Unitarianism vs Trinitarianism

[Matthias]

“Permanent still, therefore, stood faith in the Creator and in His Christ; manner of life and discipline alone fluctuated. Some disputed about eating idol sacrifices, others about the veiled dress of women, others again about marriage and divorce, and some even about the hope of resurrection; but about God no one disputed. Now, if this question also had entered into dispute, surely it would be found in the apostle, and that too as a great and vital point. No doubt, after the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation.”

(Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 1, Chapter 21)

Bold is mine.

When did the disputes about God occur? During the transition period from the unitarianism of Israel, the Messiah, the apostles, the earliest Christians to the trinitarianism of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Chalcedon (451).

Unitarianism isn’t the newcomer, the interloper, the theology vying to be representative of the one God of Israel; trinitarianism is.

 

[Wrangler]

When did the disputes about God occur? During the transition period from the unitarianism of Israel, the Messiah, the apostles, the earliest Christians to the trinitarianism of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Chalcedon (451).

Unitarianism isn’t the newcomer, the interloper, the theology vying to be representative of the one God of Israel; trinitarianism is.

Brilliant!

It is so apparent when one studies it. The fact that the trinity is not in the Bible - not the world, not the concept - is the dead give away. It really is amazing that anyone who actually reads the Bible walks away believing trinitarianism. It shows the power of indoctrination.

I often ask what, besides the trinity, is a bigger violator of the 1C in human history?

 

[Matthias]

“As it was the imperial power which had bestowed victory first upon the Nicene Faith and then upon Arianism, so now it was also the imperial influence which was to act decisively in favor of the Neo-Nicene faith. In 380 Emperor Theodosius issued an edict establishing the new orthodoxy. In 381 he convened the second ecumenical council at Constantinople at which the Nicene Creed was confirmed and adopted, and Arianism suppressed. …The doctrine of the Trinity was practically completed by the Council of Constantinople (381).”

(J.L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, pp. 120,121)

The new (and improved) orthodoxy. (Enforced by the Roman Emperor.) Better than the old orthodoxy. (Enforced by the Roman Emperor.)

*Tertullian shh *

 

[Matthias]

The history of the post-biblical development / formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity should be known by all trinitarians, and taught to all perspective trinitarians; but it seldom is. Why is that?

 

[Matthias]

The history of the post-biblical development / formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity should be known by all trinitarians, and taught to all perspective trinitarians; but it seldom is. Why is that?

I’ve learned through conversations with trinitarian pastors that there are several reasons - all of them bad - why the history of the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t being taught.

 

[RLT63]

I’ve learned through conversations with trinitarian pastors that there are several reasons - all of them bad - why the history of the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t being taught.

Trinity > History of Trinitarian Doctrines (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Matthias]

Trinity > History of Trinitarian Doctrines (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Thanks. I’m hopeful that trinitarians will read it but I’m doubtful that many will. Have you read it?

 

[Matthias]

Trinity > History of Trinitarian Doctrines (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

“No theologian in the first three Christian centuries was a trinitarian in the sense of believing that the one God is tri-personal, containing equally divine ‘persons,’ Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

 

[Wrangler]

I’ve learned through conversations with trinitarian pastors that there are several reasons - all of them bad - why the history of the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t being taught.

The basic reason it is not taught is that it reinforces a fact trinitarians want to deny; that it was not the theology of the Apostles.

It evolved violently over centuries as the Roman Empire of the West spread into Pagan mystics.

To say there is one God in 3 persons is to pervert the meaning of one God.

Some here assert that all humans become God via the perversion of the Oneness Doctrine. That equates monotheism with pantheism. It equates unequal things.

 

[GEN2REV]

This article discusses Unitarianism and Trinitarianism. This subject seems to be the main point of debate and discussion on this forum. Is Jesus God? Or merely "a god"? (Unitarian vs Trinitarian) - Berean Patriot
Home
Faith Articles
Is Jesus God? Or merely “a god”? (Unitarian vs Trinitarian)
Is Jesus God? Or merely “a god”? (Unitarian vs Trinitarian)
Berean Patriot February 22, 2018 Faith Articles 5 Comments
Is Jesus God? Or is he merely “a god”? Yeah, that’s a big topic but we’re going to take a stab at it today. And by today, I mean the last few weeks/months while I was researching it.

The most commonly encountered group that believes Jesus isn’t God (capital “G”) are the Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, the belief is technically known as “Unitarianism” and it’s been around since before Jesus died (the Jews). By contrast, the Trinity doctrine teaches that there is One God, who exists in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (And don’t worry, I’ve got a great analogy later that’ll help it make perfect sense.)

This article is long, but you can use it as a reference instead of reading it straight through. Toward that end, I have organized it like a reference book. The table of contents below is clickable and will take you to the associated parts of the article.

These are the two most modern, and trendy, categories of God's nature, but there is at least a third (which is the Biblically accurate one).

That is that Jesus Christ is God Almighty and He is one person.

No trinity.

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus Christ is God Almighty and He is one person.

If Jesus is God, who raised Jesus from the dead?

 

[GEN2REV]

Trinity > History of Trinitarian Doctrines (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What is your position, RLT?

I haven't ever noticed a post where you take a stand, one way or the other.

Surely by this point in your seeking, and studying Scripture, you have made a decision in your mind (heart) what you believe.

I am very staunch in my beliefs and positions, but that's just me.

No judgment.

 

[GEN2REV]

If Jesus is God, who raised Jesus from the dead?

God.

 

[Wrangler]

God.

Peculiar answer to a 1 God believing person. Jesus died. And since he was God it means, necessarily, that God died. So, your answer to the question of who raised Jesus from the dead is his dead self. Nice!

That sounds logical.

 

[RLT63]

These are the two most modern, and trendy, categories of God's nature, but there is at least a third (which is the Biblically accurate one).

That is that Jesus Christ is God Almighty and He is one person.

No trinity.

I respect your view.

 

[GEN2REV]

Peculiar answer to a 1 God believing person. Jesus died. And since he was God it means, necessarily, that God died. So, your answer to the question of who raised Jesus from the dead is his dead self. Nice!

That sounds logical.

Whole buncha nonsense.

None of which was stated, or implied, by me.

Apparently God raised God from the dead, in a very real sense.

That's what the text, in its entirety, bears out.

Yep.

The Bible makes clear that there is no greater sacrifice, NO greater, than for a man to give his own life for those he loves. That is exactly what God Almighty did in the flesh as Jesus Christ.

Any trinitarian, or other, teaching that changes that scenario ROBS God of the honor, glory and reverence He most rightfully deserves for His suffering and sacrifice in the flesh.

And He will not forgive those who choose to believe otherwise because they steal away the recognition for what God has done for all the world. That is unforgivable.

If you do not believe that Jesus is God Almighty, you absolutely will die in your sins and be unforgiven.
John 8:24

 

[RLT63]

What is your position, RLT?

I haven't ever noticed a post where you take a stand, one way or the other.

Surely by this point in your seeking, and studying Scripture, you have made a decision in your mind (heart) what you believe.

I am very staunch in my beliefs and positions, but that's just me.

No judgment.

I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. He died for my sins and rose from the grave on the 3rd day. Was seen by many witnesses and ascended to the Father. I believe in the deity of Christ also John 1. I believe the Godhead is a mystery and no one can fully grasp or explain it.

 

[GEN2REV]

I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. He died for my sins and rose from the grave on the 3rd day. Was seen by many witnesses and ascended to the Father. I believe in the deity of Christ also John 1. I believe the Godhead is a mystery and no one can fully grasp or explain it.

Fair enough.

You're not alone. ;)

 

[Wrangler]

Apparently God raised God from the dead, in a very real sense.

Our conversation is over.

 

[Wrangler]

If you do not believe that Jesus is God Almighty, you absolutely will die in your sins and be unforgiven.
John 8:24

That verse does not claim Jesus is God. That you have to resort to changing God's word to support your doctrine is the dead giveaway that it is false.

Make a Blessed Day.