The Trinity

[RZehr]

For anyone not familiar with the Oneness understanding, this was my experience -

I married a Oneness Pentecostal preacher's daughter and coming from a Trinity believing Pentecostal group, we had some big battles when we were dating over this issue. The main scripture they use is from what Peter said in Acts 2:38,39 -

This text they said was also supported by what Jesus told His disciples to do - Matthew 28:19 -

From these two scriptures they developed these interpretations that they believed was Peter's understanding also -

1) Water baptism (immersion) is essential to salvation - 'for the forgiveness of your sins'
2) Baptize in Jesus name (as that is the name being referred to in Matthew 28:19 - Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not names)
3) The gift of the Holy Spirit is evident in you by speaking in an unknown tongue and evidence that you are saved

In my case, they tried hard to convince me that I needed to be re-baptized in Jesus name even though I already had spoken in tongues. I refused and they tried to break up our dating and their daughter left home and we married. But even at the marriage ceremony, as a last minute stand, her father tried to get the trinitarian Pentecostal minister to marry us in Jesus name but he refused and so her father just said it out loud as the minister married us in the trinitarian terminology.

I have witnessed and know some fine Christians in the Oneness Pentecostal churches and don't see where God is turning His back on them for their understandings of who He is. I even enjoy some fellowship with Conservative Anabaptists and their various screwed up understandings of scripture. Just kidding, there are, imo, some fine CAs also.

Did that marriage end in divorce?

Yes. My wife later said that she had used me as an escape from her home situation and her father's beliefs. Are you asking that question to make some kind of point or just curious ?

Just a silly thought had come to me. That is, both the minister and the father insisted on the special incantations of words - yet neither seemed to be instrumental in making the marriage last. I'm curious if they would say that the other party's words interfered with their correct words.

[Valerie]

What is the Chalcedonian view of the Trinity?

The one that you and I have, or at least we should, if we follow your statement of faith and Bible Doctrines and Practice.

Both Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants have the Chalcedonian view. EOs have a very slight tweak vs. Catholics/Protestants that I'm not sure I could fully explain, but it led to a giant church split in 1054.

Church of the East has a different position and Oriental Orthodoxy has yet another position. I'm not sure I could adequately explain the differences, either, but it was enough for serious church splits in the 300s...

The Chalcedonian doctrine of the Hypostatic Union states that Jesus Christ has two natures, divine and human, possessing a complete human nature while remaining one divine hypostasis. It asserts that the natures are unmixed and unconfused, with the human nature of Christ being assumed at the incarnation without any change to the divine nature. It also states that while Jesus Christ has assumed a true human nature, body and soul, which shall remain hypostatically united to his divine nature for all of eternity, he is nevertheless not a human person, as human personhood would imply a second created hypostasis existing within Jesus Christ and violating the unity of the God-man.

I could not endorse this view, because in my understanding, it goes beyond Scripture. "The WORD became flesh." I understand that to mean 'human."
HOWEVER, as you and others have stated, I don't think it is something that we should 'fight about", nor is it something that should result in ostracization of one part of the Body of Christ by another part, or person. But I do think that there are dangers in holding to any doctrine that cannot be clearly shown from Scripture. Perhaps not as a direct result of a particular doctrine, in that same area of thought, but more so in a subtle attitude shift.

What about church's that split over internet use?

[ohio jones]

What about church's that split over internet use?

Even the Oneness Pentecostals are the result of a split.

[gcdonner]

What about church's that split over internet use?

Even the Oneness Pentecostals are the result of a split.

Most churches are...

[Neto]

The one that you and I have, or at least we should, if we follow your statement of faith and Bible Doctrines and Practice.

Both Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants have the Chalcedonian view. EOs have a very slight tweak vs. Catholics/Protestants that I'm not sure I could fully explain, but it led to a giant church split in 1054.

Church of the East has a different position and Oriental Orthodoxy has yet another position. I'm not sure I could adequately explain the differences, either, but it was enough for serious church splits in the 300s...

I could not endorse this view, because in my understanding, it goes beyond Scripture. "The WORD became flesh." I understand that to mean 'human."
HOWEVER, as you and others have stated, I don't think it is something that we should 'fight about", nor is it something that should result in ostracization of one part of the Body of Christ by another part, or person. But I do think that there are dangers in holding to any doctrine that cannot be clearly shown from Scripture. Perhaps not as a direct result of a particular doctrine, in that same area of thought, but more so in a subtle attitude shift.

What about church's that split over internet use?

That is not a doctrine, but rather a choice of practice. However, if you are asking in respect to avoidance in fellowship over such an issue, I would say that there are different levels of fellowship. An individual congregation can make their own choices about how they want to live out their Christian lives, but I was thinking about the fellowship that transcends an individual congregation, denomination, etc. We ought to be able to have mutual respect in spite of such issues, even while we may choose not to belong to the same congregation or group.

In respect to the trinity question itself, I am assuming that there is no denial of the deity of the Father, the Son, or of the Holy Spirit. There is no Biblical basis for any such doctrine, so a position like that moves into heresy. The trinity doctrine MAY be correct, or it may be incorrect. The Scripture does not support it, or directly refute it, because God did not see fit to explain the mystery of His nature. I do think that it is a mistake to make such claims, but I wouldn't call it a clear heresy. I WOULD say, however, that there are results of espousing a doctrine that doesn't have Scriptural support. Any such claim chisels away at one's confidence in truth, and this one creates unnecessary barriers or excuses for unbelievers to reject the Christ of God, and for Christians to disobey His CLEAR commands, all because of a human generated concept claimed as true doctrine.

[Soloist]

In respect to the trinity question itself, I am assuming that there is no denial of the deity of the Father, the Son, or of the Holy Spirit. There is no Biblical basis for any such doctrine, so a position like that moves into heresy.

Can you show me where in scripture the Holy Spirit is called God?
There is no argument that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God and the spirit of Jesus, but is the Holy Spirit actually a God?
Spirit is used many times but I do not see the spirit referred to as God but rather simply the spirit of God or the spirit of Jesus.
Could it be assumed? Sure but the trinity doctrine if I remember correctly wasn’t until 400AD odd. The first meeting was sought to determine the exact nature of God and Jesus. The one in the 400s was over the Holy Spirit.

[Neto]

In respect to the trinity question itself, I am assuming that there is no denial of the deity of the Father, the Son, or of the Holy Spirit. There is no Biblical basis for any such doctrine, so a position like that moves into heresy.

Can you show me where in scripture the Holy Spirit is called God?
There is no argument that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God and the spirit of Jesus, but is the Holy Spirit actually a God?
Spirit is used many times but I do not see the spirit referred to as God but rather simply the spirit of God or the spirit of Jesus.
Could it be assumed? Sure but the trinity doctrine if I remember correctly wasn’t until 400AD odd. The first meeting was sought to determine the exact nature of God and Jesus. The one in the 400s was over the Holy Spirit.

I wouldn't use the article 'a' - "a God". The word "God" is a cumbersome one, because many consider it a name that refers specifically to the Father. That is why I used the word "deity", as a term that describes the qualities of God in a general sense, avoiding any SPECIFIC inferred reference to either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.

But I will need to do some study before I can give specific references.

[MaxPC]

What about church's that split over internet use?

Even the Oneness Pentecostals are the result of a split.

Most churches are...

Precisely.

[Sudsy]

Just a silly thought had come to me. That is, both the minister and the father insisted on the special incantations of words - yet neither seemed to be instrumental in making the marriage last. I'm curious if they would say that the other party's words interfered with their correct words.

I don't know but doubt it. I think they were both more interested in sticking to the words that they believed should be used and used them anyway. In how I think today, I would have asked our Trinitarian minister if he would accommodate the 'in Jesus name' as Trinitarians often pray 'in Jesus' name'. This request was made by her father just minutes before the wedding ceremony so there wasn't any time to debate it. The Matthew 28:19 verse, imo, was more related to water baptism, than a marriage ceremony.

The Oneness Pentecostals like to point out that no record exists in the New Testament of someone being baptised or married with the Trinitarian formula, using literal interpretation and this is more support for not using the Matthew 28:19 words. I couldn't argue with that fact. We are told to pray in Jesus' name - John 14:13-14, “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. So, who do you think is more literally scriptural when it comes to praying over a marriage in a marriage ceremony ?

[JayP]

If I may, I think this discussion continues to simply circle, and I'm not sure there is a resolution. It gets back to my point that what we do, is settle on terms that we THINK we can live with in whatever context we live in (here's what Eastern says in their discipline, here's what the RCC says in it's cathecism, etc.).

Someone made the point, which is quite valid, the REAL question is does (or when) this (versus that) terminology and/or understanding of the Trinity impacts the rest of your Christian life. Specifically, does this understanding of the Trinity change how I should or should not covet my neighbor's house?

Now, some folks were talking about the "nature" of God and the Son, and even the concepts of Jesus. I mean, let's be real here. We might be okay with the term that Jesus was man and God (many are taught that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, and I get their point). I think all of us here agree with that as a GENERAL statement. But we really can't explain it. We USE words, the limited language that we have, and we are RIGHT to do so, but we need to KNOW there's a failing to get to 100% understanding of that. The humility of our place (with each other, with FULLY understanding God) is probably a helpful thing.

I'll give you another example of our settling for jargon. We say things like (let's accept generality here for discussion purposes) things like "When God forgives He forgets". I think we all understand the point. That God forgives in a way that is full, He is not secretly still not fully forgiving the way we humans forgive sometimes. But we know that God did not literally have that knowledge wiped from His memory.

And at the risk of sidetracking, the description by someone of early councils like Nicaea being "the powerful setting down the rules" is quite unfair. The church as a whole had issues and differences. THem getting together to figure it out, and give stability to some teachings is NO different than the biblical gathering at Jerusalem or the various Anabaptist confessions of faith, or EPMC's bishops figuring out the rules for internet usage.

What's ironic to this discussion is while many topics were addressed at Nicaea, THE biggest was the Arian arguments which strike right at same heart of these discussions about the Trinity. And if folks have ten years to spare they should go read about monoprocessionism versus filioquism. As someone raised sort of contemporaneously in both Orthodox and RCC settings it's a buster.

I have no clue what the proper technical term is for the movement (which I think many of you would be in sympathy with) that the Holy Spirit specifically guides in interpretive authority when we study the bible. I would not. "activating" this new special power of the Holy Spirit pretty much didn't come along until Luther and Calvin (shudder when I type their names...LOL).