Dear Theologians,
Paul told Timothy that Christian doctrine in taught in Scripture. He said at 2 Timothy 3:16 that:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

In practice we find all essential doctrines taught, in context, by bible writers. In fact we generally find the true essential doctrines taught in context by multiple bible writers. Other Bible passages may expand upon these doctrines, but this is only after these doctrines have already been explicitly taught in context with all the necessary primary components to define the core teaching.

For example, we may not all agree on the significance of Baptism but all Christians understand that Baptism in some form is something taught in the bible and that a single bible writer articulates all the primary elements in context in one passage. All the writers of the gospel accounts teach the doctrine of Baptism all in one place in context. (Matt 3:1-16; Mark 1:1-9; 16:15-16; Luke 3:1-21; John 1:25-33.)

We do not need to derive the concept of Baptism by taking an “immersion” verse, a “water” verse and a “repentance” verse and through “systematic theology” create the new concept of “Baptism.” The bible writers have already combined those elements for us so that we know it is indeed an essential bible teaching.

Thus it is by example that bible writers themselves set the high standard by which we should examine doctrines to determine truth.

My challenge to Trinitarians, should they choose to accept it, is to explain why the Trinity stands alone in this regards. Why is the Trinity considered an essential Christian teaching if not even one bible writer ever teaches it in context as a clear doctrine for Christians?

I have presented a hermeneutic that can be falsified. Baptism, Eternal Punishment, Eternal Salvation through faith in Christ, the Resurrection of the dead are all essential doctrines for Christians. My premise can be falsified by providing an essential Christian doctrine, which is derived in the same manner as the Trinity. This challenge has been presented to Trinitarians in the past and not one has been able to provide a counter example.

In his service,
Cal_Minian

I personally do not believe that a belief in the Trinity is required for salvation(even though I do believe in the Trinity), but I do believe that a belief in the divinity of Christ is required for salvation.

Dear Chrisme,
Thanks for sharing that. The FAQ on your site says:

Our goal is to encourage discussion, promote growth from the knowledge shared amongst participants, and have free and open debate in the marketplace of ideas. As a forum this is an open forum and are dedicated to open discussion from varying points of views and interests, some of which may be considered controversial. This forum was not established primarily for the advocating of any particular agenda or belief as all are welcome to enter freely into discussion and participate with respect to the forum rules and guidelines. The administration including those who hold the position of moderators vary on many points of theology but all are required at a minimum to affirm these things:


Trinity
Jesus Christ
Resurrection
Scriptures
Church

Trinity
There is one living and true God, Creator of all things, eternally existing in three persons; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

You do not consider the Trinity as essential and yet you are a moderator? I was told on Paltalk last night that all the moderators would vigorously defend the Trinity.

I also can "affirm" the "divinity" of the Son of God because John calls him “theos” at John 1:1. We probably have a different definition as to what "divinity" means.

Do you not consider belief that the Holy Ghost is a person and also God essential? Do you not consider a belief that the God and Father of Jesus Christ is God and a person also essential?

Jesus in a prayer to his Father on the night that he died said that eternal life was knowing his Father as the only true God and himself as the Christ who was sent by the only true God. That means that we need to know two persons for salvation, not one and not three. ( John 17:3)

Best Regards,
Cal_Minian

You do not consider the Trinity as essential and yet you are a moderator?

Please do not put words in my mouth... I do not believe it to be essential for salvation, but I do believe it is essential for good doctrine. (In other words... I believe good doctrine is esential for good doctrine )

I was told on Paltalk last night that all the moderators would vigorously defend the Trinity.

Which is correct because I believe the doctrine of the Trinity is scriptual.

Dear cirisme,

Thank you for clarifying what you believe. Perhaps you or someone else will accept my challenge to defend why this doctrine is so important to you if no bible writer ever teaches it in context as a clear teaching, like all the other true essential doctrines. (See my original post for details.)

Kind Regards,
Cal_Minian

Thank you for clarifying what you believe.

No problem.

Perhaps you or someone else will accept my challenge to defend why this doctrine is so important to you

All doctrine is important... without it we really don't know God.

Like I said above, I do not believe that a belief in the trinity is essential for salvation. But, think for a moment... if doctrine of the Trinity is correct(and let's just assume for the sake of argument it is) then that really changes the whole perspective of God.

If Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and the object of our worship is God(He is), then it affects everything... because it affects the very foundation of our faith, God Himself.

Today @ 09:37 PM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Dear Theologians,
Paul told Timothy that Christian doctrine in taught in Scripture. He said at 2 Timothy 3:16 that:



In practice we find all essential doctrines taught, in context, by bible writers. In fact we generally find the true essential doctrines taught in context by multiple bible writers. Other Bible passages may expand upon these doctrines, but this is only after these doctrines have already been explicitly taught in context with all the necessary primary components to define the core teaching.

For example, we may not all agree on the significance of Baptism but all Christians understand that Baptism in some form is something taught in the bible and that a single bible writer articulates all the primary elements in context in one passage. All the writers of the gospel accounts teach the doctrine of Baptism all in one place in context. (Matt 3:1-16; Mark 1:1-9; 16:15-16; Luke 3:1-21; John 1:25-33.)

We do not need to derive the concept of Baptism by taking an ?immersion? verse, a ?water? verse and a ?repentance? verse and through ?systematic theology? create the new concept of ?Baptism.? The bible writers have already combined those elements for us so that we know it is indeed an essential bible teaching.

Thus it is by example that bible writers themselves set the high standard by which we should examine doctrines to determine truth.

My challenge to Trinitarians, should they choose to accept it, is to explain why the Trinity stands alone in this regards. Why is the Trinity considered an essential Christian teaching if not even one bible writer ever teaches it in context as a clear doctrine for Christians?

I have presented a hermeneutic that can be falsified. Baptism, Eternal Punishment, Eternal Salvation through faith in Christ, the Resurrection of the dead are all essential doctrines for Christians. My premise can be falsified by providing an essential Christian doctrine, which is derived in the same manner as the Trinity. This challenge has been presented to Trinitarians in the past and not one has been able to provide a counter example.

In his service,
Cal_Minian

And i compliment you on an excellent presentation, however, i challange you to show me in scripture that eternal punishment is a doctrine.

Dear cirisme,

You said:

All doctrine is important... without it we really don't know God.

Like I said above, I do not believe that a belief in the trinity is essential for salvation. But, think for a moment... if doctrine of the Trinity is correct(and let's just assume for the sake of argument it is) then that really changes the whole perspective of God.

If Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and the object of our worship is God(He is), then it affects everything... because it affects the very foundation of our faith, God Himself.

You use a lot of "ifs" in your statement which is good because it perhaps shows you are not dogmatic on the subject. It is important how we view God as is clear from John 17:3 where our very eternal life depends on knowing the Father as the only true God and the Son as his Christ who was sent by the only true God. Jesus teaches that we need to know two persons and not three for eternal life.

I also have made a case for how our doctrine should be tested. No bible writer teaches that the Father and the Son and the Holy spirit are the one God of Christian monotheism.

Bible writers teach plenty of essential Christian doctrine but never teach the doctrine of the Trinity in context.

I hope a Trinitarian will accept my challenge and explain why the Trinity stands alone.

Regards,
Cal_Minian

Dear mickiel,

You said:
"I agree that the trinity is not a biblical doctrine And i compliment you on an excellent presentation, however, i challange you to show me in scripture that eternal punishment is a doctrine."

The Doctrine of eternal punishment is found in many places. For example, take Matthew 25:46

And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life. (American Standard Version)

There are many views as to what constitutes “eternal punishment.” Some view it as annihilation, some view it as conscious torment in a place of literal fire and sulfur and some view it as a condition of separation from God. However no Christian who reads the bible can state that Jesus as recorded by Matthew did not teach “eternal punishment.”

Perhaps I will post on this subject in the other thread that I saw on the subject. My view is that the “eternal punishment” is being put out of existence forever. I would consider a conscious tormenting forever to be an “eternal punishing.”

Kind Regards,
Cal_Minian

Today @ 12:14 AM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Dear mickiel,

You said:
"I agree that the trinity is not a biblical doctrine And i compliment you on an excellent presentation, however, i challange you to show me in scripture that eternal punishment is a doctrine."

The Doctrine of eternal punishment is found in many places. For example, take Matthew 25:46

I understand your belief, but verse 37 calls those who you think condemned-- "righteous", explain to me how they are NOT righteous by verse 46?


There are many views as to what constitutes “eternal punishment.” Some view it as annihilation, some view it as conscious torment in a place of literal fire and sulfur and some view it as a condition of separation from God. However no Christian who reads the bible can state that Jesus as recorded by Matthew did not teach “eternal punishment.”

Perhaps I will post on this subject in the other thread that I saw on the subject. My view is that the “eternal punishment” is being put out of existence forever. I would consider a conscious tormenting forever to be an “eternal punishing.”

Kind Regards,
Cal_Minian

I would agree that God could simply will people out of existance, but it is NOT in his revealed power to loose children.

Yesterday @ 04:01 PM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Dear cirisme,

You use a lot of "ifs" in your statement which is good because it perhaps shows you are not dogmatic on the subject.

No, it shows that I am trying to have a reasonable discussion with someone who apparently is not trinitarian. For this discussion to work, we need common ground. And I was trying to get that common ground.

You're asking why we should view the doctrine of the trinity as essential for salvation, not whether the trinity is sound doctrine.

It is important how we view God as is clear from John 17:3

Good, then we agree that it is important to know about God, but we disagree on whether the trinity is sound doctrine.

Jesus teaches that we need to know two persons and not three for eternal life.

I also have made a case for how our doctrine should be tested. No bible writer teaches that the Father and the Son and the Holy spirit are the one God of Christian monotheism.

Bible writers teach plenty of essential Christian doctrine but never teach the doctrine of the Trinity in context.

Irrelevant to the topic of:

I hope a Trinitarian will accept my challenge and explain why the Trinity stands alone.

Dear mickiel,

After I quoted Matthew 25:46 where Jesus speaks about “eternal punishment” you said “I understand your belief, but verse 37 calls those who you think condemned-- "righteous", explain to me how they are NOT righteous by verse 46?” You also said “I would agree that God could simply will people out of existance, but it is NOT in his revealed power to loose children.”

There are two groups that Jesus mentions, the sheep and the goats. The righteous to which you refer are the sheep, not the goats who “go away into eternal punishment.”

To help make this clear I will quote the entire passage and color code the sheep and goats .

Matthew 25:31 But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: 32 and before him shall be gathegreen all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats; 33 and he shall set the sheep on his right hand , but the goats on the left .

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand , Come, ye blessed of my Father , inherit the kingdom prepagreen for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat ; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink ; I was a stranger, and y e took me in ; 36 naked, and ye clothed me ; I was sick, and ye visited me ; I was in prison, and ye came unto me . 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink? 38 And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 And when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them , Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me .

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand , Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepagreen for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat ; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in ; naked, and ye clothed me not ; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not . 44 Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them , saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me. 46 And these shall go away into eternal punishment : but the righteous into eternal life.

As you can see, you have confounded the two groups. This thread, however, is not intended as a discussion of different views on “eternal punishment,” which is quite clearly taught by Jesus in this verse. My point in bringing up the doctrine was merely to show how the Trinity stands alone as a doctrine which is not taught as doctrine by any bible writer. You have a different view on “eternal punishment,” but you can hardly deny the existence of something that Jesus himself spoke about.


Kind Regards,
Cal_Minian

Cal,
How do you define "person?" Do you think the Spirit can be divine without being personal? Are the attributes of divinity and personhood with respect to God something one can separate in your estimation?

I'm interested to hear how you think concerning these matters....

Today @ 08:36 AM post located here
cirisme:

Dear cirisme,
As a modertor who has frequently posted on this board you may be in a position to help me find someone who will explain why the Trinity stands alone.

While it is admirable that you do not consider a doctrine that no bible writer teaches, in context, to be essential for salvation, this does not help me understand why you believe it when the Trinity cleary stands alone.

If you know of a Trinitarian (or two!) who is up to directly addressing my challenge I would be most grateful if you could direct them to this thread.

Best Regards,
Cal_Minian

Today @ 09:17 AM post located here
pereynol:

Cal,
How do you define "person?" Do you think the Spirit can be divine without being personal? Are the attributes of divinity and personhood with respect to God something one can separate in your estimation?

I'm interested to hear how you think concerning these matters....

Dear pereynol,
I consider the holy spirit to be divine because it originates with the God and Father of Jesus Christ and it is therefore of divine origin.

As to personification, my view is that the holy spirit reflects the personality of the one who sends it. I do not consider the holy spirit to be a person.

I am not offering proofs at this time because my focus is on why the Trinity stands alone as a doctrine considered essential by the owners and moderators of this board (with the exception of criseme) when it is not taught by any bible writer in the same manner as all true essentail doctrines.

Best Regards,
Cal_Minian

Cal,

I'm afraid this isn't my primary section, so I'm not too familiar with the regulars here. Are you interested in a structured debate? If you are, you may want to post a challenge in Coach's Quarters which tends to bring alot of people in.