Hip hop head let start over

[the answer]

The other thread it seems to me has died LOL

Let me start by saying this: The Trinity is NOT 3 Gods. it is one God revealed in 3 persons.

What problems do u have with this idea?

[DoGMaTiX]

admin said:

The other thread it seems to me has died LOL

Let me start by saying this: The Trinity is NOT 3 Gods. it is one God revealed in 3 persons.

What problems do u have with this idea?

I don't think he would if you use the "revealed" terminology. I would just stick with the God IN 3 persons or 3 persons IN 1 God.

Remember they believe that God is 1 but has manifested or revealed (when needed) Himself in 3 modes or persons.

one

[HIPHOPHEAD]

dogmatix said:

admin said:

The other thread it seems to me has died LOL

Let me start by saying this: The Trinity is NOT 3 Gods. it is one God revealed in 3 persons.

What problems do u have with this idea?

I don't think he would if you use the "revealed" terminology. I would just stick with the God IN 3 persons or 3 persons IN 1 God.

Remember they believe that God is 1 but has manifested or revealed (when needed) Himself in 3 modes or persons.

one

LoL. actually Roldan, its NOT just terminology. You can say God revealed/manifest himself in 3 persons all you want and I'll still ask you "where is that in the Bible". And no I'm not a modalist. My problem, the answer, is God himself never gave us this 'tidbit' about his character, so i have no reason to believe it. Furthermore, the fact that you guys hinge it on whether or not you're a Christian is even further beyond me.

[the answer]

This doctrine of the Trinity is not some made up idea.

2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

Why these distinctions? In my view, it makes sense. How do u explain this verse?

Eph. 4:4-7, There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Why doesn't Paul just continue to use the term "God" Instead he says Father, Christ, and Spirit. Again, why the distinctions? Or in you view, why is Paul using all these terms?

1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure.

Again, are all these the same person??

Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.

Again same question

I have other points, but I don't want too many issues going around in the water. So I'll let u respond to these scriptures.

[eternal]

admin said:

2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

Why these distinctions? In my view, it makes sense. How do u explain this verse?

I do realize that Trinitarians must read "God the Father" instead of just "God" in order to make their interpretation work.

admin said:

Eph. 4:4-7, There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Why doesn't Paul just continue to use the term "God" Instead he says Father, Christ, and Spirit. Again, why the distinctions? Or in you view, why is Paul using all these terms?

I think this is a good point. But then the difficulty for the trinitarian is why is "God" and "Father" always so interchangable, but "Son" and "God" is not?

admin said:

1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure.

Again, are all these the same person??

I think according to the Oneness interpretation, Jesus is the physical, in which we too are, and must live accordingly. The Spirit is the continuing presence of God in our lives that energizes us, but yet is not distinct. God is the Entity in which all derives from. This then doesn't find too much difficulty with the context of the passage.

admin said:

Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.

Again same question

The same as above I reckon, with the same question about why God is always kept distinct in these lists, of which we always read "Father" in its place...

I'm a Trinitarian. I'm sure I am a trinitarian of a different sort than you are accustomed to, but one nonetheless. Though I do recognize the merit to much of what Oneness theologians bring to the table through their reasonings of the scripture.

If pressed, I may say that the evidence of the bible to this issue is present, and both camps take the extra steps to make sense out of it. We both believe the same evidence, but imagine it fitting together through different steps, or philosophical leanings.

To this point, HHH is right that Trinitarians have no reason to act hostile to the family fellowship with our Oneness brothers and sisters in the faith.

[the answer]

I do realize that Trinitarians must read "God the Father" instead of just "God" in order to make their interpretation work.

The doctrine of the trinity is not taken from one verse. So i would never seek to make this the foundation of the doctrine. I think this verse helps tho! Do you think it's a bad hermenutics to take Paul as refering to the father? If so, why?


I think this is a good point. But then the difficulty for the trinitarian is why is "God" and "Father" always so interchangable, but "Son" and "God" is not?


You have a passage in mind, where u think u could insert God, instead of Son?

I think according to the Oneness interpretation, Jesus is the physical, in which we too are, and must live accordingly. The Spirit is the continuing presence of God in our lives that energizes us, but yet is not distinct. God is the Entity in which all derives from. This then doesn't find too much difficulty with the context of the passage.

Again, my case doesn't not hinge on one verse. Jesus said he was sending "another" comforter ( the Spirit)...and the He was going back to His Father. This just makes no sense if they are ALL THE SAME PERSON! I'd agree that "the Spirit is the continuing presence of God in our lives that energizes us" but He's NOT the Son, and HE's NOT the Father. Then who is He then?

The same as above I reckon, with the same question about why God is always kept distinct in these lists, of which we always read "Father" in its place...


I haven't done it, ( I prolly will tho now) do a word study on "God" my bet is that it refers to the Father more then the Son or the Spirit. But I'll have to get back on that!

I'm a Trinitarian. I'm sure I am a trinitarian of a different sort than you are accustomed to, but one nonetheless. Though I do recognize the merit to much of what Oneness theologians bring to the table through their reasonings of the scripture.

What kind are you?

To this point, HHH is right that Trinitarians have no reason to act hostile to the family fellowship with our Oneness brothers and sisters in the faith.

I dunno about that. If the bible teaches that God is a Trinity, then that, in my view, is essencial. I'm still not sure if HHH is in the same camp as other Oneness people...but this is helping me to check his view out.

[eternal]

I realize that your position is not dependent upon any one verse. But we begin to recognize that there is a certain interpretation pattern that must be adhered to that is outside of the scope of scripture, in order to preserve a consistent Trinitarian reading. By the same token, the Oneness position likewise utilizes the same truths that we herald as gospel, and retain their own philosophical reasoning of those scriptures. Both camps rely on philosophical stringing together of truths in order to compile their theological understanding. This is why I say that the scriptures teach who God is, we both agree on that, but piece it together differently. I believe God is grieved over how petty His people are in the debates and castration we throw at each other, and the lack of unification of the Spirit...modled after that same passage you quoted above...Eph. 4:4-7. We debate over the philosophical outwrokings of the titles in the passage and dismiss the entire point it seeks to teach.

Jesus said he was sending "another" comforter ( the Spirit)...and the He was going back to His Father. This just makes no sense if they are ALL THE SAME PERSON! I'd agree that "the Spirit is the continuing presence of God in our lives that energizes us" but He's NOT the Son, and HE's NOT the Father. Then who is He then?

I do not speak for HHH. I couldn't even if I tried. I will only speak from my own experience and research. Christ was the physical revelation of God (1 Tim. 3:16). The Spirit then would as already stated, be the persistent present of God in our lives and world. Christ was the MANIFESTATION of this God, and the Spirit is the presence of this God.

What kind are you?

That's funny. I just articulate it differently, or make sense of it differently. Really, I think because I realize that our outworkings are not equivelent to the facts in the bible, I am able to feel the freedom to work out an understanding that is more understandabe and meaningful for me. As oppossed to some who are so bound by tradition, that any straying from the one sentence deffinition of "One God in three Persons" would automaticaly qualify for heresy. I have come to realize that this sentence itself is historicaly bound in the philosophy of its time, yet people today are so dogmaticly connected to the phrase that any attempt to explain it would fall short of "orthodoxy." The sentence has become the only allowable discussion. It is so narrow, that any imaginitive analyzation of it, falls short in the minds of many fundamentalist/evangelical Christians.

Now, as to how I work it out: I have come to appreciate the Midivel theological perspective. Anselm, Aquinas and Abelard all wrote along similar lines in how they came to understand and appreciate the doctrine of the Trinity. The key words they used were existence-intellect-love and power-wisdom-goodness. I like this for a couple reasons. Of course, using John's use of logos, these thinkers continued that theme in undeerstanding the eternal Christ as "intellect/wisdom." Likewise they came to understand the Holy Ghost as "goodness/love." The Father was generaly regarded as "power" or "existence" of these eternal qualities.

Now, Aquinas says that as much as love is in a person, it is that person, yet distinct. How much more so for an eternal being. So then God forever love is God yet at the same time distinct, but not to the point of seperation. His famous quote is, "God is in Himself as beloved in Lover." The same would be said for "intellect."

I can appreciate this line of thinking. God forever loved Himself. God forever knew Himself. Here then we see the relational aspect of God, and how that continues to operate as creation comes into being. I also like the ontological argument it makes, in that he says, for God "intellectual activity is His existence." The same is said of love. This helps us understand a God who is spirit, non material, and existing even without material space around Him. God is intellectual activity, love, power. And as much as these three exist together, we see a unity of being, yet distinct eternal principles that can be claimed in later theological development as "persons."

Now I recognize that this is all very imaginative, especially for modern day western protestants, but this is old school Catholic theology with mad credentials. And I recognize that there is a lot of available critiques of it, but I think that is sort of the point. Those same critiques exist for all outworkings of the Trinity, or any other outworking of the scriptures on this issue, Oneness theology includded. But the great thing is that we all agree on the evidence, only put it together differently. We all agree on the bible, we just construct it to make a different picture. We should strive then in the teaching of that ephesians passage stressing the unity of believers.

I dunno about that. If the bible teaches that God is a Trinity, then that, in my view, is essencial. I'm still not sure if HHH is in the same camp as other Oneness people...but this is helping me to check his view out.

Well, the bible teaches a lot of doctrines, and Christians disagree on all of them. Post trib or pre? Consubstantiation or trans? Arminian or Calvinism? The list goes on. The bible teaches the truth, we can't be so selective outside of the guidance of the scriptures, on what we want to make mandatory and what is permissible to be wrong on and still within the grace of God.

peace.

[the answer]

But we begin to recognize that there is a certain interpretation pattern that must be adhered to that is outside of the scope of scripture, in order to preserve a consistent Trinitarian reading

Can you expound on that? I think I get you, but I'm not sure.

This is why I say that the scriptures teach who God is, we both agree on that, but piece it together differently.

This is true. But this doesn't give us liberty to come up with our own interpretations and say " well this is how I 'piece it' together" I'm not against people having different views. Just reading through systematic Theology books, I'm blown away at the different views on the atonement, and salvation and election...and on and on. But the issue is do they make sense in light of the entire bible. Some fall short. Theories are theories, until they are prov-en.
So while we may have different ideas, we have to see if they hold up to rigorous questioning.

I believe God is grieved over how petty His people are in the debates and castration we throw at each other, and the lack of unification of the Spirit...modled after that same passage you quoted above...Eph. 4:4-7. We debate over the philosophical outworking of the titles in the passage and dismiss the entire point it seeks to teach.

In many cases, you are right. Very true!!

I read your "view" and was confused
JK, i didn't get it totally, but i don't think its a way off view. Like u said there are prolly good critiques of it, At this point i have no desire to do that.

But E u seem, lets say "reluctant" to disagree with HHH. do u agree with him? or disagree?

He hasn't come back yet, so i wanna hear him respond still

[the answer]

oh and a side note..is there a reason u don't come to Holy culture radio??

Is it cuz of the past probs wit Vic?

Just wondering

[eternal]

Can you expound on that? I think I get you, but I'm not sure.

Simply put, we have built systems that continue to be refined and passed down and we become accustomed to reading those texts according to our systematics. However, those systematics are largely extra-biblical, and largely philosophical. I am not one to knock that, because I see it as inevitable, I just think we have to recognize it, in order that we are not swept away with it too far. It took a long time for the doctrine of the Trinity to be developed. Reading the church fathers this is easy to see. We take it for granted though because it is taught to us in such a straight forward manner.

I really don't think the text itself is as clear as we try and present it. I believe it to be clear enough to give us the information we need, but when we come and string it all together, we have to realize that that we can't hold that outworking to be as dogmatic as the scriptures facts.

Like scientists. They take material facts, and work hypothesis out, such as evolution. Biblical scholars do the same. We have facts in the scriptures, and then we begin our hypothesis working out. The same danger exists in both worlds, as Christians take objection to some forms of evolution theory, as some Christians take objection to some forms of theology.

This is true. But this doesn't give us liberty to come up with our own interpretations and say " well this is how I 'piece it' together" I'm not against people having different views. Just reading through systematic Theology books, I'm blown away at the different views on the atonement, and salvation and election...and on and on. But the issue is do they make sense in light of the entire bible. Some fall short. Theories are theories, until they are prov-en.
So while we may have different ideas, we have to see if they hold up to rigorous questioning.

I completely agree.

But E u seem, lets say "reluctant" to disagree with HHH. do u agree with him? or disagree?

I think I disagree with him, but it isn't really important to me. I can see his point, and not have much objection. But at the same time, I clearly have a different way I put together the scriptures. At the end of the day it doesn't disturb me because we both worship together in Spirit and Truth, which transcends our exactness on this particular doctrine or not. We have both accepted the grace of God and worship Him with our lives. Amen!

oh and a side note..is there a reason u don't come to Holy culture radio??

Is it cuz of the past probs wit Vic?

Yup.

[the answer]

Simply put, we have built systems that continue to be refined and passed down and we become accustomed to reading those texts according to our systematics. However, those systematics are largely extra-biblical, and largely philosophical. I am not one to knock that, because I see it as inevitable, I just think we have to recognize it, in order that we are not swept away with it too far. It took a long time for the doctrine of the Trinity to be developed. Reading the church fathers this is easy to see. We take it for granted though because it is taught to us in such a straight forward manner.

I really don't think the text itself is as clear as we try and present it. I believe it to be clear enough to give us the information we need, but when we come and string it all together, we have to realize that that we can't hold that outworking to be as dogmatic as the scriptures facts.

Like scientists. They take material facts, and work hypothesis out, such as evolution. Biblical scholars do the same. We have facts in the scriptures, and then we begin our hypothesis working out. The same danger exists in both worlds, as Christians take objection to some forms of evolution theory, as some Christians take objection to some forms of theology.


True!
I think I disagree with him, but it isn't really important to me. I can see his point, and not have much objection. But at the same time, I clearly have a different way I put together the scriptures. At the end of the day it doesn't disturb me because we both worship together in Spirit and Truth, which transcends our exactness on this particular doctrine or not. We have both accepted the grace of God and worship Him with our lives. Amen!


I do believe there are some serious problems with Oneness theolgy. But that's why I'm discussing with HHH, i need to know WHAT they believe first. There are a lot of Heresies out there Sabelianism(sp?) and others, which i think are wrong. But u are right. Sometimes we fight and forget love.

I still contend that this is an issue. it's what separates us from the kingdom of the cults. but I hear u, loud and clear

and the game continues..............

[HIPHOPHEAD]

dag, alot these questions were explained in the original thread. I'll back answering them again tho.

admin said:

This doctrine of the Trinity is not some made up idea.

2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

Why these distinctions? In my view, it makes se

nse. How do u explain this verse?

Eph. 4:4-7, There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Why doesn't Paul just continue to use the term "God" Instead he says Father, Christ, and Spirit. Again, why the distinctions? Or in you view, why is Paul using all these terms?

1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure.

Again, are all these the same person??

Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.

Again same question

I have other points, but I don't want too many issues going around in the water. So I'll let u respond to these scriptures.

[HIPHOPHEAD]

eternal said:

I think according to the Oneness interpretation, Jesus is the physical, in which we too are, and must live accordingly. The Spirit is the continuing presence of God in our lives that energizes us, but yet is not distinct. God is the Entity in which all derives from. This then doesn't find too much difficulty with the context of the passage.

uhhh, no that's not what we believe. Sounds alot like how JW's describe their doctrine. I know alot of cats try to lumps us in with them. anyway, I'll be back
1

[eternal]

hiphophead said:

eternal said:

I think according to the Oneness interpretation, Jesus is the physical, in which we too are, and must live accordingly. The Spirit is the continuing presence of God in our lives that energizes us, but yet is not distinct. God is the Entity in which all derives from. This then doesn't find too much difficulty with the context of the passage.

uhhh, no that's not what we believe. Sounds alot like how JW's describe their doctrine. I know alot of cats try to lumps us in with them. anyway, I'll be back
1

Sorry! I thought though that JW's didn't believe in the divinity of Christ? I look forward to your reply, so that I can have a greater appreciation and understanding of yoru beliefs, and not mix it up with other teachers who may be similar.

[HIPHOPHEAD]

the said:

“This doctrine of the Trinity is not some made up idea.”

Actually, it is. That’s my issue with it.

the said:

2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

Why these distinctions? In my view, it makes sense. How do u explain this verse?

From a trinity view point that verse would make no sense to me since Jesus is God.

the said:

Eph. 4:4-7, There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Why doesn't Paul just continue to use the term "God" Instead he says Father, Christ, and Spirit. Again, why the distinctions? Or in you view, why is Paul using all these terms?

First off notice that “GOD and Father” are connected as ONE. Already showed you that Jesus is the Father (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus Christ is called the Lord, and also called the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17). Why is Paul using these terms? Because he’s Jewish and has always used them. Realize that when Paul realized who Jesus is, he didn’t stop being Jewish; but he now had a complete understanding of it.

the said:

1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure.

Again, are all these the same person??

Yes. Like I’ve said on many occasions, if you had a scripture that said “God the Spirit” or “God the Son” you may have an argument.

the said:

Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.

Again same question

Yes.

the said:

I dunno about that. If the bible teaches that God is a Trinity, then that, in my view, is essencial. I'm still not sure if HHH is in the same camp as other Oneness people...but this is helping me to check his view out.

Right, IF the bible teaches. That’s what I’ve been waiting to see.

eternal said:

Sorry! I thought though that JW's didn't believe in the divinity of Christ? I look forward to your reply, so that I can have a greater appreciation and understanding of yoru beliefs, and not mix it up with other teachers who may be similar

.

Technically they don’t. At least not from a biblical perspective. They have they’re own theological fiery hoops and cartwheels to get around that.

[the answer]

From a trinity view point that verse would make no sense to me since Jesus is God.

Why? Jesus is God, but he's not the Father. in your view he is?

I'll get to the others tomorrow

[quietstorm]

Is 2 Cor 3:17 teaching that Jesus is the Holy Spirit if not then what Spirit is being referred to in this verse?

[eternal]

hiphophead said:

Technically they don’t. At least not from a biblical perspective. They have they’re own theological fiery hoops and cartwheels to get around that.

What was wrong then of my description? Was it just the language? Because it seems the idea expressed was on point.

[HIPHOPHEAD]

admin said:

Why? Jesus is God, but he's not the Father. in your view he is?

Isaiah 9:6

[HIPHOPHEAD]

eternal said:

hiphophead said:

Technically they don’t. At least not from a biblical perspective. They have they’re own theological fiery hoops and cartwheels to get around that.

What was wrong then of my description? Was it just the language? Because it seems the idea expressed was on point.

Let me repost what you said

"I think according to the Oneness interpretation, Jesus is the physical, in which we too are, and must live accordingly. The Spirit is the continuing presence of God in our lives that energizes us, but yet is not distinct. God is the Entity in which all derives from. [/i]

The problem with your desciption of what you understand as oneness is that it's vague and sounds more like a modified trinity to me. especially with that last sentence.

Description of Jesus as "The Physical"; Spirit "continuing prescence"; and GOD being the deriving enity is extremely incomplete.