Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[David in NJ]

Matthew 24:24
For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

1 John 4:5-6
They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Galatians 1:6-9
I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Genesis 3:1-5
Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, "You shall not eat of every tree of the garden"?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, "You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die."" Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Romans 16:17-18
Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.

2 Timothy 2:15
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.



Related Scriptures
Matthew 7:16
You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?

John 17:17
Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Haggai 2:12-13
"If one carries holy meat in the fold of his garment, and with the edge he touches bread or stew, wine or oil, or any food, will it become holy?""" Then the priests answered and said, "No." And Haggai said, "If one who is unclean because of a dead body touches any of these, will it be unclean?" So the priests answered and said, "It shall be unclean."

Ephesians 4:14
that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,

2 Timothy 3:13
But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
The Danger in Judging

Paul writes in I Corinthians 11:1, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." He adds in Philippians 3:17, "Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern." These verses clearly invite the brethren to observe the apostle's conduct, judge if it conforms to the life Christ lived and taught, and choose to live that way as well.

To this point, it is clear that we cannot escape our responsibility to judge. Yet, in such verses as Matthew 7:1; Romans 14:3 and James 4:11-12, we are warned about judging one another. Where is the problem, or danger, in judging? The danger lies in the quality of our judgments, and consequently, any action we take on the basis of them.

In John 7:24, Jesus commands us to "judge with righteous judgment." Just a few verses earlier, the Jews who were watching and listening to Him had judged that Jesus had a demon! This is surely one of the most misguided judgments ever made. Why could they not make a better judgment than that? Because they were judging by wrong standards. They could not recognize and thus could not correctly relate to true godliness, even though in the person of Jesus it was lived in their presence and taught them truth.

The people of the time were greatly confused about Christ: "And there was much murmuring among the people concerning Him. Some said, ‘He is good'; others said, ‘No, on the contrary, He deceives the people'" (verse 12). On another occasion, Jesus asked His own disciples, "‘Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am?' So they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets'" (Matthew 16:13-14). The people's judgment of Him was so prejudiced by their carnality that "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him" (John 1:11).

Could our judgment of people in whom Christ lives also be somewhat distorted because of carnality still active within us? This is part of the equation. We may be ill-equipped to make a sound judgment because we are unable to recognize godly qualities or to understand the factors involved in another's conduct.

But judging is still a necessary part of life in the church. Consider the apostle Paul's judgment of the man who was openly sinning while fellowshipping with the Corinthian congregation:

For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, concerning him who has so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (I Corinthians 5:3-5)

Paul not only judged, he judged on the basis of the testimony and judgment of others he trusted! He then disfellowshipped the man without hearing the man's own testimony! This is the same man who wrote in Romans 14, "Who are you to judge another's servant?" (verse 4) and "But why do you judge your brother?" (verse 10). He obviously strongly believed that when the spiritual and moral integrity of a congregation was threatened by blatant sin, judgment was necessary.

We are permitted to judge erroneous teachings, particularly when they come from those who do not believe the Scriptures are God-breathed and instead rely on extra-biblical experiences that are not aligned with what is written. @David in NJ

J.

JESUS says: "By our words we will be justified and by our words we will be condemned"

Scoffing at John chapters 1, 2 and 3 is contrary to saving faith in the Word, by which no one can be Saved

Finally, replacing Truth with a lie and placing your complete trust in = the Word was "a god" = is the proverbial 'Nail in the Coffin'

 

[Ritajanice]

The transformation of our spirit, where we humbly surrender ours to receive our God's spirit is the meaning of being baptized in the Spirit

This is interesting , I read it again, as we surrender our heart over to God, and the Spirit brings that to our understanding, it gets easier, as we know that we shouldn’t try and fight the will of God...would you agree with that?

I do believe at times he’s shown me not to do something, I’ve taken no notice and gone my own way, of course it never worked out...we are learning to be obedient to the Spirit, that’s my take on it anyway.

Short commentary.

Scripture offers abundant clarity on this, with Proverbs 3:5-6 guiding us to “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.” Surrender involves relinquishing our need for control and placing our lives confidently in his hands.

 

[Wrangler]

I can only understand the way I was Born Of The Spirit.

This humble statement affirms 1 Cor 13, where it talks about the futility of knowing everything but don't have love. We are not saved by knowledge. Prioritizing knowledge over God is the Original Sin.

The Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are the children of God, this is what happened to me as the Spirit was indwelling my spirit, coming through my body and testifying with my spirit at the same time, straight away i recognised the Spirit voice, only it wasn’t an audible voice...it came be explained the rebirth...how God does it is pretty mind blowing..

Everyone’s testimony is very different....

I don't know RJ, my experience was VERY similar. Seemed like telepathy. I heard no voice but the ideas were put directly into my mind. Not only that, the emotion. I felt it was simultaneously, the honor of my life to be contacted, AND opportunity to obey the Spirit's directive was the most honorable thing I could ever do in my life.

I was not searching for this. In fact, I was an enemy of Christ when the Spirit came to me. I've come to learn what I experienced is called Prevenient Grace.

A dear friend of nearly 4 decades is a Christian but is not Born Again. He never had the experience we did. Don't know why. Yet, he believes. I relate more to Thomas: John 20:29 (NLT) Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.”

 

[Ritajanice]

We are not saved by knowledge.

100% Amen!!..

 

[Wrangler]

This is interesting , I read it again, as we surrender our heart over to God, and the Spirit brings that to our understanding, it gets easier, as we know that we shouldn’t try and fight the will of God...would you agree with that?

Completely agree.

I do believe at times he’s shown me not to do something, I’ve taken no notice and gone my own way, of course it never worked out...we are learning to be obedient to the Spirit, that’s my take on it anyway.

I started my career as an analyst. In coming to Christ, I've learned not to over-analyze. When prompted, I obey. I find that yoke light. Not to say I always obey at first prompting but I find reacting to the quite whisperer becomes more automatic as my walk continues.

 

[Ritajanice]

I was not searching for this. In fact, I was an enemy of Christ when the Spirit came to me

This resonates with my spirit....i appreciate your sharing as it’s Testament to the Spirit....

 

[Wrangler]

We are not saved by knowledge.

100% Amen!!..

Although Aunty Jane might write 12 paragraphs explaining how we are saved by knowledge. LOL

 

[Ritajanice]

Not to say I always obey at first prompting but I find reacting to the quite whisperer becomes more automatic as my walk continues.

Yup....I can 100% relate....we get tuned into hearing that whisper....Praise God!

 

[Ritajanice]

Although Aunty Jane might write 12 paragraphs explaining how we are saved by knowledge. LOL

Aunty has a lovely heart for the Lord...she explains everything so well, she’s not confused in her posting....

I loved reading her story about how Jesus loved his Father God, and wanted to please only him, made me cry it did....

 

[MonoBiblical]

Since when does God need man's help?

You and i need God's help, therefore HE sent His Word and His Word became flesh and dwelt among us = Immanuel, God with us

God came down and showed us "IAM the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE, no one comes to the FATHER but thru me"

Evertime you think he needs to be Jesus Christ. "I AM a WAY a TRUTH and a LIFE, no one is being [sent] to the FATHER but thru me"

 

[Wrangler]

This resonates with my spirit....i appreciate your sharing as it’s Testament to the Spirit....

Along with knowledge is doctrine. Bringing this exchange back to the OP, I am reminded of a Pastor who said years ago we don't have to have every bit of doctrine right before we spread the message of Jesus to others.

You do this very well. Many times, you've admitted that you don't understand a lot of Scripture. Yet, you are a constant voice advocating for our Lord.

We don't need to have all the answers or even have our lives all together. In fact, living life together through Christ and through our trials and tribulations IS a testament to Christ.

I'm sure you've read my adage that the doctrinal purity test is divinely simple: love God, love others. Man has to complicate the hell out of it. Exhibit A: the inherently contradictory doctrine of the trinity. There is no requirement to perfectly understand God's nature and that of his son to be saved. My testimony is this. I was lost and now I am found. My true nature is a soldier of Christ. I received revelation and that was it, a beloved son of God, who now follows THE son of God. His ways are not my ways but his plans for my good and not for disaster, to give me a future and a hope.

 

[St. SteVen]

So odd how trinitarians just presume a nature contrary to what Scripture says. Just presume he has 2 natures.

Well... who were his parents? One was God and the other was human. He is the God/man.

[

 

[Wrangler]

Well... who were his parents? One was God and the other was human. He is the God/man.

[

A demi-god is not the trinitarian dogma. If my father was Italian and my mother Irish, no one would claim I am 100% fully Italian and 100% fully Irish.

Regarding his parents, did you read the article I posted about the blood on the Shroud of Turin has only 23 chromosomes? Fascinating!

 

[Ritajanice]

We don't need to have all the answers or even have our lives all together. In fact, living life together through Christ and through our trials and tribulations IS a testament to Christ.

Amen!

I'm sure you've read my adage that the doctrinal purity test is divinely simple: love God, love others. Man has to complicate the hell out of it. Exhibit A: the inherently contradictory doctrine of the trinity. There is no requirement to perfectly understand God's nature and that of his son to be saved. My testimony is this. I was lost and now I am found. My true nature is a soldier of Christ. I received revelation and that was it, a beloved son of God, who now follows THE son of God. His ways are not my ways but his plans for my good and not for disaster, to give me a future and a hope.

Amen!...what a lovely testimony...this is what I find fruitful and uplifting, words like this feed my spirit....thank you Father God.

 

[APAK]

This is incorrect @TheHC

Your argument misrepresents both the Greek text of Philippians 2:6 and the implications of the word morphē (μορφή).

1. On the Meaning of "Morphē"

The Greek word morphē does not simply mean "shape" or "form" as understood in purely physical terms.

In classical and Hellenistic Greek usage, morphē refers to the essential nature or characteristic attributes of something, not merely its external appearance.

Support from Lexicons:

BDAG defines morphē as "the nature or character of something, with emphasis upon both the internal and external form."

Liddell-Scott-Jones (LSJ) associates morphē with the "form by which a thing strikes the vision," which includes not only appearance but also the essence conveyed by that form.

In Philippians 2:6, morphē theou (μορφῇ θεοῦ) refers to Christ's possession of the essential characteristics of God.

The text does not describe a "physical shape" but instead conveys that Christ shares in the divine nature.

2. Misrepresentation of the Text
Your argument claims some translations omit "in the form of" due to a Trinitarian bias, but this is incorrect.

Translations like the NIV and NASB explicitly retain the phrase "in the form of God," rendering it faithfully to the Greek text.
The phrase "Though he was in the form of God" (ESV) or "Who, being in very nature God" (NIV) reflects morphē theou accurately.

3. Context of Philippians 2:6
Paul's choice of words emphasizes Christ's divine status before his incarnation. The verse states:

hos en morphē theou hyparchōn (ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων): "Who, existing in the form of God."

The participle hyparchōn (ὑπάρχων) implies continuous existence or being, indicating that Christ was and remained in the divine form before taking on human likeness (Philippians 2:7).

The use of morphē here aligns with the theological claim that Christ existed in the essential nature of God.

4. Paul Did Not Say "Jesus Is God"?

Your argument implies that Paul deliberately avoided saying Jesus is God, but this overlooks both the immediate context and the broader Pauline corpus.

In Philippians 2:6–11, Paul presents a high Christology:

Christ is said to possess the "form of God" (morphē theou) and does not consider equality with God (to einai isa theō) something to be exploited, which implies he is on par with God in nature.

Christ is exalted and receives "the name that is above every name," and "every knee should bow" to him (Philippians 2:9–10), echoing Isaiah 45:23, a passage about Yahweh.

Elsewhere, Paul explicitly affirms Christ's divinity:
Colossians 1:15–19: Christ is the "image of the invisible God" and "in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell."

Titus 2:13: Paul refers to Christ as "our great God and Savior."

5. Your accusation of Trinitarian Bias

The accusation of bias against translators is unfounded:

The charge assumes malice without evidence. Most reputable translations are produced by scholars committed to faithfully conveying the Greek text.
Many early church fathers, long before the formal development of Trinitarian theology, understood Philippians 2:6–11 as affirming Christ’s divine preexistence and equality with God.

502 words 3,137 characters

J.

This is again not only directed at you J., and you do keep writing lots of wasteful words that do not contribute to any truth in scripture. Well I admit I have actually read some decent posts that hit the truth. On this subject though you are crazy off-course again.

This post is also directed to others like you, who love their own musings inside scripture over loving the musings of God in his word.

..@David in NJ @St. SteVen @ProDeo and many more

Again, maybe for the 1000x time....get your rear frames off the couch/sofa and read the entire scripture for truth and meaning before you even attempt to put mind to fingers, and then to the keyboard.

-------------

This verse 6 of Chapter 2, of Philippians, already says that Jesus was not God, as he is directly compared with him.

And if Paul mentioned Yahshua is a form (outer mosaic) or mental image of God, and then because of this fact, Yashua did not attempt to then grasp, exploit, rob God, or take advantage of being like, or similar with God, then Paul is clearly saying he was not God. Two clear related thoughts as one major thought, in this one verse, in sequence, clearly stating he was not God and therefore he is definitely not deity or divine. Paul would never suggest that Yahshua was God or divine. He was making a clear and crucial point to his audience here.

In context, as this device is rarely used for reasons obviously already known, his, (Paul's) intention of even bringing this information to light was for our benefit, us or his audience – for us to have the same mental image, mosaic or mind of Christ as he has/had with his Father, God. It’s that’s simple. We are the image of God indeed, although we are meant to be refined, to be made into the image of Yahshua, our master. To be more Christlike, and quietly doing it.

And what then did Yahshua do, or become, because he never thought to exploit or show off/skite as his own possession, not his own, to have and display? Of his Father’s holiness, goodness, his mind, divinity and his nature, and his reputation? And what did Yahshua do in place of this possible although highly improbable act of human vanity. He did the opposite of course. He emptied or withdrew his own human mortal will and became a humble human servant likened to one without any significant in the world, of no reputation, to always perform the will of his Father instead.

It’s so clear, that the words of Paul can be clearly understood by any inclined gifted child.

These wild Trinitarian or Binitarian desperate attempts to force and flex scripture to mean and conform to their idol you worship, in this case verse 6, is so outrageous. To desperately force Yahshua to be divine and therefore God, as he is not. It’s insane.

(Php 2:1) The Mental Attitude of Christ to be Our Example
Therefore, if there is any encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions,

(Php 2:2) make my joy full by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

(Php 2:3) Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself;

(Php 2:4) each of you not looking to his own things, but each of you to the things of others.

(Php 2:5) Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.

(Php 2:6) Who, though being in the mental image of God, did not consider grasping at being equal with God,

(Php 2:7) but poured himself out, taking the mental attitude of a servant, and was the made just the same as all ordinary men.

(Php 2:8) And being perceived as a normal man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

(Php 2:9) Wherefore God highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name-

(Php 2:10) that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the earth,

(Php 2:11) and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
-------------------------------------------------
So what did his Father, God, do because of Yahshua's decision to perform his will over his own...read verses 9-11....

And how ironic how may Trinitarian love to quote Verse 11

As you can see, this verse 11 was part of the REWARD of God because he acted very human as humble servant to his Father. It has zero to do with any divinity notion of the Son of God

 

[Wrangler]

(Php 2:6) Who, though being in the mental image of God, did not consider grasping at being equal with God,

What strikes me as bizarre is how trinitarians pretend there is no NOT in the sentence. How might they invoke the verse differently if it was not there?
Php 2:6) Who, though being in the mental image of God, considered grasping at being equal with God,

How can a sentence WITH and WITHOUT a “not” be applied the same way, as evidence to support the same conclusion?

 

[Johann]

This is again not only directed at you J., and you do keep writing lots of wasteful words that do not contribute to any truth in scripture. Well I admit I have actually read some decent posts that hit the truth. On this subject though you are crazy off-course again.

This post is also directed to others like you, who love their own musings inside scripture over loving the musings of God in his word.

..@David in NJ @St. SteVen @ProDeo and many more

Again, maybe for the 1000x time....get your rear frames off the couch/sofa and read the entire scripture for truth and meaning before you even attempt to put mind to fingers, and then to the keyboard.

I suggest you do the same @APAK! And you get your rear offa that couch and switch off that TV!

sn The Greek term translated form indicates a correspondence with reality. Thus the meaning of this phrase is that Christ was truly God.
Being (huparchōn). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of huparchō. In the form of God (en morphēi theou). Morphē means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ.
A prize (harpagmon). Predicate accusative with hēgēsato. Originally words in ̇mos signified the act, not the result (̇ma). The few examples of harpagmos (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to harpagma, like baptismos and baptisma.

That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”).
To be on an equality with God (to einai isa theoi). Accusative articular infinitive object of hēgēsato, “the being equal with God” (associative instrumental case theōi after isa). Isa is adverbial use of neuter plural with einai as in Rev_21:16.
Emptied himself (heauton ekenōse).

First aorist active indicative of kenoō, old verb from kenos, empty.

Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There has arisen a great controversy on this word, a Kenosis doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. “He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty” (Lightfoot).

ARIAN SCHEME
of God. This is a clear assertion on Paul’s part of the deity of Christ. Daniel Waterland gets to the crux of the controversy by setting forth two series of texts. The first series includes Isa_43:10; Isa_44:8; Isa_45:5; Isa_46:9, which declare that God is one, and to him none can be likened. The second series includes Jhn_1:1, Rom_9:5, Php_2:6, Heb_1:3; Heb_1:8, which declare that Jesus Christ is God.

The consequences of the Arian scheme are that if the texts of Isaiah exclude the Son, he is altogether excluded, and is no God at all. He cannot, upon Arian principles, be the same God, because he is not the same Person: he cannot be another God, because excluded by the Isaiah texts. If, therefore he be neither the same God, nor another God, it must follow, that he is no God. This is the difficulty which lies against the Arian scheme, and which Arians have not sufficiently attended to.

It will not do to make Jesus Christ "a god" in a lesser sense, reserving only to the Father the title of supreme God, for neither Isaiah, nor the first commandment, allow for such a distinction. If they had allowed such a distinction, then in what sense would the worship of Baal and Ashteroth be considered idolatry, if they were merely looked upon as inferior deities, and served with a subordinate worship?

The Old Testament texts cannot mean that there is merely no other Supreme God; but absolutely no other: and therefore our blessed Lord must either be included and comprehended in the one Supreme God of Israel, or be entirely excluded with the other pretended or nominal deities. In no case have the Arians proved—what must be proved if their understanding is to be received as correct—that texts which designate God the Father as the "only true God" (Jhn_17:3) or "one God" (1Co_8:6) are meant to teach that the Son is absolutely excluded also from such designations, just as the Son is emphatically designated one Lord (Eph_4:5) without design to exclude the Father from being Lord also (see Daniel Waterland, Works, vol. 1, pp. 275-280).

Waterland observes that the tactics of Arians in his day were to industriously run from the point, misrepresent our sense, and artfully conceal their own—characteristics which have not changed from his day to ours. Jesus must either be entirely excluded by the Isaiah texts, or not at all: and if he be not excluded, he is comprehended in the one Supreme God, and is one with him.

Arians produce texts to show that the Father singly is the Supreme God, and that Christ is excluded from being the Supreme God: but I insist upon it, that you misunderstand those texts; because the interpretation you give of them is not reconcilable with other texts; and because it leads to such absurdities, as are too shocking even for yourself to admit. In short, either you prove too much, or you prove nothing (Waterland, vol 1, p. 278, 281).

Subsisting in the form of God proves his nature and essence to be divine. John Daille states "As then the Lord Jesus, before He took our flesh, was in the form of God, it necessarily follows that He was truly God, no one being able to have the glory of God but He who had His nature also. And what the apostle adds, that He was "equal with God," clearly also determines the same thing; it being evident that if the Son were a creature, He could not be equal to God; every creature being of necessity infinitely below the nature, power, and majesty of the Creator" (Comm. on Philippians, Sermon 9, pp. 91, 92). Isa_43:10; Isa_44:8; Isa_45:5; Isa_46:9, Jhn_1:1, Rom_9:5, Heb_1:3; Heb_1:8.


There are many Arians on this forum, and you, @APAK, are among them. I anticipate you will dismiss this post, but I have more information to share. You, along with Wrangler and F2F, act as self-appointed gatekeepers, yet your Arian theology is failing miserably. It should be exposed for what it truly is-an effort to distort Scripture, deny the Deity of Christ Jesus, our great God and Savior, and reject His rightful prerogatives following His resurrection.

Do not accuse me of laziness again. Abandon your Arian philosophies.

J.

 

[Johann]

.get your rear frames off the couch/sofa

Reason why I can's see eye to eye with you @APAK-
Arians, or adherents of Arianism, believe in a theological position about the nature of Jesus Christ that emerged in the early 4th century, named after Arius, a Christian presbyter from Alexandria. Arianism centers around a specific view of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son (Jesus Christ), and it directly challenges the doctrine of the Trinity as it was later articulated by the early Church. The main beliefs of Arians include the following:

1. The Son’s Subordination to the Father
Arians believe that Jesus (the Son) is distinct from God the Father and was created by the Father as the first and highest of all creatures. According to Arian doctrine, the Son is not eternally divine in the same way the Father is. Instead, the Son had a beginning and is therefore not co-eternal with the Father. This implies that the Son is subordinate to the Father, and there was a time when the Son did not exist.

Key belief: "There was a time when He (the Son) was not."

2. Jesus Christ as a Created Being

Arians teach that Jesus is not fully divine in the same sense as God the Father. They argue that the Son is created by the Father and is, therefore, a creature, albeit the highest and most exalted of all creatures. This contrasts with the orthodox Christian belief in the eternal existence of the Son alongside the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Arian Position: The Son is not consubstantial with the Father (i.e., not of the same substance or essence) but is a created being who was made by the Father, often referred to as "begotten" but not eternal.

3. Rejection of the Nicene Creed

Arians rejected the Nicene Creed (325 AD) which affirmed the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity, stating that the Son is "begotten, not made" and consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. Arius and his followers would not accept the idea that the Son is of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father, instead proposing that the Son is similar in essence (homoiousios) to the Father but still a created being.

4. Christ as Mediator, but Not Fully Divine

Arians believe that Jesus serves as a mediator between God and humanity, but since he is not fully divine, his role as the mediator is understood in terms of his created nature rather than as the eternal, co-equal, co-eternal second person of the Godhead as in the doctrine of the Trinity.

5. Theological Implications for Salvation

Since Arians do not believe in the full divinity of Christ, their understanding of salvation is different from orthodox Christianity. They maintain that the Son, as a created being, can act as a perfect mediator between God and humanity but do not hold that the incarnation of Christ is the divine mystery of God becoming fully human and fully divine. Thus, their view of salvation does not emphasize the importance of the divinity of Christ in atoning for sin.

Historical Development and Controversy
Arian Controversy: The debate about the nature of Christ became one of the central theological conflicts in the early Christian Church. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD), convened by Emperor Constantine, condemned Arianism as a heresy, affirming the Nicene Creed and the doctrine of the Trinity.

Arianism's Influence: Despite the Nicene condemnation, Arianism continued to be influential, particularly among certain groups of Christians, including some Germanic tribes (e.g., the Visigoths and Ostrogoths) during the early Middle Ages, before it largely declined with the rise of Nicene Christianity.

Summary of Arian Beliefs:

Jesus Christ is not co-eternal with God the Father.
Jesus is a created being and not fully divine.
Jesus was the first and greatest of created beings, but there was a time when He did not exist.
Arianism rejects the Nicene formulation of the Trinity and the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son.
Arianism was deemed a heresy by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which led to the widespread adoption of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, as outlined in the Nicene Creed. The belief in the full deity of Jesus Christ as equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit is now a central tenet of Christian orthodoxy.

I’m open to debating, but don’t let your emotions take over with your petty, biting slander-that won’t work, mate. Get back to your Bible before you accuse me of being lazy.

J.

 

[Johann]

Php 2:6) Who, though being in the mental image of God, considered grasping at being equal with God,

I suggest get a real Bible @Wrangler. Since you are doing mental gymnastics with the word of God.

J.

 

[APAK]

Reason why I can's see eye to eye with you @APAK-
Arians, or adherents of Arianism, believe in a theological position about the nature of Jesus Christ that emerged in the early 4th century, named after Arius, a Christian presbyter from Alexandria. Arianism centers around a specific view of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son (Jesus Christ), and it directly challenges the doctrine of the Trinity as it was later articulated by the early Church. The main beliefs of Arians include the following:

1. The Son’s Subordination to the Father
Arians believe that Jesus (the Son) is distinct from God the Father and was created by the Father as the first and highest of all creatures. According to Arian doctrine, the Son is not eternally divine in the same way the Father is. Instead, the Son had a beginning and is therefore not co-eternal with the Father. This implies that the Son is subordinate to the Father, and there was a time when the Son did not exist.

Key belief: "There was a time when He (the Son) was not."

2. Jesus Christ as a Created Being

Arians teach that Jesus is not fully divine in the same sense as God the Father. They argue that the Son is created by the Father and is, therefore, a creature, albeit the highest and most exalted of all creatures. This contrasts with the orthodox Christian belief in the eternal existence of the Son alongside the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Arian Position: The Son is not consubstantial with the Father (i.e., not of the same substance or essence) but is a created being who was made by the Father, often referred to as "begotten" but not eternal.

3. Rejection of the Nicene Creed

Arians rejected the Nicene Creed (325 AD) which affirmed the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity, stating that the Son is "begotten, not made" and consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. Arius and his followers would not accept the idea that the Son is of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father, instead proposing that the Son is similar in essence (homoiousios) to the Father but still a created being.

4. Christ as Mediator, but Not Fully Divine

Arians believe that Jesus serves as a mediator between God and humanity, but since he is not fully divine, his role as the mediator is understood in terms of his created nature rather than as the eternal, co-equal, co-eternal second person of the Godhead as in the doctrine of the Trinity.

5. Theological Implications for Salvation

Since Arians do not believe in the full divinity of Christ, their understanding of salvation is different from orthodox Christianity. They maintain that the Son, as a created being, can act as a perfect mediator between God and humanity but do not hold that the incarnation of Christ is the divine mystery of God becoming fully human and fully divine. Thus, their view of salvation does not emphasize the importance of the divinity of Christ in atoning for sin.

Historical Development and Controversy
Arian Controversy: The debate about the nature of Christ became one of the central theological conflicts in the early Christian Church. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD), convened by Emperor Constantine, condemned Arianism as a heresy, affirming the Nicene Creed and the doctrine of the Trinity.

Arianism's Influence: Despite the Nicene condemnation, Arianism continued to be influential, particularly among certain groups of Christians, including some Germanic tribes (e.g., the Visigoths and Ostrogoths) during the early Middle Ages, before it largely declined with the rise of Nicene Christianity.

Summary of Arian Beliefs:

Jesus Christ is not co-eternal with God the Father.
Jesus is a created being and not fully divine.
Jesus was the first and greatest of created beings, but there was a time when He did not exist.
Arianism rejects the Nicene formulation of the Trinity and the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son.
Arianism was deemed a heresy by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which led to the widespread adoption of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, as outlined in the Nicene Creed. The belief in the full deity of Jesus Christ as equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit is now a central tenet of Christian orthodoxy.

I’m open to debating, but don’t let your emotions take over with your petty, biting slander-that won’t work, mate. Get back to your Bible before you accuse me of being lazy.

J.

Got testy did we.....enjoy your own musings