GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Author Topic: Should you believe in the Trinity?  (Read 12263 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline brouije

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
  • Manna: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #75 on: December 19, 2009, 02:58:16 PM »
John 17:11   Jesus was speaking about his followers and prayed that they would be one just as he and the Father were one. Are we not united in heart and mind in his service? Was he not referring to being in harmony with his Father rather than being one and the same with him?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #75 on: December 19, 2009, 02:58:16 PM »

Offline caldwelljr11

  • JC
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Manna: 11
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #76 on: December 19, 2009, 09:22:39 PM »
John 17:11   Jesus was speaking about his followers and prayed that they would be one just as he and the Father were one. Are we not united in heart and mind in his service? Was he not referring to being in harmony with his Father rather than being one and the same with him?

John 17:11  11"I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #76 on: December 19, 2009, 09:22:39 PM »

Offline caldwelljr11

  • JC
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Manna: 11
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #77 on: December 19, 2009, 09:25:44 PM »

It is most refreshing to have such clean interaction with a kinsman who differs in beliefs.  Blessings on you, friend.

Thank you.  Too often it seems some forget that we are kinsman. 

Offline caldwelljr11

  • JC
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Manna: 11
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #78 on: December 19, 2009, 09:30:30 PM »
It has always disgusted me to read posts of Christians describing each other as heretics.  We too often ignore that there were great Christian scholars on both sides of the arguments, and both have been used by God for His glory.  Obviously at least one side is wrong (but in many cases, both may have a misunderstanding on some part of their theology).

I am not saying that there is no false doctrine, but we should not confuse theology with doctrine.  The implications are too great to rely on our understanding and become a stumbling block or an unwitting agent against Christ’s work in one’s life.  We should be united, we are told to be united and to condemn false doctrine, but we should not allow theological differences to become divisive.

While this forum provides a valuable resource to debate and understand various Christian beliefs, some place so much focus on condemning fellow Christians based on their theology or understanding when they could focus their energy and zeal on reaching a world that is lost and perishing. 

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #78 on: December 19, 2009, 09:30:30 PM »

Stucky

  • Guest
Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #79 on: December 19, 2009, 10:29:34 PM »
Caldwell,

I stand in awe of you.  I'm sorry, I'm at a loss for eloquence to describe how I feel about your answers on this board.  Would that I could speak as well to say what I feel about topics here.  Thankfully, so far I seem to agree with you.  God bless you.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #79 on: December 19, 2009, 10:29:34 PM »



Offline caldwelljr11

  • JC
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Manna: 11
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #80 on: December 20, 2009, 06:15:29 PM »
Thank you, Stucky.  I wish you and your family a wonderful and blessed Christmas.  (even if you did call me gay and poked my smiley in the eye   ::pokingwithstick:: ).

son of God

  • Guest
Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #81 on: December 20, 2009, 08:02:11 PM »
Thank you, Stucky.  I wish you and your family a wonderful and blessed Christmas.  (even if you did call me gay and poked my smiley in the eye   ::pokingwithstick:: ).

You miss understood, man: that was self flagellation Stucky was doing!   rofl

Offline farouk

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3507
  • Manna: 43
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #82 on: December 22, 2009, 09:24:31 AM »
John's Gospel, especially chapters 13 to 18, has much about Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So does John's First Epistle.

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
    • View Profile
Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #83 on: December 27, 2009, 10:16:16 AM »
There seems to be a growing trend in many circles where people feel that in order to preserve scriptural purity, they turn to history to see if the Roman Catholics are credited with or at least agreed with doctrines that were carried over from the reformation. 

The Trinity is one of the most popular of the doctrines under fire.  There's another thread on here wherein people do the same to Christmas and even Sunday as a day of gathering to worship as opposed to the Fri-Sat Sabbath.  And the reason they reject things aren't really based on a synthasized study of scripture but by isolating scriptures that seem to support their private interpretation and then justify and try to shock the reader into adopting their tradition's view by saying, "Rome did it.  They have their finger prints all over it."  And of course the stigma out there in protestant land is that anything Rome touched seems to be "corrupt". 

However, as I hinted at above, most of this is just a rejection of Roman Catholic Tradition and a replacement of that tradition by substituting their own tradition. 

If you study all the heresies that the church confronted, such as Modalism, Arianism and Nestorianism, you'll find that a great amount of effort and scriptural integrity went into the way in which they defended themselves from these heresies. 

However, when you ignore the past you are often susceptible to fall into the same errors that plagued the early Church.

By trying to rid yourself completely of any of the Traditions that to the common eye seem "Catholic" you wind up throwing out the baby with the bathwater and are forced to replace those traditions with your own.  This in turn color the way in which you interpret what you read. 

That's why we have Calvinists and Lutherans and Wesleyans etc.  I mean, they each teach conflicting things from one another and yet, they have followers.  People agree with the Lutheran tradition and believe it to be more accurate than the Calvinists and so on.  And even the folks that seem to call themselves "non-denominational" are still faced with coming up with an interpretation as to what they read means and then "teaching" that interpretation, despite the fact that their non-denominational teaching conflicts with what the non-denominational church down the street teaches.

I'm finding that the great irony in all of this are the scriptures themselves.  If people merely try to rid themselves of things that are "later" additions and not commonly held beliefs during the time of the disciples, then even the canon of scripture comes into question. 

The New Testament as we know it today didn't really come about until nearly three/four hundred years AFTER Our Lord's ascension to sit at the Father's right hand.

Now, if a group were really to get back to basics and experience the Faith as those that met the Apostles had, they would have to make due with reading the OT and re-examining all the writings that were in broad circulation in the Christian population for that three/four hundred years.  A daunting task!

My point is only that the Trinity ought to be understood, not by trying to juxtapose your tradition's teachings onto what you believe to be "Roman Catholic" but instead to go back and read what all went into and exactly who those Christians were that, led by the Holy Spirit, decided upon the NT canon.   

Further, if you're protestant, it wouldn't hurt to look at the OT canon as you know it in comparison to the OT canon as the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox knew it.  I mean, to be fair, the protestant OT canon is foreign to those first Christians that heard the good news, not by reading, but by hearing and worshiping side by side the likes of St. John, the beloved. 

Don't just toss out the Trinity and construct your own theology on the Godhead based on an emotional reaction to anything supposedly Roman Catholic.  I mean, if you don't even know what a Modalist is, how can you tell that you aren't one?  What's so bad about being a modalist?  Why did that same group of people (not talking about Roman Catholics as we know them today) that decided upon the NT canon view modalism as a bad thing?  You agree with them about the canon but aren't familiar with their thoughts on the Godhead?   Well, I invite you take a look.  God's blessed us with the internet.  Google your hearts out in search of the Truth. 

I would start with St. Athanasius work titled, On the Incarnation and see if you don't see that there is reverence and depth and a zealous appreciation for Holy Scripture in those writings. 

Put "Athanasius On the Incarnation" in the google search field.  The first result that pops up is the entire text hosted on a Reformed* website, translated by an Anglican and has a foreword by C.S. Lewis (talk about cross-denominational!). 

Just for the record, I'm an inquirer at an Eastern Orthodox church but seeing as many confuse the Orthodox with Roman Catholics, I figured St. Athanasius work being hosted in such a denominationaly varied way is testament to the fact that not everything that people accuse the Roman Catholics of corrupting is truly corrupt.  Think of the fact that the very NT you revere wasn't in circulation or even written and gathered into books until hundreds! of years later.  The word bible isn't in the bible either, just as the Trinity, and yet that's not something we hold against it. 

Glory to Jesus Christ

 ::smile::

 

Offline johnnyQ

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 977
  • Manna: 84
  • Gender: Male
  • Jonny Quest
    • View Profile
Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #84 on: December 28, 2009, 01:27:15 PM »
In John 20:31, Jesus says, "These are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."  If it doesn't interfere with your belief in Jesus as the Christ, then I think you are okay.  It's not an essential belief,...but if you DO believe it, then you would certainly also believe that Jesus is God's Only Son, the Messiah.  THAT'S what's essential.

jq

Offline caldwelljr11

  • JC
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Manna: 11
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #85 on: December 28, 2009, 05:49:47 PM »
There seems to be a growing trend in many circles where people feel that in order to preserve scriptural purity, they turn to history to see if the Roman Catholics are credited with or at least agreed with doctrines that were carried over from the reformation. 

The Trinity is one of the most popular of the doctrines under fire.  There's another thread on here wherein people do the same to Christmas and even Sunday as a day of gathering to worship as opposed to the Fri-Sat Sabbath.  And the reason they reject things aren't really based on a synthasized study of scripture but by isolating scriptures that seem to support their private interpretation and then justify and try to shock the reader into adopting their tradition's view by saying, "Rome did it.  They have their finger prints all over it."  And of course the stigma out there in protestant land is that anything Rome touched seems to be "corrupt". 

However, as I hinted at above, most of this is just a rejection of Roman Catholic Tradition and a replacement of that tradition by substituting their own tradition. 

If you study all the heresies that the church confronted, such as Modalism, Arianism and Nestorianism, you'll find that a great amount of effort and scriptural integrity went into the way in which they defended themselves from these heresies. 

However, when you ignore the past you are often susceptible to fall into the same errors that plagued the early Church.

By trying to rid yourself completely of any of the Traditions that to the common eye seem "Catholic" you wind up throwing out the baby with the bathwater and are forced to replace those traditions with your own.  This in turn color the way in which you interpret what you read. 

That's why we have Calvinists and Lutherans and Wesleyans etc.  I mean, they each teach conflicting things from one another and yet, they have followers.  People agree with the Lutheran tradition and believe it to be more accurate than the Calvinists and so on.  And even the folks that seem to call themselves "non-denominational" are still faced with coming up with an interpretation as to what they read means and then "teaching" that interpretation, despite the fact that their non-denominational teaching conflicts with what the non-denominational church down the street teaches.

I'm finding that the great irony in all of this are the scriptures themselves.  If people merely try to rid themselves of things that are "later" additions and not commonly held beliefs during the time of the disciples, then even the canon of scripture comes into question. 

The New Testament as we know it today didn't really come about until nearly three/four hundred years AFTER Our Lord's ascension to sit at the Father's right hand.

Now, if a group were really to get back to basics and experience the Faith as those that met the Apostles had, they would have to make due with reading the OT and re-examining all the writings that were in broad circulation in the Christian population for that three/four hundred years.  A daunting task!

My point is only that the Trinity ought to be understood, not by trying to juxtapose your tradition's teachings onto what you believe to be "Roman Catholic" but instead to go back and read what all went into and exactly who those Christians were that, led by the Holy Spirit, decided upon the NT canon.   

Further, if you're protestant, it wouldn't hurt to look at the OT canon as you know it in comparison to the OT canon as the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox knew it.  I mean, to be fair, the protestant OT canon is foreign to those first Christians that heard the good news, not by reading, but by hearing and worshiping side by side the likes of St. John, the beloved. 

Don't just toss out the Trinity and construct your own theology on the Godhead based on an emotional reaction to anything supposedly Roman Catholic.  I mean, if you don't even know what a Modalist is, how can you tell that you aren't one?  What's so bad about being a modalist?  Why did that same group of people (not talking about Roman Catholics as we know them today) that decided upon the NT canon view modalism as a bad thing?  You agree with them about the canon but aren't familiar with their thoughts on the Godhead?   Well, I invite you take a look.  God's blessed us with the internet.  Google your hearts out in search of the Truth. 

I would start with St. Athanasius work titled, On the Incarnation and see if you don't see that there is reverence and depth and a zealous appreciation for Holy Scripture in those writings. 

Put "Athanasius On the Incarnation" in the google search field.  The first result that pops up is the entire text hosted on a Reformed* website, translated by an Anglican and has a foreword by C.S. Lewis (talk about cross-denominational!). 

Just for the record, I'm an inquirer at an Eastern Orthodox church but seeing as many confuse the Orthodox with Roman Catholics, I figured St. Athanasius work being hosted in such a denominationaly varied way is testament to the fact that not everything that people accuse the Roman Catholics of corrupting is truly corrupt.  Think of the fact that the very NT you revere wasn't in circulation or even written and gathered into books until hundreds! of years later.  The word bible isn't in the bible either, just as the Trinity, and yet that's not something we hold against it. 

Glory to Jesus Christ

 ::smile::

 

While I do believe that some give authority where authority may not belong, you have made an excellent point.  Many do seem to reject the scholarship and understanding of some truths simply based on their disagreements with other theological and doctrinal issues. 

Offline YoungChristain1993

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Manna: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #86 on: February 18, 2010, 03:09:52 PM »
Although the trinity is not mentioned in the bible, at least not that i know of, God has left signs of it for us in our world today. Such as the factor of time - Past, Present, and Future without one none of them can exist. Also in space, which is made up of length, width, and depth, once again if any one of those three does not exist you cannot have the other two. In my opinion this is God's way of showing how the trinity works showing that all three exist as one and that the trinity does truly exist.

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Mod Alrighty
  • Global Moderator
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10566
  • Manna: 313
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #87 on: February 19, 2010, 11:02:34 AM »
Although the trinity is not mentioned in the bible, at least not that i know of, God has left signs of it for us in our world today. Such as the factor of time - Past, Present, and Future without one none of them can exist. Also in space, which is made up of length, width, and depth, once again if any one of those three does not exist you cannot have the other two. In my opinion this is God's way of showing how the trinity works showing that all three exist as one and that the trinity does truly exist.
Yes, and the Three Stooges - Moe, Larry, & Curly - are only funny when all 3 of them are present.  When you take out a Curly, and replace it with Shemp, or...(shudder) Fat Joe, then it's just stupid.  It only works when all 3 parts are there, working against each other in unison.

::whistle::

Offline caldwelljr11

  • JC
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Manna: 11
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #88 on: February 19, 2010, 06:07:48 PM »
Although the trinity is not mentioned in the bible, at least not that i know of, God has left signs of it for us in our world today. Such as the factor of time - Past, Present, and Future without one none of them can exist. Also in space, which is made up of length, width, and depth, once again if any one of those three does not exist you cannot have the other two. In my opinion this is God's way of showing how the trinity works showing that all three exist as one and that the trinity does truly exist.
Yes, and the Three Stooges - Moe, Larry, & Curly - are only funny when all 3 of them are present.  When you take out a Curly, and replace it with Shemp, or...(shudder) Fat Joe, then it's just stupid.  It only works when all 3 parts are there, working against each other in unison.

::whistle::

I never liked the three stooges  ::frown::, but there were also three musketeers  ::smile::. - and they worked together in unison.

Offline HRoberson

  • BS Detector and Pontificator Extraordinaire
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7836
  • Manna: 260
    • View Profile
Re: Should you believe in the Trinity?
« Reply #89 on: February 21, 2010, 08:29:36 PM »
I have ten toes, and ten fingers. If we count the closed-up belly button, I also have ten (natural) holes in my body.

Ah! Three sets of ten = another proof of the Trinity!