The Trinity

I see that the Trinity is this months topic. Can anyone suggest the best books (preferably in logos but not necessarily on discount) with 'arguments' that could be useful when dealing with persons who do not accept the conventional view of the Trinity?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Robert Neely

i highly recommend this one

https://www.logos.com/product/52776/oneness-pentecostals-and-the-trinity

good preview of it here

DMB

dealing with persons who do not accept the conventional view

I know you're carefully tippy-toeing, but make sure your review breaks out between the various Christian doctrines (typically 3rd century and thereafter, as Robert demos), vs earlier 2nd Temple concepts/wording best displayed in Enochian Judaism (the more technical contra to 'trinity').

Charles

An excellent site which speaks about Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity:

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/Oneness_pentecostalism.htm

In Christ,

Charles

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1077949#Comment_1077949

i highly recommend this one

https://www.logos.com/product/52776/oneness-pentecostals-and-the-trinity

good preview of it here

Boyd’s shoddy research into Oneness Pentecostals is a classic example of straw man attack—that has been thoroughly refuted point by point in this work: https://mikeblume.com/dryframe.htm

Please pardon the self reference, but, if you’re *SINCERELY* interested in allowing Oneness Pentecostals to speak for themselves you can view my blog that has an emphases on original languages and exegesis. While I certainly have a lot to learn still, I’ve been researching this issue for approx. 25 years now (I used to attend a Trinitarian church until honest research into the Scriptures forced me out if I were to remain faithful to God’s Word).

Link below:

https://apostolicacademics.com/

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1077982#Comment_1077982

An excellent site which speaks about Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity:

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/Oneness_pentecostalism.htm

In Christ,

Charles

Since we’re posting links, in the spirit of equality for those wanting to hear both sides out (and since Admin. has allowed y’all to post anti-Oneness links), here’s an excellent site which speaks about the errors of the Trinity:

https://www.onenesspentecostal.com/

https://apostolicacademics.com/

If interested, here’s a couple of congenial-scholarly debates on this topic w. a member of the CRI site (Robert Bowman)—who was also connected w. the link you posted above:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGcE1U2ZH48

Here’s another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6LXshQf2i0

Much more available upon request.

Jan Krohn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1077985#Comment_1077985

Boyd’s shoddy research into Oneness Pentecostals is a classic example of straw man attack—that has been thoroughly refuted point by point in this work: https://mikeblume.com/dryframe.htm

A process theologian like Dr. Boyd trying to correct false views on the Trinity can't really go well...

My suggestion would be "The forgotten Trinity" by James White. https://www.logos.com/product/43398/the-forgotten-trinity

He works very closely with the Greek text, but explains everything so that non Greek speakers can understand.

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1077993#Comment_1077993

Boyd’s shoddy research into Oneness Pentecostals is a classic example of straw man attack—that has been thoroughly refuted point by point in this work: https://mikeblume.com/dryframe.htm

A process theologian like Dr. Boyd trying to correct false views on the Trinity can't really go well...

My suggestion would be "The forgotten Trinity" by James White. https://www.logos.com/product/43398/the-forgotten-trinity

He works very closely with the Greek text, but explains everything so that non Greek speakers can understand.

Actually, White has openly conceded that his “Trinity” consists of “3 divine individuals, each w. their own SEPARATE centers of eternal consciousness’s apart from the other 2 divine individuals” 😳—his own words.

Or, you can see my blog (and my debate w. White) wherein I offer a point by point rejoinder to White’s attacks (😊).

Again, please pardon the self reference (☹️): https://apostolicacademics.com/2016/03/02/response-to-dr-james-white/

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1077986#Comment_1077986

but in all sincerity the link you posted demonstrates little more than the usual dodge-ball antics of Trinitarians

Come on Puddin' - you usually use your language more carefully. And you make it so tempting to up the language anty [:#]

BTW can someone explain to me the original post? Where is the topic "Trinity"?

Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1077997#Comment_1077997

but in all sincerity the link you posted demonstrates little more than the usual dodge-ball antics of Trinitarians

Come on Puddin' - you usually use your language more carefully. And you make it so tempting to up the language anty

BTW can someone explain to me the original post? Where is the topic "Trinity"?

There you go - https://www.logos.com/topic-of-the-month

Keep well Paul

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1077997#Comment_1077997

Come on Puddin' - you usually use your language more carefully. And you make it so tempting to up the language anty

Okay MJ—you’re right. I have edited my response. A little difficult to not return the fire when folks are posting inflammatory links like above. Sooo much more I want to say, but I have taken your advice (which I wouldn’t do from just anyone🤓).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078001#Comment_1078001

A little difficult to not return the fire when folks are posting inflammatory links like above

Thank you. Believe me, I know what it is like to be in your position. But unlike forest fires where a back fire can help control the main fire, in the forums fire + fire can quickly become a raging inferno which harms everyone. Quiet facts are much more effective.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1077998#Comment_1077998

There you go - https://www.logos.com/topic-of-the-month

Thanks - I'd never seen that!!

JohnB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078001#Comment_1078001

Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

Clearly I was not as carefully tip toeing as I thought I was. I apologise to anyone who felt marginalised by any comment on the thread. That is not what I would ever want.

Any thoughts on the following? ie does the author put over his/her views in a clear manner that I can use to share with an interested lay person.

https://www.logos.com/product/30811/making-sense-of-the-trinity-three-crucial-questions ?

https://www.logos.com/product/30809/god-in-three-persons-a-contemporary-interpretation-of-the-trinity

and any others on https://www.logos.com/topic-of-the-month

Quote... According to the church father Augustine anyone who denies the Trinity is in danger of losing her salvation, but anyone who tries to understand the Trinity is in danger of losing her mind.
For "her" please read "their"!

SineNomine

I see that the Trinity is this months topic. Can anyone suggest the best books (preferably in logos but not necessarily on discount) with 'arguments' that could be useful when dealing with persons who do not accept the conventional view of the Trinity?

Well, if St. Augustine's De Trinitate isn't your cup of tea, I highly recommend the Dominican theologian Gilles Emery's The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God, which is very readable and rather thorough, both historically aware and attentive to Scripture. It also sports a helpful glossary at the end; you will be interested in the entry on Modalism. Please do not be put off by the title (or author); the 'classical' Protestant understanding of the Trinity does not differ from Catholic doctrine on the Trinity. (As a historical matter, the Reformers inherited, as it were, their understanding of the Trinity from the Catholic Church.)

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078062#Comment_1078062

A little difficult to not return the fire when folks are posting inflammatory links like above

Thank you. Believe me, I know what it is like to be in your position. But unlike forest fires where a back fire can help control the main fire, in the forums fire + fire can quickly become a raging inferno which harms everyone. Quiet facts are much more effective.

Good analogy.

Also, there are several straw man attacks on this thread. Oneness Pentecostals are *NOT* “Modalists”—and I have never even heard anyone in Oneness use that derogatory term to explain what we believe. We openly and vehemently oppose ancient Modalism, which, as always, was defined by hostile witnesses such as Tertullian (whom, BTW, was an ontological subordinationist—and, comically, would be labeled a “heretic” by contemporary Trinitarians🤫).

But, even Tertullian stated in his Against Praxeas (which I have) that the Oneness Believers of his day “constitute the majority of believers😳).” Shall we talk about Ignatius who has been classified by J.N.D. Kelly, Virginia Corwin, etc. as a “Modalistic Monarchian”—as my blog linked above quotes.

To illustrate, how would Trinnies like it if we continually referred to them as Tritheists—when Trinitarians vehemently *SAY* otherwise (although...well, never mind🙄).

Might want to allow others to actually speak for themselves prior to attempting to define what we believe—on both sides of the debate.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078140#Comment_1078140

Oneness Pentecostals are *NOT* “Modalists”—and I have never even heard anyone in Oneness use that derogatory term to explain what we believe.

It would have never occurred to me that someone would take "modalist" as negative; reminds me of when we had a forum user who did not know "papist" was a pejorative

Do you have a reference for the Tertullian quote? My attempt to find it via google have led to amusing not useful answers. I have found this:

[quote]The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία

Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 598–599.

or [quote]

All simple people, not to say the unwise and unprofessional (who always constitute the majority of believers), since even the rule itself removes them from the plurality of “the gods” of this world to “the one true God,”* become greatly terrified through their failure to understand that,* while He must be believed to be one, it is along with His economy, because they judge that economy, implying a number and arrangement of trinity, is really a division of unity, whereas unity, deriving trinity from itself, is not destroyed by it, but made serviceable.

W. J. Sparrow-Simpson and W. K. Lowther Clarke, eds., Tertullian: Against Praxeas, trans. Alexander Souter, Translations of Christian Literature: Series II: Latin Texts (London; New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Company, 1920), 31.

but it doesn't quite say what you implied.

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078147#Comment_1078147

Oneness Pentecostals are *NOT* “Modalists”—and I have never even heard anyone in Oneness use that derogatory term to explain what we believe.

It would have never occurred to me that someone would take "modalist" as negative; reminds me of when we had a forum user who did not know "papist" was a pejorative

Do you have a reference for the Tertullian quote? My attempt to find it via google have led to amusing not useful answers. I have found this:

[quote]The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία

Tertullian, “Against Praxeas,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 598–599.

or [quote]

but it doesn't quite say what you implied.

That’s the quote (the first one is more accurate I think just off the top of my head). Tertullian was writing against an early “Modalist” named Praxeas, who some believe may have been Sabellius (I have not checked this out). The point is, if contemporary Oneness Pentecostals are the supposed equivalent of ancient modalism—then according to Tertullian writing in ca. AD 200—they were the “majority of believers.” Trinitarian apologists are not free to lump us in w. ancient Modalism...and then disregard or explain away the fact that they constituted the majority of believers (I have an entire word document rife w. direct quotes from early writers that speak to this end).

Just pointing out the inconsistent approach—not leveling this charge at you (I have always enjoyed your congenial, yet academic approach).

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078140#Comment_1078140

Tertullian (whom, BTW, was an ontological subordinationist—and, comically, would be labeled a “heretic” by contemporary Trinitarians🤫)

I don't believe all Trinitarians would think that.

Regardless of what group we're talking about, it seems to me that there exists a diversity, a range of beliefs. Members of a group don't think exactly the same, or believe exactly the same, or come to the same conclusions.

Might want to allow others to actually speak for themselves prior to attempting to define what we believe—on both sides of the debate.

Church, for me, was the inexpressible joy in the worship of God. I was happy when God was my focus.

The downside was the expectation that I should believe what the denomination believed. It made me wonder, has God's house become man's house?

Perhaps I am overly simplistic or overly idealistic, but it seems that there was a contentment in simply worshipping God, rather than disagreeing over what we should believe about God. Conflicts like that just took the focus off God, and made man more important than God.

We can be vain, or arrogant, or stubborn, or boastful, or proud, or selfish, etc., but God is not like us. He's perfect; upright. God's judgements are not wrong.

I think we all can get caught up with thinking and saying what seems right to us, but isn't necessarily good or acceptable or pleasing in God's sight. If there are two sides of the debate, perhaps they're not Trinitarian vs. Oneness. Perhaps they're God's ways vs. man's ways?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078158#Comment_1078158

and then disregard or explain away the fact that they constituted the majority of believers (I have an entire word document rife w. direct quotes from early writers that speak to this end).

Just pointing out the inconsistent approach—

Ah ... I see we put things in a very different frame of reference - because I define "church" primarily as "those who worship together" (a gross over-simplification), I see Tertullian as saying that the majority of the assembly stumble over the concept of the Trinity despite proclaiming it in the creed (rule of faith). Whereas you appear to be more concerned with the beliefs themselves even though they are contrary to what the church members profess. If that is a reasonably fair description of your perspective, it is easy to guess how far back in our presuppositions we would have to go to correctly understand each other's position. A useful tidbit to stick in memory as you represent a tradition I know little about.

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078163#Comment_1078163

Tertullian (whom, BTW, was an ontological subordinationist—and, comically, would be labeled a “heretic” by contemporary Trinitarians🤫)

I don't believe all Trinitarians would think that.

Regardless of what group we're talking about, it seems to me that there exists a diversity, a range of beliefs. Members of a group don't think exactly the same, or believe exactly the same, or come to the same conclusions.

Might want to allow others to actually speak for themselves prior to attempting to define what we believe—on both sides of the debate.

Church, for me, was the inexpressible joy in the worship of God. I was happy when God was my focus.

The downside was the expectation that I should believe what the denomination believed. It made me wonder, has God's house become man's house?

Perhaps I am overly simplistic or overly idealistic, but it seems that there was a contentment in simply worshipping God, rather than disagreeing over what we should believe about God. Conflicts like that just took the focus off God, and made man more important than God.

We can be vain, or arrogant, or stubborn, or boastful, or proud, or selfish, etc., but God is not like us. He's perfect; upright. God's judgements are not wrong.

I think we all can get caught up with thinking and saying what seems right to us, but isn't necessarily good or acceptable or pleasing in God's sight. If there are two sides of the debate, perhaps they're not Trinitarian vs. Oneness. Perhaps they're God's ways vs. man's ways?

A lot to ponder here and I do completely understand what you’re saying about the simplicity of worshiping God.

I think both sides of the debate would appeal to Scripture in declaring that our worship is only as good as the extent that we embrace the biblical presentation of the object of said worship.

But, I’ve probably already said too much on this thread. BTW, I personally know of several Oneness Pentecostals on this forum—all of whom have written extensive, academic works on Trinitarianism in the public arena (one is currently studying for his PhD.). My point is that there are far more Oneness believers on here than many seem to believe—I’m just to most vocal😜.

I appreciate the tone and thoughts in your post. Ultimately, God will be the Eternal Judge.

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078166#Comment_1078166

and then disregard or explain away the fact that they constituted the majority of believers (I have an entire word document rife w. direct quotes from early writers that speak to this end).

Just pointing out the inconsistent approach—

Ah ... I see we put things in a very different frame of reference - because I define "church" primarily as "those who worship together" (a gross over-simplification), I see Tertullian as saying that the majority of the assembly stumble over the concept of the Trinity despite proclaiming it in the creed (rule of faith). Whereas you appear to be more concerned with the beliefs themselves even though they are contrary to what the church members profess. If that is a reasonably fair description of your perspective, it is easy to guess how far back in our presuppositions we would have to go to correctly understand each other's position. A useful tidbit to stick in memory as you represent a tradition I know little about.

Gotcha’—yeah, we probably would view Tertullian’s quite a bit different from one another. I’m not so sure that there was any codified creeds at the time of Tertullian’s quote—but, then again, I don’t think that’s what you were saying now that I think about it 😊. The codification of Trinitarianism seems to have come ca. AD 325 (Nicea), 381 (Constantinople) & 415/425 (Chalcedon). The vast majority of scholarship I have reviewed asserts that the Trinity doctrine was flowering or being codified in this rough time era (cf. Daniel Wallace, J.N.D. Kelly, etc.).

I see Tertullian as describing the same group he is writing against as constituting the majority of believers during his day, but I will certainly take a look at your viewpoint.

Ok—it’s sooo difficult to post anything substantial on here from my iPad. I have to virtually correct every word from autocorrect 😡.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078169#Comment_1078169

I’m not so sure that there was any codified creeds at the time of Tertullian’s quote

While I would say

There are creeds in the New Testament most notably 1 Cor 15:3-7 ... but I would not push this point
The Rule of Faith to which Tertullian refers is a creed (early 2nd century)
Old Roman Creed is referred to by Tertullian and Irenaeus - based on the Rule of Faith and the baptismal interrogatory declaration of faith [see J.N.D. Kelly pp. 100-130]
There is a creed in the Apology of Aristes (fl. 2nd century) referenced by Eusebius and Jerome
There is an Ethiopian manuscript of the Letter of the Apostles on a creed dated 160-170
There are a number of creeds that are likely of similar age but they are difficult to date based upon the manuscript evidence we have.

May I suggest you search your library to find references to these titles? My library has many that (to my surprise) appear in Bible commentaries. Less surprisingly they appear in Church History and Confessional Documents.

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078174#Comment_1078174

I’m not so sure that there was any codified creeds at the time of Tertullian’s quote

While I would say

There are creeds in the New Testament most notably 1 Cor 15:3-7 ... but I would not push this point

The Rule of Faith to which Tertullian refers is a creed (early 2nd century)

Old Roman Creed is referred to by Tertullian and Irenaeus - based on the Rule of Faith and the baptismal interrogatory declaration of faith [see J.N.D. Kelly pp. 100-130]

There is a creed in the Apology of Aristes (fl. 2nd century) referenced by Eusebius and Jerome

There is an Ethiopian manuscript of the Letter of the Apostles on a creed dated 160-170

There are a number of creeds that are likely of similar age but they are difficult to date based upon the manuscript evidence we have.

May I suggest you search your library to find references to these titles? My library has many that (to my surprise) appear in Bible commentaries. Less surprisingly they appear in Church History and Confessional Documents.

Thanks for these. Will take a look into these👍.

Since you mentioned that you’re not very versed in our beliefs—I attempted to include a couple of documents below from my iPad, but it looks like only one attached. I am NOT attempting to “convert” you 😊...just providing what we believe from us contra from our antagonists.

0675.Bernard, Oneness View of Jesus.pdf

Sean

Really useful reading on the subject:

https://community.logos.com/forums/t/10072.aspx

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078169#Comment_1078169

I see Tertullian as describing the same group he is writing against as constituting the majority of believers during his day, but I will certainly take a look at your viewpoint.

I'm not uncomfortable with the forum guidelines, since Mother Logos threw the juicy bone out, and coated it with yummy sectarian language guaranteed to 'draw fire' (and sell books). And, being a literalist, binity, yes, trinity, meh. Actually, if you tag theological terms in the NT, and approximately date them by source, you'll note a layering of dieties in the discussion.

But just chatting, why would you think a leftover Montanist bishop who largely wrote in the vulgar from western Africa would represent a norm (when the church was largely Alexandria and western Asia)? I'm not arguing the latter, only suggesting the LATER church might have valued him (ergo retaining his thoughts)?

And secondly, exactly what is a 'creed'. Most would likely say 'what we believe', and that would put creeds in Jesus' (and the DSS Righteous Teacher's) time. Well before the writings. Or are creeds, how churchmen manage their respective flocks? Us vs you? That would move them later.

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078167#Comment_1078167

our worship is only as good as the extent that we embrace the biblical presentation of the object of said worship

Does that exclude anyone who is unable to "embrace the biblical presentation of the object of said worship" from pleasing God? Does a person with no education not worship as well as an educated person? What about a person with a disability?

Does it add a condition of what a person needs to do (to worship well)? For whose sake? Does it become God + man's work, not God's alone?

Thank you for helping me to reflect on this topic.

Hamilton Ramos

Hi JohnB:

My best advice to you, is to investigate details yourself, and then come to the best theological construct given the evidence available to you.

I will refer to some important points so you can research:

1 keep in mind the standards:

a. God cannot die (argument by atheists). I do agree with this, so how do we explain Jesus died?

John 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

So the above verse seems to indicate that God made His image have life in Himself so that that image could die for us.

b. Modes of existence not experienced by us as we are not like God:

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

Early Greek theologians realized that it was wrong to refer to God from an anthropocentric view. God is so different to us (Creator), that we really have no idea of what His Existence entails.

The word Hypostasis came to be used to acknowledge the fact that we are too far removed from God's existence. So what we may perceive as a divine Entity (Angel of Yahweh, commander of the Army of the Lord, Angel of the Pact, great Light from Heaven shining around Paul, etc.) we understand is directly related to Yahweh the Father, but even though seems to be a different person, we cannot be 100% sure because of John 10:30.

c. Jesus perfected by death, glorified to be the New Temple of God (seems like God veiled in human flesh to prevent killing us with His presence as Spirit).

Colossians 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

Jesus Christ the New Temple of God where the fullness of Deity dwells bodily.

d. A oneness thrust runs through the Bible that cannot be denied.

Deut 6:4 Basic for Jews, they even declared heretical movements that wanted to suggest there were two powers in Heaven due to the narration of the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man. Since the Son of Man was traveling in the clouds they understood He was divine. Some thought it was personification of Israel, but heavy duty leaders said that God is one, no two powers.

From our more progressively revealed point of view:

Isaiah seemed to have understood the unity:

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born,to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

While the above is controversial to many Jews and Christians, we have other prophets seeing and understanding the unity:

^{Zec 14:9}And Yahweh will be king over all the earth; on that day Yahweh will be one and his name one.

Harris, W. H., III, Ritzema, E., Brannan, R., Mangum, D., Dunham, J., Reimer, J. A., & Wierenga, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Lexham English Bible (Zec 14:9). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

The above verse is problematic because we know Yahweh is not a name. and the only name give above every other name is "Jesus Christ".

Now showing coherence, consistency, and coherence, John sees in Patmos a vision of One Being, and is similar to the Son of Man (Jesus Christ), but not equal Rev 1: 12 - 18.

Jesus died young, the Man John saw in Patmos had White hair (just like the Ancient of Days), also some other of the attributes seem to be the ones unique of Yahweh.

So yes, the Being John saw seems to be a mix of the Ancient of Days, and the Son of Man that Daniel saw.

It all makes it very strange, an to complicate matters more we read:

Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water,and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.

Does the above verse mean that the Father the Creator is a little bit to the left of the Lamb who is said to be in the midst, so that the Son can be to the right? very unlikely.

So yes, the New Temple of God (Jesus Christ), where the fullness of Deity dwells bodily (God shrouded in human flesh (before the fall type), to be able to be with us without killing us.

The above seems like a plausible theological construct given the evidence.

2. So what is my problem with the modern definition of the trinity: the use of the modern term person in it.

Some knowledgeable people that study this, have come to the conclusion that to use the term person when referring to God is wrong, because God is above the person concept.

So my take? I stick to the old definition: "Love relation between Divine substantive realities (Hypostasis)". [rough paraphrase] Because we do not have a clue what actual existence of God mode is like.

Ireneaus said it succinctly: "Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like the arms of God that He uses to bring believers close to His heart". [rough paraphrase] Note that arms are not different persons, but inherent members of One Divine Being.

So how the whole problem got to be? talking to a reformed friend, it seems that Athanasious was the first to use the term Person (which is incorrect, because someone suggested Latin: Personae which means the mask worn by an actor in a play, and Tertullian reluctantly accepted due to the fact that Jesus is the image of the invisible God), when referring to the trinity.

My friend mentioned that even Calvin was not happy of the term person.

So like a poster implicitly suggested: we are not to accept the input of an uninspired person if what they suggest does not jibe with the Bible.

3. The long post is to encourage further research, reflection and constructive comment, not to start polemics nor to violate guidelines.

From the post many concepts can be searched using L8, and check to see if there are resources available about the specific items.

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078216#Comment_1078216

^{Zec 14:9}And Yahweh will be king over all the earth; on that day Yahweh will be one and his name one.

Harris, W. H., III, Ritzema, E., Brannan, R., Mangum, D., Dunham, J., Reimer, J. A., & Wierenga, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Lexham English Bible (Zec 14:9). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

The above verse is problematic because we know Yahweh is not a name.

Did you mean that you don't believe that yud-hey-vav-hey is a name? There are people on the forums who believe it is the name for God.

Let's strive to be respectful of different beliefs that exist among Logos customers.

The long post is to encourage further research, reflection and constructive comment, not to start polemics nor to violate guidelines.

Saying our posts aren't meant to violate guidelines, doesn't mean they don't violate guidelines. I think we've all been guilty of posting controversial things we shouldn't be posting, or replying to posts we shouldn't reply to. [:(]

Into Grace

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078226#Comment_1078226

I'm amazed by how some people take a different view as a violation of guidelines. Tolerance should go both ways. It's okay to respectfully disagree with someone's views.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a controversial subject. People have disagreed and even been put to death over this topic. The Orthodox definition of the Trinity is not in the Bible. This doctrine evolved over time.

Hamilton Ramos

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078226#Comment_1078226

Hi PetahChristian:

Just remember that unlike most in the Forums I am not an expert.

To my little knowledge Yahweh translates something in the way of: I Am that I Am, I will be what I will be, or I manifest the way I want, etc. Some think is more of a descriptor, not a name. I just read about it, not invented such, but to me does make sense, because there is going to be only one Name above all others:

Yahshua HaMashiach for some, Jesus Christ for others. I used to worry about the right pick from the two, then I noticed that Jesus Christ was good for the Apostles, so it became good to me also.

With the little I have checked the above is what seems to be, but if you care to share with us more (links, resources, etc) where we can check why some think Yahweh is a name you could help us learn more.

On the other quote:

The post originator seems to be sincerely concerned with finding out the arguments counter to the "conventional view" of the trinity. I have posted (for that poster) some things that I think may help the person check to find important information. It was specifically writen for that post originator, and with the intention of facilitating finding resources that deal about some of the issues mentioned so that can have a better conceptual framework for evaluating arguments pro and con.

If I was looking for resources, about a topic, if someone suggested what the key variables seem to be in the against, that would facilitate the studying of the validity of such, and would make easy find the cons of such.

I have learned a great deal from posters writing such conceptual framework enlarging pieces, and I am grateful for that. That sometimes are in the border of the envelope of violating guidelines, maybe so, but allowing others to speak their mind many times bring into keen focus what is really the underlying issues.

I believe strong dialogue helps find truth when done with noble intentions and in a check and understand where coming from to elucidate core concepts.

I am respectful of others beliefs, convictions etc. I have never attacked anyone for them, I have also been thankful for the candid sharing of such beliefs, etc. as that allows me to explore different angles and points of view, to then compare with the Scriptures and see if things are so.

As I have mentioned before, I firmly believe in the "check all, retain what is good" advice from the Bible.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078242#Comment_1078242

I'm amazed by how some people take a different view as a violation of guidelines. Tolerance should go both ways. It's okay to respectfully disagree with someone's views.

I'm not as there are always a very small number of people who have the hubris to believe the guidelines do not apply to them because they (and often only they) have the TRUTH and the other 4,199 religions and 51,313** denominations are going to hell because they are WRONG. Fortunately, it has been a few years since we have had anyone that extreme.

But I do believe there is an obvious distinction between someone saying "hey, would you like to learn more about my position - here's a source" and someone spewing a list of Scripture and telling me what the correct interpretation is. I think it is the latter is where we get different views as to what constitutes a violation - human nature is biased so that we tend not to see the violation if the "correct interpretation" confirms our beliefs and see a violation when it does not. It takes work to keep one's judgments as neutral as possible.

It also takes work when passing on tips to someone to do so with respect and neutrality. For example, when I suggested there was evidence of creeds in Tertullian's time, I would have violated the guidelines if I had introduced it with "Of course, there were creeds in Tertullian's time; there have always been Christian creeds as Christian worship came out of Jewish worship. Jewish worship included a creed (The Shema) so the Christians had to have something that filled its role." That would have been pushing my view, my interpretation of the data, through liturgical theology, not a sharing of resources that he might have missed as two of them are rather obscure. Simply providing the information on possible creeds that he may have missed may skirt the line - whether or not I would do so depends upon my judgment of how the person receiving the information will respond. Those who will respond to it as a simple sharing of information will receive it ... and follow up based on their personal interest. Those who will be forming a rebuttal before they've checked the information will not.

** a number certain to be both incorrect and obsolete but drawn from http://www.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33000-protestant-denominations as good a source for an obsolete estimate as any.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078242#Comment_1078242

I'm amazed by how some people take a different view as a violation of guidelines. Tolerance should go both ways. It's okay to respectfully disagree with someone's views.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a controversial subject. People have disagreed and even been put to death over this topic. The Orthodox definition of the Trinity is not in the Bible. This doctrine evolved over time.

All doctrines evolved over time. Some less time than others and some with less controversy than others. Some use terms not found in the bible to explain and categorise them, others terms found only a few times in the scriptures. For the scriptures are not a systematic theology, but rather the Word of God, first to the original audience in their time, place and understanding & understanding of the world, and then preserved for all throughout history. Doctrine is our understanding of scripture shaped by our time, place and understanding & experience of the world; these things season our reason and tradition.

Trinty has been one of the more controversial do as it is so fundamental to our understanding of God.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078167#Comment_1078167

Thanks for the links, SineNomine. I would add that St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa, which Logos sells, would well be consulted directly also, as part of any study of the Trinity.

Best wishes, everyone.

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078191#Comment_1078191

I see Tertullian as describing the same group he is writing against as constituting the majority of believers during his day, but I will certainly take a look at your viewpoint.

I'm not uncomfortable with the forum guidelines, since Mother Logos threw the juicy bone out, and coated it with yummy sectarian language guaranteed to 'draw fire' (and sell books). And, being a literalist, binity, yes, trinity, meh. Actually, if you tag theological terms in the NT, and approximately date them by source, you'll note a layering of dieties in the discussion.

But just chatting, why would you think a leftover Montanist bishop who largely wrote in the vulgar from western Africa would represent a norm (when the church was largely Alexandria and western Asia)? I'm not arguing the latter, only suggesting the LATER church might have valued him (ergo retaining his thoughts)?

And secondly, exactly what is a 'creed'. Most would likely say 'what we believe', and that would put creeds in Jesus' (and the DSS Righteous Teacher's) time. Well before the writings. Or are creeds, how churchmen manage their respective flocks? Us vs you? That would move them later.

Tertullian was describing the beliefs of Praxeas and his disciples—whom, in passing, identified them as “the majority of believers.” Also, as already mentioned, I do have a PDF rife w. numerous quotes from ECF affirming the same thing, Simply, the further back we go in Ecclesiology the more prominent were ancient Oneness believers (although, again, there are definitive doctrinal distinctions...but the same can be said about “early” Trinitarians).

Personally, I could care less about extra-biblical “creeds” & “councils”...or so-called “orthodoxy” 🙄. But, I am a sola scriptura kinda’ feller’ (not merely in lip service)🤓.

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078192#Comment_1078192

our worship is only as good as the extent that we embrace the biblical presentation of the object of said worship

Does that exclude anyone who is unable to "embrace the biblical presentation of the object of said worship" from pleasing God? Does a person with no education not worship as well as an educated person? What about a person with a disability?

Does it add a condition of what a person needs to do (to worship well)? For whose sake? Does it become God + man's work, not God's alone?

Thank you for helping me to reflect on this topic.

Again, I understand what you’re saying and agree w. the premise of the simplicity of worship—and I encourage the same to ANY guests we have at our church. No, I absolutely do NOT think that a strict-systematic-codified belief is necessary to worship God...or, if so, who can break down the finer minutia of the Incarnation? How did infinite become finite? What was the actual mechanics of ontological, eternal divinity (i.e., the sole YHWH of the OT) becoming frail humanity in the historical Messiah? I could on & on, but the point is, if perfect knowledge is demanded...then we’re allll in trouble.

However, to turn the coin over, how far do we take this premise? Without being too specific, are those who reject the divinity of Christ also saved? Or, what about those who don’t even believe He was the Messiah? Saved? I could go on & on, but I think you see the point.

Again, God will be the Eternal Judge, but my job is to study the scriptures, sincerely pray for understanding & application...while ignoring the charges of “heresy,” “legalist,” “Pharisee,” etc. Ultimately, as I preach all of the time at the church here, either God is merciful to me in eternity or I go to Hell...period.

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078242#Comment_1078242

I'm amazed by how some people take a different view as a violation of guidelines. Tolerance should go both ways. It's okay to respectfully disagree with someone's views.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a controversial subject. People have disagreed and even been put to death over this topic. The Orthodox definition of the Trinity is not in the Bible. This doctrine evolved over time.

Very good post👍👏🏼☝️👊🏽.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078318#Comment_1078318

Wow theology being discussed in the forums 🤭 I cannot believe this 😂

Sean

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078322#Comment_1078322

Wow theology being discussed in the forums 🤭 I cannot believe this 😂

Yeah apparently the forum rules apply only some of the time.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078326#Comment_1078326

Wow theology being discussed in the forums 🤭 I cannot believe this 😂

Yeah apparently the forum rules apply only some of the time.

Or only to certain individuals 😂

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078328#Comment_1078328

Agreed. I’ve hit the ”Report Abuse” button a few times but it must not be too much of a problem.

Faithlife was quick to intervene on a couple of threads last week (the Tony Evans one comes to mind) but are just letting this one go.

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078332#Comment_1078332

I will just point out that when (poorly written) links are posted labeling Oneness believers as a supposed “cult” that needs to be “evangelized” w. the “Trinity” (🙄)—and that is tolerated—the fur will fly quickly. We’re no stranger to this debate.

We could sooo quickly and easily return the favor using identical phraseology if we wanted to—but that is not something I personally am interested in doing on here.

Indeed, one reason I frequent this forum is for a relief from such nastiness...and yes, I have ashamedly been guilty at times.

However, I do apologize for breaking any forum rules...we just ask for equal scales inasmuch as we didn’t start the fire.

Shalom😊.

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078158#Comment_1078158

That’s the quote (the first one is more accurate I think just off the top of my head). Tertullian was writing against an early “Modalist” named Praxeas, who some believe may have been Sabellius (I have not checked this out). The point is, if contemporary Oneness Pentecostals are the supposed equivalent of ancient modalism—then according to Tertullian writing in ca. AD 200—they were the “majority of believers.” Trinitarian apologists are not free to lump us in w. ancient Modalism...and then disregard or explain away the fact that they constituted the majority of believers (I have an entire word document rife w. direct quotes from early writers that speak to this end).

I find this discussion interesting. Though I am fully Trinitarian, I have friends who are oneness Pentecostals. I do regard them as brothers and sisters in Christ, and I think they regard me the same.

My questions would be: How do modern oneness Pentecostals differ from ancient Modalists? (I would also note that many Pentecostals are Trinitarian.) What would be the major differences between ancient Modalists and modern Oneness groups?

Also, what difference would it make if the majority of believers once believed in Modalism? Truth is not determined by majority vote, is it? As Athanasius said regarding his opposition to Arianism, when told that the whole world was against him, "Then I am against the world." It may have been that a majority of believers once supported Arianism, but truth wins out in the long run.

MWW

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078332#Comment_1078332

I find this thread some what amusing. I have noticed in almost every social group, religious or non, you will almost always find the:

legalist and the libertine
touchy and the torchy
conformist and non
tattletales and the tight-lips
fanboys and their girlfriends.

Perhaps we all don one or more of these hats, depending on our particular mood that day.

Adam Borries (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1078352#Comment_1078352

Locked for theological discussion.