Prove to me Trinity is real.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just to inform everyone, if a self-confessing “Christian” denies the doctrine of the Trinity, then he is no longer considered to be a Christian in the eyes of the Catholic Church. That is why Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, and maybe some obscure others like Benny Hinn are not considered to be Christians.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Just to inform everyone, if a self-confessing “Christian” denies the doctrine of the Trinity, then he is no longer considered to be a Christian in the eyes of the Catholic Church. That is why Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, and maybe some obscure others like Benny Hinn are not considered to be Christians.
Click to expand...
Here is a thought: If you live your life with no faith in the Trinity, and it IS real, then you lose paradise. If you live your life believing in the Trinity, and it is NOT real, you have lost nothing.
 
40.png
mesher:
the church mentioned in the bible is labeled “church of god” sometimes “church of god in christ jesus.” the early christians pray only to God through His son Jesus Christ and no other.
Click to expand...
Oh, get over yourself… All Christians know that all prayers go through Jesus. I’m only saying this for your own knowledge, as nobody else here is in danger of becoming deceived by taking you seriously.

By your own standards, I guess, all Baptists, “Non-Denominational” churches, and Evangelicals are not real Christians, then? Those terms are nowhere to be found word-for-word in the Bible after all.
 
40.png
SDAgirl:
Here is a thought: If you live your life with no faith in the Trinity, and it IS real, then you lose paradise. If you live your life believing in the Trinity, and it is NOT real, you have lost nothing.
Click to expand...
You sound like Pascal.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
You sound like Pascal.
Click to expand...
This kind of thing would only apply to atheism, IMO, since theirs is a question of existing afterlife versus complete annihilation. As for the question of whose version of God was correct, well that could get complicated… anyone could use this argument. (ex: “If Allah DOES exist…”)
 
40.png
mesher:
which church? the church mentioned in the bible or the roman catholic church?
Click to expand...
Peace.

First, we prefer Catholic Church because “Roman” was assigned by the Reformers. If you wish to say “Roman” then replace that with “Latin Rite.”

Also, the Catholic Church is the original church (1 Tim. 3:15). The Church is not “invisible” as that was an idea perpetuated by the Reformers to “distance” themselves from Catholicism. Christ said that a city set on a hill cannot be hidden and this references the Catholic Church (Matt. 5:14).

I suspect you have read these before:

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

And remember what Reformer Martin Luther said: “We concede—as we must—that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received holy scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”

Peace.
 
40.png
sandusky:
You are not denying it.

Joshua, I am not out to “bust your chops,” but to steer you to the truth concerning this doctrine; as I have stated, what you are presenting was declared heretical in the fourth century. My only concern is that you come to a knowledge of the truth.

That said, let me steer you to B.B. Warfield’s, The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity.

Here is Warfield’s opening paragraph:

The term “Trinity” is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such unBiblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or, to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assembled the disjecta membra into their organic unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine.

Warfield deals with what can be gleaned from the O.T., and the further revelation of the N.T. You can read the complete article online here, and they have a printer friendly version if you care to print it out and work through it, Bible in hand.

I disagree with the interpretation you have given of John 3:13, for more in formation on that, read what A.T. Robertson, a renowned Greek scholar, says about that verse here.

Using the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, a wooden, literal translation of that verse would read: and no one has gone up into the heaven except the out of the heaven one having gone down, the son of man. There is no wording that says, “the Son of Man IS in heaven.”

I hope you read what I linked, and pray about.
Click to expand...
sandusky,

If a modalist is one who believes there is only one God, the Father who manifest in flesh, then I cannot deny that.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Maybe someone has already mentioned this, but it sounds like Joshua is a Oneness Pentecostal.
Click to expand...
JSmitty2005,

Whatever a Oneness Pentecostal is. I have already said that I’m not associated with any man made denomination or sect.
 
How can you claim to love God when He isn’t clearly identifyable to you? We love someone as we get to know the person. I’ve heard this comment many times. Confusion by those who believe in the trinity is caused because there is no real clear recognition of God. How many times have I heard the question, Who am I supposed to pray to? That isn’t a problem when you understand God as truly one.
 
1John 3:1-5 “Behold, what manner of love **the Father ** hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.”

I see Father in verse 1. No mention of another “person” being manifest to take away our sins because there is only one God, the Father who manifest in the flesh.

2Cor. 11:3 “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from **the simplicity ** that is in Christ.”
 
40.png
JoshuaJ:
sandusky,

If a modalist is one who believes there is only one God, the Father who manifest in flesh, then I cannot deny that.
Click to expand...
:hmmm: :ehh:

Oh Well (sigh) :tiphat:
 
There is a trinity in every person, which is the soul, body and spirit, and yet we are one person. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is the Soul, Body and Spirit of Jesus Christ, but still one Person. Our trinity is human. The Lord’s Trinity is Divine. In him dwell the fullness of the God-Head, by Paul.

The Christian doctrine of immortality cannot be understood apart from the right conception of the tripartite nature of men. Many think that man is a physical being only. There is a great danger of any man thinking thus of himself. In his desire to satisfy the needs of the body there is the tendency on man’s part to lose sight of the fact that he is immortal. There have been persons who have lived all of their lives either in ignorance or willful neglect of a life after death, but upon their death-bed they suddenly realized that they were more than physical beings.

There is an idea also that prevails largely today that man consists of only two component parts: namely, body and spirit. In the thinking of the writer this view appears to be one that might create confusion in the minds of any Christians. While soul and spirit are so closely related that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish accurately between them, there seems to be only one logical conclusion: namely, that “soul” and “spirit” are not the same. The Bible does make a distinction.

Man is a triune being because he is created in the image of God. “God said, Let us make man in Our image” (Genesis 1:26). We know that God is a Trinity. The Holy Trinity is clearly set forth in the Apostle Paul’s benediction that closed his Second Corinthian Epistle: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen” (2 Corinthians 13:14). Our Lord Himself said, in what we call “The Great Commission”: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19). Created in the image of God, man is likewise a trinity. He has a spiritual nature that is separate and distinct from the body in which it dwells.

The two following passages from the Bible clearly establish the fact that man is a triune being composed of spirit, soul, and body:

I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thessalonians 5:23).

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow (body), and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12).

In spite of the erroneous teaching of “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and of other false sects that “no man has a soul,” the Bible states emphatically that man was created a trinity of spirit, soul, and body even as the eternal God is Himself a trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

William:)
 
If I were in your shoes (sounds like you’re rebutting an argument), I’d say “Prove to me that is isn’t.”
 
sandusky said:
When writing a letter, is not the pen both useful, and sufficient?
Click to expand...
Hi Sandusky,

What if I wrote the letter in a different language? Would this be sufficient to deliver the message of the letter if nobody spoke this other language?

No. We would need a translator to interpret the letter to make sure the intention of the letter is translated correctly. We just couldn’t translate a letter in a another language to our own liking or our feelings at the time. The letter is only “useful” if you have the proper translation.

God bless,
Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top