Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Must One Believe the Doctrine of the Trinity in Order to be Saved?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Because Paul, for example, doesn't use imagery and symbolism
    And where have I denied that he does? My point was simply that the types of literature that the gospels and the epistles are generally meant to be read in a more literal fashion than the prophetic literature of the OT, not that they are completely void of imagery and symbolism.

    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    To make your stance, you need to rule it out at many points.
    Right. Do you have any actual examples that we can discuss?

    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    All right. We aren't going to get anywhere if we don't agree on this, so I'll assume with this for the sake of argument, and hopefully we can proceed.
    Sounds good. I'll be going to work soon however, so my reply will have to wait.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      Right. Do you have any actual examples that we can discuss?
      Let's start with the Ephesians example that you brought up. Would you consider it an allusion or quotation of Isaiah?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
        apostoli:

        Is 37818 maintaining that the Son and Holy Spirit are autotheos (i.e., self-existent) along with the Father?
        Originally posted by apostoli View Post
        From what I gather, definitely!

        Calvin tried that on at some stage but was resoundingly refuted. Albeit, Calvin attempted to do a Basil and redefine the term as personal possession rather than "God of himself" which is the most direct translation. Given the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds, both having their theotēs (state of being God) sourced and caused by the Father, they are obviously not autotheos (God of themselves). However, that their theotēs is a self possession would seem evident.
        This link may be of special interest to you (I hope you enjoy):

        "Autotheos: Arminius on the Son's Divinity"
        http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...Son-s-Divinity
        Last edited by The Remonstrant; 03-27-2014, 02:00 PM.
        For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

        Comment


        • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
          So, I take it in your hostle argument, that you in fact advocate the Sabellian viewpoint . . .
          You evidently cannot read. You do not hear. You do not listen. Sabellian denies the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three Persons. I do not deny the trinity, that the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are three Persons.
          I affirm that there is only one God, the Father. I affirm that the three Persons, the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the one and the same God. I reject modalism, I reject Arianism, I reject tri-theism. It is you who is being hostle here (Romans 2:1).
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
            apostoli:

            Is 37818 maintaining that the Son and Holy Spirit are autotheos (i.e., self-existent) along with the Father?
            You can state it that way. The Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the One Yahweh - Self-Existent.
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              You can state it that way. The Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the One Yahweh - Self-Existent.
              Okay; thank you for answering my concern. The one thing I can say is that your opinion is definitely not in accord with the early church's position.
              For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                Okay; thank you for answering my concern. The one thing I can say is that your opinion is definitely not in accord with the early church's position.
                Well, how would you characterize the differences? Pick what you would see as a key point of difference. Thanks.

                An added note; The temporal relationship, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is subordination, Son of God, of God, from the Father. But this temporal relationship has no beginning. So as God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal.

                "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: . . ." God does not have parts. Yet, the three Persons are that one God. And all appearances of God were none other than the Son of God (John 1:18; Isaiah 6:5; John 12:41 for example).

                The heresies, tritheism, modalism, and Arianism are all do to some denial of the truth. tritheism denies that there is only one God. Modalism denies that the three are separate Persons who are the one God. Arianism denies that the Logos is the uncreated Creator. I deny none of those things. apostol, it seems wants to pin all those denials on my view. apostol, it seem wants to accuse.
                Last edited by 37818; 03-27-2014, 09:42 PM.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
                  This link may be of special interest to you (I hope you enjoy):

                  "Autotheos: Arminius on the Son's Divinity"
                  http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...Son-s-Divinity
                  Thankyou for the link. It appears Arminius most eloquently expounded what I have been attempting to communicate. I recommend 37818 or anyone that might share his stupidities read it!

                  My studies barely reach the 6th century and so I must admit my studies of "modern" theologians has been limited, and so, Arminius has until now, not been on my radar...but given time, that may change...would you supply me with some recommended readings?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    You evidently cannot read. You do not hear. You do not listen. Sabellian denies the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three Persons.
                    Sabellius insisted that the Father, Son and Spirit were three persons (prosopon=actors mask)! So it is obvious you cannot read what I plainly wrote!

                    Simply put, drawing on your ramblings and loose language you do present an alternative. However, if you have three individuals who are self existent and self contained then you have three Gods. The best you can argue with your aberant views is that these three independent Gods made a compact and formulated a corporate entity that you identify as the One God. Could be! But you would be denying the existence of a personal God (ie: the Father) which is the very basis of Christian thought ie: God the Father sent his only begotten Son for our salvation. God the Father raised Jesus from the dead etc etc


                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    I do not deny the trinity, that the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are three Persons.
                    I affirm that there is only one God, the Father.
                    So you have changed your tune. It is not what you said in your previous posts. Actually the opposite!!!

                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    I affirm that the three Persons, the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the one and the same God. I reject modalism, I reject Arianism, I reject tri-theism. It is you who is being hostile here (Romans 2:1).
                    I have have no hostility towards you, I simply consider you a victim of self deception, and have made the effort to point out the defects in your proposals (which apparently you ignored). I make particular note that you have never once addressed any of the theological issues effecting your fantasies, but instead just prattle on with irrelevancies about what you do or do not believe. I have no care for your personal opinion, especially when you directly state your rejection of the direct and unambiguous testimony of scripture...
                    Last edited by apostoli; 03-28-2014, 03:40 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      You can state it that way. The Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the One Yahweh - Self-Existent.
                      Given the tetragrammaton (YHWH) does not translate to "self existing" you have again evidenced ignorance...

                      To quote the famous medieval Jewish scholar, Moses Maimonides, in his Guide for the perplexed (preserved by the Christian church) discussing the tetragrammaton ...

                      "For all men, with few exceptions, were ignorant of the existence of God; their highest thoughts did not extend beyond the heavenly sphere, its forms or its influences. They could not yet emancipate themselves from sensation, and had not yet attained to any intellectual perfection. Then God taught Moses how to teach them, and how to establish amongst them the belief in the existence of Himself, namely, by saying Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, a name derived from the verb hayah in the sense of "existing," for the verb hayah denotes "to be," and in Hebrew no difference is made between the verbs "to be" and "to exist." The principal point in this phrase is that the same word which denotes "existence," is repeated as an attribute. The word asher, "that," corresponds to the Arabic illadi and illati, and is an incomplete noun that must be completed by another noun; it may be considered as the subject of the predicate which follows. The first noun which is to be described is ehyeh; the second, by which the first is described, is likewise ehyeh, the identical word, as if to show that the object which is to be described and the attribute by which it is described are in this case necessarily identical. This is, therefore, the expression of the idea that God exists, but not in the ordinary sense of the term; or, in other words, He is "the existing Being which is the existing Being," that is to say, the Being whose existence is absolute. The proof which he was to give consisted in demonstrating that there is a Being of absolute existence, that has never been and never will be without existence..."
                      http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp073.htm

                      Of course, Maimonides is referring to the use of the tetragrammaton at Ex 3:14, but note vs 15 "And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." So it is obvious that the idea "self existing one" is erroneous given the message to the Israelites concerns the "ever existing one" - he that was the God of their fathers...
                      Last edited by apostoli; 03-28-2014, 04:00 AM.

                      Comment


                      • ps to 37818...

                        You really should read your own posts to see how ridiculous and self contradictory they are. Take your latest post to me (#139) where you state "I affirm that there is only one God, the Father. I affirm that the three Persons, the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the one and the same God. " Now what you have inadvertently confessed is you believe the Father, Son and Spirit are in fact just manifestations of the Father, whom you affirmed as "there is only one God, the Father". What you propose is pure Sabellianism, no ifs or buts...
                        Last edited by apostoli; 03-28-2014, 01:24 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                          ps to 37818...

                          You really should read your own posts to see how ridiculous and self contradictory they are. Take your latest post to me (#139) where you state "I affirm that there is only one God, the Father. I affirm that the three Persons, the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the one and the same God. " Now what you have inadvertently confessed is you believe the Father, Son and Spirit are in fact just manifestations of the Father, whom you affirmed as "there is only one God, the Father". What you propose is pure Sabellianism, no ifs or buts...
                          This appears to me what 37818 is driving at without even realizing it.
                          For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                            ps to 37818...

                            You really should read your own posts to see how ridiculous and self contradictory they are. Take your latest post to me (#139) where you state "I affirm that there is only one God, the Father. I affirm that the three Persons, the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are the one and the same God. " Now what you have inadvertently confessed is you believe the Father, Son and Spirit are in fact just manifestations of the Father, whom you affirmed as "there is only one God, the Father". What you propose is pure Sabellianism, no ifs or buts...
                            Well I believe it is fair to say you do not understand my view. Did Sabellian hold the view that the Son was not the Father and the Father was not the Son? They are not the same Persons (John 8:16-18).

                            Please read this about Van Til, he to is a Trinitarian accused of Sabelianism, http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2...-and-the-many/

                            I am not a follower of Van Til. Thought I find some similarities in beliefs. You see I am not a Calvinist, though some of my beliefs are similar.
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                              Given the tetragrammaton (YHWH) does not translate to "self existing" you have again evidenced ignorance...

                              To quote the famous medieval Jewish scholar, Moses Maimonides, in his Guide for the perplexed (preserved by the Christian church) discussing the tetragrammaton ...

                              "For all men, with few exceptions, were ignorant of the existence of God; their highest thoughts did not extend beyond the heavenly sphere, its forms or its influences. They could not yet emancipate themselves from sensation, and had not yet attained to any intellectual perfection. Then God taught Moses how to teach them, and how to establish amongst them the belief in the existence of Himself, namely, by saying Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, a name derived from the verb hayah in the sense of "existing," for the verb hayah denotes "to be," and in Hebrew no difference is made between the verbs "to be" and "to exist." The principal point in this phrase is that the same word which denotes "existence," is repeated as an attribute. The word asher, "that," corresponds to the Arabic illadi and illati, and is an incomplete noun that must be completed by another noun; it may be considered as the subject of the predicate which follows. The first noun which is to be described is ehyeh; the second, by which the first is described, is likewise ehyeh, the identical word, as if to show that the object which is to be described and the attribute by which it is described are in this case necessarily identical. This is, therefore, the expression of the idea that God exists, but not in the ordinary sense of the term; or, in other words, He is "the existing Being which is the existing Being," that is to say, the Being whose existence is absolute. The proof which he was to give consisted in demonstrating that there is a Being of absolute existence, that has never been and never will be without existence..."
                              http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp073.htm

                              Of course, Maimonides is referring to the use of the tetragrammaton at Ex 3:14, but note vs 15 "And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." So it is obvious that the idea "self existing one" is erroneous given the message to the Israelites concerns the "ever existing one" - he that was the God of their fathers...
                              "Ever existing one" is indeed correct. And God's Name is also translated "Who is," "He is" and "The Eternal." See Strong's Hebrew dictionary number 3068 for "Self Existent."
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                "Ever existing one" is indeed correct. And God's Name is also translated "Who is," "He is" and "The Eternal." See Strong's Hebrew dictionary number 3068 for "Self Existent."
                                Pointedly at no time does Strong's Hebrew dictionary number 3068 provide the definition "Self Existent". It does mention "self-contained".

                                At the foot of the online version are cross links to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. One of these has "Jehovah, the Lord...From hayah; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God -- Jehovah, the Lord. Compare Yahh, Yhovih." This link wording concerning the idea "self-existant" has no correlation to any of Strong's definitions. If fact: clink on the link and you are thrown to No. 1961 which discusses "hayah". Again there is no reference to "self-existence".

                                http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3068.htm
                                http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1961.htm

                                Also see the BlueLetterBible's cite of Strong's Lexicon and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. Again there is no mention that the word and/or phrase has any connotation of self-existing.
                                http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=H1961&t=KJV

                                I came across an article that you might find educational. Whilst discussing the translation of Ex 3:14 in the Septuagint, and Aquila, Theodotion & Jerome's respective translations the author remarks...

                                "the debate over the interpretation of Exodus 3:14 came to a focus on just one question. Does the word ehyeh as it occurs in this verse refer to God in the sense of His absolute and eternal existence [the Septuagint & Jerome], or does it refer to Him in relation to His actions in space and time and so to temporal existence [Aquila & Theodotion] ? In one guise or another, this is the question that has dominated interpretations of the verse down to the present day."
                                http://www.exodus-314.com/part-i/exo...nslations.html

                                Enjoy!!!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                120 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                72 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X