundamentally define our relationship with God.

God used Whitefield (a Calvinist), and Wesley (an Arminian) - but there has never been a revival among non-Trinitarian churches. And certainly God will ensure that the people whom He uses bear witness to the truth. There is complete unanimity on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity among godly men, across all countries and all cultural backgrounds - the Wesleys, Whitefield, Ravenhill, Hudson Taylor, Studd, Moody, Finney, Spurgeon, John Sung, and so on...in fact, they were passionate about it.


You are correct that having correct theology doesn't necessarily mean that you have a relationship with God - just as someone who is able to name all the facts about your mother (name, gender, occupation, eye colour...) doesn't mean that he knows her. However, if someone were to claim to know your mom, yet asserts that she has brown eyes when they are in fact blue - you would naturally be wary of his claims.


On the issue of salvation I had written:

"In light of this, I believe the correct question to ask is not whether one needs to believe in Trinitarian doctrine to be saved - but whether one has a relationship with God, which is the *only* requisite for salvation (Romans 10:9). As you grow in your relationship with God, you will come to see - and experience - Him in His Trinitarian fullness (John 7:17)."

I should assert again that one is not saved on the basis of correct doctrine, but through our relationship with the real God. Our salvation is through believing in Jesus, not believing certain things about Jesus.

So let us take hold of the promise that God teaches and corrects His children in all things, including correct doctrine. I find this assurance to be of tremendous comfort.

 2010/8/31 5:21Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy