Daily defense of the divinity of Jesus Christ!

[1689Dave]

Look. the meaning of the Creed is clear and every church, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, almost completely without exception knows what it is.

And you are simply attempting to make belief in the Trinity be about three qualities or functions of God. Every one of those attempts has been denounced as heresy, and the Creed is the most famous written statement to assert it.

Do not pollute the Christians Only forums with your theories. There are other forums that are available to you.

This is not true. God is one Divine Spirit consisting of the Father, who begat the Son eternally, before time, from whom together eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit.

 

[Albion]

This is not true. God is one Divine Spirit consisting of the Father, who begat the Son eternally, before time, from whom together eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit.

Your testimony was that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

That's not a belief in the Trinity as defined in Scripture and by the Christian Councils. But as you also have made amply clear on a number of occasions, you know more than any of them, so it's not surprising that you should now be trying to claim a different version of the nature of our God and, in the process, say that it actually amounts to a belief in the Trinity and the orthodox belief does not.

 

[donadams]

That Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost all rolled into one person, him. That is a denial of the Trinity in favor of unitarianism.

I thought that was modelism?

 

[Albion]

I thought that was modelism?

It is. But that's the name of one particular twist on the subject of the nature and identity of God, and Dave rephrases his idea of God very slightly every time he's challenged. So to say that someone is a unitarian is to use a broader description, still referring to him denying the Trinitarian nature of God in favor of one God without the Trinitarian quality that the Creeds take some pains to identify.

 

[Josiah]

I thought that was modelism?

@donadams


It's GOOD to have some in our community who know and recognize ancient heresies. Because they never go away, they just get re-packaged and regurgitated.

This is an ecumenical website; participants come from a variety of denominations and faith communities. But nearly all of us embrace a common core - often defined by the Creeds and early Councils. We DO have our denominational differences (and those get too much attention, IMO) but we also share much. I'm now Lutheran, but I've carefully studied all 2,865 points of the Catholic Catechism and I'd say I agree with 95% of them. Some I might word a tad differently, but I agree with the point.

There are "fringe" Christians .... sometimes with unorthodox ideas.... and they often find themselves without a church (they'll admit they can't find one that they agree with) and sometimes they are VERY vocal.... moving from website to website, trying hard to sell their idea. And often, historic - orthodox Christians see the error (they may or may not know it's just an ancient, long-ago condemned heresy, but they know it's wrong). BUT, I've found that sometimes Catholics and Protestants will hesitate to agree with each other because we think we disagree on everything (or at least should). Conservative/Traditional Lutherans and Anglicans (and they are both WELL represented here at CH) kind of fall in a unique place: We aren't exactly modern Catholics but we're not "Evangelicals" either. Indeed, given an island where there are only two churches - Catholic or some "Evangelical" church, well... my decision as to where I'd go would be simple and fast, I'd gladly participate with the Catholics.


Blessings on your Advent and Christmas seasons!


- Josiah




.

 

[Lamb]

@1689Dave it does seem as if you deny the Trinity in some of your posts. Is that because your wording isn't exactly what you mean to say? It's a little confusing as to what you truly believe.

 

[Origen]

I thought that was modelism?

It is Modalism aka Sabellianism.

 

[Albion]

This is not true. God is one Divine Spirit consisting of the Father, who begat the Son eternally, before time, from whom together eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit.

What do you understand by the reference to "the Holy Spirit" in your statement?

 

[1689Dave]

What do you understand by the reference to "the Holy Spirit" in your statement?

Are you a heretic if you do not subscribe to the Ecumenical Creeds? Not just the Nicene?

 

[1689Dave]

@1689Dave it does seem as if you deny the Trinity in some of your posts. Is that because your wording isn't exactly what you mean to say? It's a little confusing as to what you truly believe.

Are you a heretic if you do not subscribe to the Ecumenical Creeds? I have lots to share if you agree that you are if you don't subscribe. The Chalcedonian creed makes the Nicene more specific.

 

[1689Dave]

I thought that was modelism?

God is one substance, so he is everywhere and present without division. You chop him up like a candy bar and have one substance in 3 pieces.
The Ecumenical creeds would condemn you for heresy for this.

 

[1689Dave]

@1689Dave it does seem as if you deny the Trinity in some of your posts. Is that because your wording isn't exactly what you mean to say? It's a little confusing as to what you truly believe.

It seems? What if you are ignorant of the many trinitarian creeds that harmonize but share more definitions? Have you considered the Chalcedonian Creed? If you believe you are a heretic if you do not agree with them, then I can share a few greater insights they provide.

 

[Albion]

Are you a heretic if you do not subscribe to the Ecumenical Creeds? Not just the Nicene?

Sure, but it's not a matter of subscribing to the Creed itself. What makes a heretic and heretic is that he holds to a heresy, and this is defined as a departure from any major belief or dogma. That's the case whether or not it is included in the Creed, although some of the best-known ones are referred to in the Nicene and/or Apostles' Creeds.

Obviously, there are many smaller items on which Christians differ and it would be wrong to label anyone a heretic because of that. Whether Jesus had any brothers and/or sisters, for instance.

Also, what is a heresy to one church is not necessarily a heresy to the next one. In the Roman Church, the bodily Assumption of Mary has been declared a must-believe doctrine so rejecting it would be considered a heresy there, but hardly any other churches make that legend a matter of faith.

 

[1689Dave]

Sure, but it's not a matter of subscribing to the Creed itself. That's the standard used on discussion boards, but that's something else. What makes a heretic and heretic is that he holds to a heresy, and it is defined as a departure from any major belief or dogma.

Obviously, there are many smaller items on which Christians differ and it would be wrong to label anyone a heretic because of that. Whether Jesus had any brothers and/or sisters, for instance.

Also, what is a heresy to one church is not necessarily a heresy to the next one, although the standard remains about the same. In the Roman Church, the bodily Assumption of Mary has been declared a must-believe doctrine so rejecting it would be considered a heresy there, but hardly any other churches make that legend a matter of faith.

But you chop the one substance of God up like a candy bar having three Gods of one substance. This is heresy according to the Creeds and scripture.

 

[Albion]

But you chop the one substance of God up like a candy bar having three Gods of one substance. This is heresy according to the Creeds and scripture.

Are you saying that the Trinity amounts to chopping God up into three pieces or, worse, three gods? That is hardly what the doctrine, which is based upon the Bible, teaches.

 

[Albion]

What do you understand by the reference to "the Holy Spirit" in your statement?

Again, what do you mean by your statement: "... from whom together eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit." (?)

What or who IS the Holy Spirit to you?

 

[1689Dave]

Your testimony was that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

That's not a belief in the Trinity as defined in Scripture and by the Christian Councils. But as you also have made amply clear on a number of occasions, you know more than any of them, so it's not surprising that you should now be trying to claim a different version of the nature of our God and, in the process, say that it actually amounts to a belief in the Trinity and the orthodox belief does not.

If God is one substance, then the Trinity is everywhere present, even in Christ the man. But speaking as ONE person through the Word or Son of God who is the same. You cannot have more than one God as you suggest by denying the ONE Essence of God.

 

[Albion]

If God is one substance, then the Trinity is everywhere present, even in Christ. But speaking as ONE person through the Word or Son of God who is the same. You cannot have more than one God as you suggest by denying the ONE Essence of God.

God is present everywhere, so that's not getting us anywhere. And as for speaking as one person...what does that even mean?

So where is the Holy Spirit in all of that?

 

[1689Dave]

So where is the Holy Spirit in all of that?

the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified

 

[Albion]

Yes, but how does that relate to the Father and Son you were talking about before? And how do the three (the Trinity) relate to to each other and compare?