Western Trinitarians, do not follow the early church teaching.

[Hepzibah]

Here we have Dr Beau Branson, Eastern Orthodox, who explains that the early church taught that the western understanding only developed after Augustine of Hippo brought into the church new doctrines such as the Egalitarian Trinity as opposed to the Monarchial Trinitarianism of such as Gregory of Nyssa.

The basis of it is that the Father is the Monarchy, God the Creator and it is through Him that the Son, His Word, and the Holy Spirit are brought forth and are divine and not creatures.

There is also a series on YouTube on the Monarchy, where he goes into it in more depth, which I have watched the first two episodes. You must find each following below as it will not automatically more on.

I believe that this issue is urgent for today, and will, in my estimation be the downfall of Christianity, as believers today have scant Biblical understanding as taught in the early church, and especially when the Faith is coming under attack by Unitarians who rightly pick out the illogicalities of the western version.

I believe it will lead to the one world religion we all have heard of but not yet, how it will happen.

 

[GodsGrace]

Here we have Dr Beau Branson, Eastern Orthodox, who explains that the early church taught that the western understanding only developed after Augustine of Hippo brought into the church new doctrines such as the Egalitarian Trinity as opposed to the Monarchial Trinitarianism of such as Gregory of Nyssa.

The basis of it is that the Father is the Monarchy, God the Creator and it is through Him that the Son, His Word, and the Holy Spirit are brought forth and are divine and not creatures.

There is also a series on YouTube on the Monarchy, where he goes into it in more depth, which I have watched the first two episodes. You must find each following below as it will not automatically more on.

I believe that this issue is urgent for today, and will, in my estimation be the downfall of Christianity, as believers today have scant Biblical understanding as taught in the early church, and especially when the Faith is coming under attack by Unitarians who rightly pick out the illogicalities of the western version.

I believe it will lead to the one world religion we all have heard of but not yet, how it will happen.

I wish I knew better what it is you're speaking of.
Posting a Youtube video may not work since many will not even watch it - I'm one. Sorry.

If you think it's such an important issue...how about explaining it?

 

[amigo de christo]

Here we have Dr Beau Branson, Eastern Orthodox, who explains that the early church taught that the western understanding only developed after Augustine of Hippo brought into the church new doctrines such as the Egalitarian Trinity as opposed to the Monarchial Trinitarianism of such as Gregory of Nyssa.

The basis of it is that the Father is the Monarchy, God the Creator and it is through Him that the Son, His Word, and the Holy Spirit are brought forth and are divine and not creatures.

There is also a series on YouTube on the Monarchy, where he goes into it in more depth, which I have watched the first two episodes. You must find each following below as it will not automatically more on.

I believe that this issue is urgent for today, and will, in my estimation be the downfall of Christianity, as believers today have scant Biblical understanding as taught in the early church, and especially when the Faith is coming under attack by Unitarians who rightly pick out the illogicalities of the western version.

I believe it will lead to the one world religion we all have heard of but not yet, how it will happen.

Oh the world one religoin has arisen and shall lead all to what it calleth love and it calleth and cliams is OF GOD .
That is how they are now transforming them to be as one.
To merge the religoins they have been replacing and removing KEY DOCTRINE
and doing so by trying to make it seem as of no dire importance
but rather this lovey do is what matters . YET UPON simple examination of its version of love
and what it calls loving , MAN o MAN one can easily see the acceptance of sin has risen
a very broad path to GOD has arisen . THEY ALL FOCUS more and more on FINDING common ground
this version of what they cliam is and fullfills the two great commandments
to LOVE GOD to love one another . ONLY AGAIN upon examination of their so called love
ONE can easily see it has NO LOVE FOR GOD at all , as it denies THE DIRE NEED TO BELIEVE JESUS IS THE CHRIST
If a man loves not CHRIST HE DOES NOT LOVE GOD WHO SENT HIM .
IF a man claims to LOVE CHRIST but omits THE BELEIVE YE ON HIM PART and love one another
but rather just omits that BELIEVE YE IN HIM part , WELL HE who keeps not MY COMMANDMENTS , DOES NOT LOVE ME .
This is a serious and deadly error that has come within christendom .
The false religoins were already under the LIE , for they beleived NOT JESUS IS THE CHRIST
but this lie has now infiltrated even christendom , and has done so under the guise of what it calleth love
and claims to be OF GOD . Only the devil would have done this .
And this version of love sure seems to honor certain sins and EVEN UNBELIEF ITSELF .
SIN and UNBELIEF , DOES NOT HONOR the SON OR THE FATHER . but many think this is the path
to peace n safety and that it is the love of GOD sent to unify all religoins under GOD .
WHAT A FAT LIE that one is . OH they all uniting all right , not under GOD but under he who desires to be AS GOD .

 

[Hepzibah]

I wish I knew better what it is you're speaking of.
Posting a Youtube video may not work since many will not even watch it - I'm one. Sorry.

If you think it's such an important issue...how about explaining it?

Fair enough but I am still learning about it and it is not easy to grasp, once we have been indoctrinated by western Trinitarianism as I have been. I will continue however, to try to convey it and post videos.

I find I can watch at 2X speed if I have subtitles on. More later.

 

[Hepzibah]

We really need to know how to counter the Unitarians, as they confuse people and win them over, and I hope we have witnessed how they can do this, as they have with one of ours so far.

"Biblical Foundations And Theological Consistency

The biblical foundation for Monarchical Trinitarianism is evident in Scriptures such as Proverbs 8:22–30, which speaks of Wisdom (often interpreted as a prefiguration of Christ) being brought forth before the creation of the world. The Apostle Paul in Colossians 1:15–17 refers to Christ as “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created”, affirming the Son’s role in creation and preexistence. Additionally, John’s Gospel affirms the divinity of Christ, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

These passages, alongside the teachings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, confirm the historical orthodoxy of Monarchical Trinitarianism, which maintains the unity and co-equality of the Trinity while acknowledging the Father as the source. This theological framework provides a robust understanding of the relational dynamics within the Godhead, affirming the eternal generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit from the Father, without compromising the divine essence shared among the three Persons.

In conclusion, Monarchical Trinitarianism, grounded in the early church’s teachings and biblical exegesis, offers a coherent and historically rooted articulation of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. It emphasises the Father’s unique role as the source of divinity while affirming the full deity and consubstantiality of the Son and the Spirit, thus preserving the unity and diversity within the Godhead."

Luke J. Wilson BA (hons) in Biblical Studies and Theology.

Sources & Further Reading
Hippolytus of Rome: The Extant Works and Fragments: Dogmatical and Historical (Roberts-Donaldson translation) (earlychristianwritings.com)
Justin Martyr: First Apology | Patristics.info
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Praxeas (Tertullian) (newadvent.org)
Catechism of the Orthodox Faith
Monarchianism | Modalism, Sabellianism, Unitarianism | Britannica
Sabellianism | Monarchianism, Modalism & Patripassianism | Britannica
What’s the Difference between the Ontological and the Economic Trinity? (ligonier.org)
The Relationship Between Jesus and Sophia | The Sacred Faith: Timeless Truths for Modern Minds
CHURCH FATHERS: De Principiis, Book I (Origen) (newadvent.org)
The Sacred Faith: Trinity Articles

What is Monarchical Trinitarianism? | The Sacred Faith: Timeless Truths for Modern Minds

Monarchical Trinitarianism, also referred to as the “Monarchy of the Father,” is a theological perspective that asserts the Father as the sole source (or monarch) within the Trinity. This view maintains a clear distinction of roles among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit while uph...

thesacredfaith.co.uk

 

[Hepzibah]

https://philarchive.org/archive/BRATND-2

Dr Branson again for those who prefer to read.

"One God, the Father: The Neglected Doctrine of the Monarchy of the Father, and Its Implications for the Analytic Debate about the Trinity"

Abstract: Whether Trinitarianism is coherent depends not only on whether some account of the Trinity is coherent, but on which accounts of the Trinity count as "Trinitarian." After all, Arianism and Modalism are both accounts of the Trinity, but neither counts as Trinitarian (which is why defenses of Arianism or Modalism don’t count as defenses of Trinitarianism). This raises the question, if not just any account of the Trinity counts as Trinitarian, which do? Dale Tuggy is one of very few philosophers to give explicit definitions of Trinitarian (versus Unitarian) theology. But they are no mere formalities. They are essential to his central criticisms of both historical and contemporary forms of Trinitarianism. In this paper, I offer my own definitions of Trinitarian and Unitarian theology, contrast them with Tuggy’s, and argue for the superiority of my definitions to Tuggy’s. If Trinitarianism and Unitarianism are what Tuggy says they are, the outlook for Trinitarianism is bleak indeed. If they are what I say they are, Tuggy’s central objection to Trinitarianism fails. To show what is at stake in these pairs of definitions, I examine a doctrine much neglected in Analytic Theology, but central to Nicene Trinitarianism—the Monarchy of the Father.

 

[GodsGrace]

We really need to know how to counter the Unitarians, as they confuse people and win them over, and I hope we have witnessed how they can do this, as they have with one of ours so far.

"Biblical Foundations And Theological Consistency

The biblical foundation for Monarchical Trinitarianism is evident in Scriptures such as Proverbs 8:22–30, which speaks of Wisdom (often interpreted as a prefiguration of Christ) being brought forth before the creation of the world. The Apostle Paul in Colossians 1:15–17 refers to Christ as “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created”, affirming the Son’s role in creation and preexistence. Additionally, John’s Gospel affirms the divinity of Christ, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

These passages, alongside the teachings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, confirm the historical orthodoxy of Monarchical Trinitarianism, which maintains the unity and co-equality of the Trinity while acknowledging the Father as the source. This theological framework provides a robust understanding of the relational dynamics within the Godhead, affirming the eternal generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit from the Father, without compromising the divine essence shared among the three Persons.

In conclusion, Monarchical Trinitarianism, grounded in the early church’s teachings and biblical exegesis, offers a coherent and historically rooted articulation of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. It emphasises the Father’s unique role as the source of divinity while affirming the full deity and consubstantiality of the Son and the Spirit, thus preserving the unity and diversity within the Godhead."

Luke J. Wilson BA (hons) in Biblical Studies and Theology.

Sources & Further Reading
Hippolytus of Rome: The Extant Works and Fragments: Dogmatical and Historical (Roberts-Donaldson translation) (earlychristianwritings.com)
Justin Martyr: First Apology | Patristics.info
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Praxeas (Tertullian) (newadvent.org)
Catechism of the Orthodox Faith
Monarchianism | Modalism, Sabellianism, Unitarianism | Britannica
Sabellianism | Monarchianism, Modalism & Patripassianism | Britannica
What’s the Difference between the Ontological and the Economic Trinity? (ligonier.org)
The Relationship Between Jesus and Sophia | The Sacred Faith: Timeless Truths for Modern Minds
CHURCH FATHERS: De Principiis, Book I (Origen) (newadvent.org)
The Sacred Faith: Trinity Articles

What is Monarchical Trinitarianism? | The Sacred Faith: Timeless Truths for Modern Minds

Monarchical Trinitarianism, also referred to as the “Monarchy of the Father,” is a theological perspective that asserts the Father as the sole source (or monarch) within the Trinity. This view maintains a clear distinction of roles among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit while uph...

thesacredfaith.co.uk

Out now.
I just heard the beginning and I'm not too happy.
Easier to read.
.OK
Later

 

[GodsGrace]

https://philarchive.org/archive/BRATND-2

Dr Branson again for those who prefer to read.

"One God, the Father: The Neglected Doctrine of the Monarchy of the Father, and Its Implications for the Analytic Debate about the Trinity"

Abstract: Whether Trinitarianism is coherent depends not only on whether some account of the Trinity is coherent, but on which accounts of the Trinity count as "Trinitarian." After all, Arianism and Modalism are both accounts of the Trinity, but neither counts as Trinitarian (which is why defenses of Arianism or Modalism don’t count as defenses of Trinitarianism). This raises the question, if not just any account of the Trinity counts as Trinitarian, which do? Dale Tuggy is one of very few philosophers to give explicit definitions of Trinitarian (versus Unitarian) theology. But they are no mere formalities. They are essential to his central criticisms of both historical and contemporary forms of Trinitarianism. In this paper, I offer my own definitions of Trinitarian and Unitarian theology, contrast them with Tuggy’s, and argue for the superiority of my definitions to Tuggy’s. If Trinitarianism and Unitarianism are what Tuggy says they are, the outlook for Trinitarianism is bleak indeed. If they are what I say they are, Tuggy’s central objection to Trinitarianism fails. To show what is at stake in these pairs of definitions, I examine a doctrine much neglected in Analytic Theology, but central to Nicene Trinitarianism—the Monarchy of the Father.

Who cares what Tuggy believes??

The ECF's believed Jesus was God. It took a long time to come to understand the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit because the early Christians were Jewish and were raised in their religion and their religion taught there was only One God.

How much more does that make the words of Thomas important: My Lord and My God.

If you're worried about a one world religion, I'd just stick to how we understand the Trinity from the beginning of Christianity. We don't need to learn it in any other way.

Here's a good definition of the Trinity:
"the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.

source: The New Advent Encyclopedia

Notice how it states that all 3 were ETERNAL, which the speaker brought up.
IF eternal then the Father always was, the Son always was and the Holy Spirit always was.
NONE OF THEM was a creature.

The Trinity is found all throughout scripture.
I don't know what else to say.
I like to stick to what I know.

Let me see if I could find an interesting debate on the Trinity:
This one is 3 hours long...but it's very good. I watched the whole debate.
Have fun!

 

[Hepzibah]

Who cares what Tuggy believes??

I believe it is extremely important to understand what is taking place in academia concerning the debate on the Trinity as Tuggy is an example of it, as he is using the Trinitarianism used in the west to counteract Unitarianism, which will increasingly, I believe cause the loss of belief in God the Son especially in the generations that are not as well versed in scripture as oldies today.

We must be able to counteract this movement.

The ECF's believed Jesus was God. It took a long time to come to understand the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit because the early Christians were Jewish and were raised in their religion and their religion taught there was only One God.

At Pentecost they were indwelt by the Spirit who leads us into all truth.

How much more does that make the words of Thomas important: My Lord and My God.

Are you saying I am not a Trinitarian?

If you're worried about a one world religion, I'd just stick to how we understand the Trinity from the beginning of Christianity. We don't need to learn it in any other way.

This is my point - we are not - not in the west anyway.

Here's a good definition of the Trinity:
"the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation

The Son came into being at the beginning of creation when the Father already existed.

, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son.

No. The scripture says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father not the Son. The theological implications of this must be looked into and not just brushed aside. Adding the Filioque clause was banned.

Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.

Only the Father is Creator from eternity.

source: The New Advent Encyclopedia

Notice how it states that all 3 were ETERNAL, which the speaker brought up.
IF eternal then the Father always was, the Son always was and the Holy Spirit always was.
NONE OF THEM was a creature.

The Trinity is found all throughout scripture.
I don't know what else to say.
I like to stick to what I know.

Let me see if I could find an interesting debate on the Trinity:
This one is 3 hours long...but it's very good. I watched the whole debate.
Have fun!

 

[Hepzibah]

Sorry I don't see the point of watching that debate as I believe that Jesus existed before the Incarnation.

 

[GodsGrace]

Sorry I don't see the point of watching that debate as I believe that Jesus existed before the Incarnation.

I watched your video!
I think you'd like it,,,but whatever.
(you're the one interested in combatting unitarianism....this would teach you how they defend their position.)
I'd NEVER post a 3 hour long video..or, most prbably, any video.
Later...for the other post.

 

[Hepzibah]

I watched your video!

Indeed and thank you, but you must as you do not understand the Monarchistic Trinitarian position. I used to believe exactly as James White does as I was a Calvinist so know that position very well. As for Oneness Pentecostalism I do not see the need to understand them as there are various versions of Unitarianism. But tell you what, for the sake of this I will watch for as long as I can.

I think you'd like it,,,but whatever.
(you're the one interested in combatting unitarianism....this would teach you how they defend their position.)

I want to dispute their position. Do you really hear what I am saying?

I'd NEVER post a 3 hour long video..or, most prbably, any video.
Later...for the other post.

 

[Hepzibah]

OK I get what you said but I have been reading the rebuttals here. I need to grasp the Orthodox view before I go on to the Unitarian in depth.

@GodsGrace

 

[Marvelloustime]

Oh the world one religoin has arisen and shall lead all to what it calleth love and it calleth and cliams is OF GOD .
That is how they are now transforming them to be as one.
To merge the religoins they have been replacing and removing KEY DOCTRINE
and doing so by trying to make it seem as of no dire importance
but rather this lovey do is what matters . YET UPON simple examination of its version of love
and what it calls loving , MAN o MAN one can easily see the acceptance of sin has risen
a very broad path to GOD has arisen . THEY ALL FOCUS more and more on FINDING common ground
this version of what they cliam is and fullfills the two great commandments
to LOVE GOD to love one another . ONLY AGAIN upon examination of their so called love
ONE can easily see it has NO LOVE FOR GOD at all , as it denies THE DIRE NEED TO BELIEVE JESUS IS THE CHRIST
If a man loves not CHRIST HE DOES NOT LOVE GOD WHO SENT HIM .
IF a man claims to LOVE CHRIST but omits THE BELEIVE YE ON HIM PART and love one another
but rather just omits that BELIEVE YE IN HIM part , WELL HE who keeps not MY COMMANDMENTS , DOES NOT LOVE ME .
This is a serious and deadly error that has come within christendom .
The false religoins were already under the LIE , for they beleived NOT JESUS IS THE CHRIST
but this lie has now infiltrated even christendom , and has done so under the guise of what it calleth love
and claims to be OF GOD . Only the devil would have done this .
And this version of love sure seems to honor certain sins and EVEN UNBELIEF ITSELF .
SIN and UNBELIEF , DOES NOT HONOR the SON OR THE FATHER . but many think this is the path
to peace n safety and that it is the love of GOD sent to unify all religoins under GOD .
WHAT A FAT LIE that one is . OH they all uniting all right , not under GOD but under he who desires to be AS GOD .

@amigo de christo

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

We really need to know how to counter the Unitarians, as they confuse people and win them over, and I hope we have witnessed how they can do this, as they have with one of ours so far.

First of all, this professor _ during his whole teaching _ not once used scriptures. Addressing the theology of a major concept requires prayer, the Holy Spirit's guidance and scripture. No teaching on any Christian topic should be attempted otherwise. He was teaching about his dissertation, about one person's view (Gregory) and then the rebuttal
views. Only in response to the first question _ after his teaching, did he reference a scripture, that Jesus commissioned the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Our present day understanding of the Trinity has come a long way since then - it's much more refined and more clear.
There is nothing wrong with our "Western Trinitarian" view. This Monarchian Trinitarian view is to me, flawed - he's comfortable with it though and that's okay.
Your point is that we need a different debate against the Unitarians.
No we don't!
97% of Christianity is trinitarian. The non-trinitarian view is not growing. They have lost the argument.
The Holy Spirit guides us into truth, the whole truth and so we would not have this overwhelming view of a Triune God wrong.
Don't worry about Non-Trinis, they aren't growing because the Holy Spirit does not grow fruit on defective branches. Not to say they aren't saved, just not growing.. I think of them as a branch connected to the Vine that is not getting much water and so remains stunted in its growth.
I have a peach tree. Most of the branches yield plentiful fruit, but there's always a few that don't. They look half alive and I wonder what's wrong with them? I'm not merciful, I prune it good. The Gardener is more merciful than I and He does not prune those branches off, unless they are really rotten.

 

[GodsGrace]

Indeed and thank you, but you must as you do not understand the Monarchistic Trinitarian position. I used to believe exactly as James White does as I was a Calvinist so know that position very well.

About the ONLY agreement I have with James White is the Trinity...he does defend it very well.

As for Oneness Pentecostalism I do not see the need to understand them as there are various versions of Unitarianism. But tell you what, for the sake of this I will watch for as long as I can.

I thought JW did a great job of defending the Trinity.
You have to give him this: He's a great debater.

I want to dispute their position. Do you really hear what I am saying?

Yes, H, I understand what you're doing.

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe it is extremely important to understand what is taking place in academia concerning the debate on the Trinity as Tuggy is an example of it, as he is using the Trinitarianism used in the west to counteract Unitarianism, which will increasingly, I believe cause the loss of belief in God the Son especially in the generations that are not as well versed in scripture as oldies today.

I understand your concern. I was happy that the trinity was not allowed to be discussed here.
We must come to the conclusion that those that do not believe that Jesus is God, and thus do not believe
in the Trinity, really cannot be defined as Christians.
Not saying they're not saved....they probably are, and they're probably better than me...
what I'm saying is that Christianity was defined 2 thousand years ago and it should not be allowed to be changed.
So I'm with you 100%.

We must be able to counteract this movement.

Understand what you're doing...but I think explaining the Trinity to the best of our ability is really all that we need.
If you plan to study all of the variations, you'll be studying a long time...but I applaud you.

At Pentecost they were indwelt by the Spirit who leads us into all truth.

The Early Church Fathers were not present at Pentecost.
They were taught by the Apostles, or those that were taught by them.
They already were understanding and accepting that Jesus is God,,,this did not take 3 to 4 hundred years.
However, to properly explain the Trinity and have all the nations agree to the definition did take some time because of all the
heresies that had to be fought....like arianism which the Dr in the video spoke of.

Are you saying I am not a Trinitarian?

Wonder what I said to make you think that??
But the answer is NO. I'm not saying you're not a trinitarian.
I think you're a concerned trinitarian...concerned for the doctrine.

This is my point - we are not - not in the west anyway.

I don't know that this is a growing trend.
Maybe I'm misinformed...

The Son came into being at the beginning of creation when the Father already existed.

I'd go further than that and say that Jesus is a part of God.
I don't think the Trinity could really be understoood.

No. The scripture says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father not the Son. The theological implications of this must be looked into and not just brushed aside. Adding the Filioque clause was banned.

I had done a small study on this some years ago.
Have forgotten a lot.
My personal opinion is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
You?

Filioque (/ˌfɪliˈoʊkwi, -kweɪ/ FIL-ee-OH-kwee, -⁠kway; Ecclesiastical Latin: [filiˈokwe]), a Latin term meaning "and from the Son", was added to the original Nicene Creed, and has been the subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western Christianity. The term refers to the Son, Jesus Christ, with the Father, as the one shared origin of the Holy Spirit. It is not in the original text of the Creed, attributed to the First Council of Constantinople (381), which says that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father" (Greek: τὸ έκ του Πατρὸς έκπορευόμενον) without the addition "and the Son".[1]

In the late 6th century, some Latin Churches added the words "and from the Son" (Filioque) to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit, in what many Eastern Orthodox Christians have at a later stage argued is a violation of Canon VII[2][full citation needed] of the Council of Ephesus, since the words were not included in the text by either the First Council of Nicaea or that of Constantinople.[3][full citation needed] The inclusion was incorporated into the liturgical practice of Rome in 1014, but was rejected by Eastern Christianity.

source: Filioque - Wikipedia

To get into it a little more:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Filioque

It expresses the Procession of the Holy Ghost from both Father and Son as one Principle; and, it was the occasion of the Greek schism

www.newadvent.org

So much to know...

 

[amigo de christo]

Sorry I don't see the point of watching that debate as I believe that Jesus existed before the Incarnation.

its the false univeraslism love that more and more now embrace . Leading them far from the one true gospel .

 

[Hepzibah]

First of all, this professor _ during his whole teaching _ not once used scriptures. Addressing the theology of a major concept requires prayer, the Holy Spirit's guidance and scripture.

Dr Branson, is Eastern Orthodox, and would therefore add Tradition to that list. Not the traditions of men but those which were handed down, not only in writing, from the apostles (2 Thess 2:15).

He is also a doctor of philosophy not theology, which does not disqualify him from the debate, I believe, but rather qualifies him, I would say, as this debate is centered more on how logical, in the eyes of the Unitarians, they consider trinitarianism. He does later, get into parsing the scriptures with John White.

No teaching on any Christian topic should be attempted otherwise. He was teaching about his dissertation, about one person's view (Gregory) and then the rebuttal
views.

He is teaching what the early church taught on the trinity (and still do) and not just Gregory

Only in response to the first question _ after his teaching, did he reference a scripture, that Jesus commissioned the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Our present day understanding of the Trinity has come a long way since then - it's much more refined and more clear.

How the trinity functions yes, but the fact that Jesus is divine, it is the same.

There is nothing wrong with our "Western Trinitarian" view. This Monarchian Trinitarian view is to me, flawed - he's comfortable with it though and that's okay.

You cannot understand it just like that so I doubt whether you really do. If so then please explain it to ne as I am still learning.

Your point is that we need a different debate against the Unitarians.
No we don't!

I won't debate them, but I believe in the future, we need to have the ability to nullify their teachings for the sake of those who are being led astray on the logical aspect like young believers. As for now, I don't think the western understanding is strong enough as we have seen on this forum where they have not been silenced, as both sides cherry pick the scriptures.

97% of Christianity is trinitarian. The non-trinitarian view is not growing.

That perhaps applies to today. I argue for tomorrow. We do have however, a high-ranking JW in our midst. I say high-ranking because this person admits to have been a JW for 50 years, is of high intelligence and is very knowledgeable on the scriptures (though not the spiritual meanings).

What is a person like that doing here? Why are they not working in two's as they usually are (but perhaps they are). A lot here are just filling their time in and often due to lack of real time fellowship which I doubt is the case for a JW elder. (Gender is another issue).

Only top ones will use this platform for practice like this.

They have lost the argument.
The Holy Spirit guides us into truth, the whole truth and so we would not have this overwhelming view of a Triune God wrong.

We cannot make that assumption. They are getting through to at least one. Why are there so many Protestant denominations then if the HS is guiding each one?

Don't worry about Non-Trinis, they aren't growing because the Holy Spirit does not grow fruit on defective branches. Not to say they aren't saved, just not growing.. I think of them as a branch connected to the Vine that is not getting much water and so remains stunted in its growth.
I have a peach tree. Most of the branches yield plentiful fruit, but there's always a few that don't. They look half alive and I wonder what's wrong with them? I'm not merciful, I prune it good. The Gardener is more merciful than I and He does not prune those branches off, unless they are really rotten.

Forgive me but I don't think you are understanding how persuasive their argument is on the logical side. It is the Biblical ignorant young believers that I am concerned about since we now increasingly have a stage instead of a pulpit.

 

[Hepzibah]

About the ONLY agreement I have with James White is the Trinity...he does defend it very well.


I thought JW did a great job of defending the Trinity.
You have to give him this: He's a great debater.

Indeed he is, and the other chap was way out of his league.

Yes, H, I understand what you're doing.

Thank you.