I have friends who are Oneness Pentecostals and many more friends who are Trinitarians. It has been an interesting day since T.D. Jakes appeared at an event called “The Elephant Room” (i.e. MMA for evangelicals) where he was asked about his understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Many of my friends and acquaintances in Oneness Pentecostal circles have understood Jakes to be one of their own. Yet today he told Mark Driscoll, James MacDonald, and others the following (according to Trevin Wax’s transcript):
Driscoll: We all would agree that in the nature of God there is mystery. But within that, for you, Bishop Jakes, the issue is one God manifesting Himself successively in three ways? Or one God existing eternally in three persons? What is your understanding now? Which one?
Jakes: I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word persons though. You describe “manifestations” as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline. For God was manifest in the flesh. Paul is not a modalist, but he doesn’t think it’s robbery to say manifest in the flesh. Maybe it’s semantics, but Paul says this. Now, when we start talking about that sort of thing, I think it’s important to realize there are distinctives between the work of the Father and the work of the Son. I’m with you. I have been with you. There are many people within and outside denominations labeled Oneness that would be okay with this. We are taught in society that when we disagree with someone in a movement, we leave. But I still have associations with people in Onenness movements. We need to humble both sides and say, “We are trying to describe a God we love.” Why should I fall out and hate and throw names at you when it’s through a glass darkly? None of our books on the Godhead will be on sale in heaven.
For Trinitarians there is the simple confession of “One God-Three Person”, but some may think he fudged things a bit with the caveat that he isn’t “crazy about the word persons though” and that he is OK with “manifestations”. Some Oneness Pentecostals may be a bit upset that he said “persons”, but they appreciate that he struggles with the word “person” just as they do.
What do you think of this statement? Are you a Trinitarian or a Oneness adherent? Does it matter to you either way or do you find this to be a debate over semantics?
__________
See C. Michael Patton’s “T.D. Jakes Not a Modalist?” as well.
the archives near Emmaus 
Sounds like he pleased neither side’s doctrine police…
But it also sounds like both Trinitarians and some Oneness constituents are somehow okay and acceptable with his current position. It reaches and speaks to the minimums of both side’s “creeds” (I use that loosely, since OP’s don’t have a creed, per se).
I am an Trinitarian and I think that it is important. However, we need to be careful when we include or exclude people from the kingdom. If you deny that Jesus is Lord, that is clear as the Bible speaks plainly to that. The relationship of the Father to the Son to the Spirit? That is not as clear in the Bible. I am not sure that T.D. Jakes is as precise as we would like him. But I am not sure the apostle Peter would have given us the Nicene definition we would like either.
I think there’s a danger with a person believing they ‘possess perfect doctrine’.
More humility is a good thing.
I believe what it says in the book of Collisions. It’s more commonly known as the book of Colossians, but it causes collisions with a lot of doctrines. 2:9 sums it up pretty well, but we still have the matter of 2Peter 3:16. Some times it’s hard to tell if someone is twisting the truth or if they don’t quite grasp it yet. It is clear to me that the Bible teaches what theologians call the doctrine of trinitarianism. That it teaches that it is a fact is clear, but I doubt that a complete understanding of this truth exists outside of the mind of God. We may or my not understand it completely when we get to Glory, but if we can see and accept what the Bible says about this matter we can be as confident of its truth now as we will be then. No doubt this was one of the very subjects that Paul had in mind when he made the declaration, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” Rom 11:33
@James:
It is interesting that someone as hardline as Driscoll on one side can accept him and some hardline Oneness Pentecostals can accept him. Is it because we are closer together as groups than we thought or because of Jakes’ celebrity status?
@Stephen:
Very good and true points.
@Andrew:
Agreed.
You guys really hit all of my points. I decided that my doctrine this year is going to be Trinity before I started hearing the controversy. So I have just started working on reading through some books on trinity. The first two I have started really lead me to believe that in spite of the fact that Trinitarian theology hasn’t moved a lot since around 600, part of the reason it hasn’t it is that no one really knows how to adequately describe it. Every model seem to have some holes. More than any other significant doctrine of the church, this is a philosophical doctrine that has hints, but very little explicit teaching in scripture. So I wish we would start with the assumption that what we are doing (hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit) is coming up with what we can.
This is my litmus:
What knowledge did the ‘thief on the cross exhibit’? He did not seem to be a ‘trinitarian’, yet he was saved.
Though the doctrine of the trinity is likely true, it is an add-on theology that came after the apostolic generation, and indeed possibly the generation that followed.
Therefore, it is doubtful, belief in the ‘trinity’ is a necessary Christian essential (even if it now sits firmly within orthodoxy).
I read the rest of the transcript and I agree with the comments about Christians divided against themselves over issues of doctrines.
Though it is true that it is not necessary to understand the depth of biblical doctrine to be saved, the doctrine of trinitarianism can hardly be fairly called an ad-on doctrine since it was Christ Himself and the Apostles that taught it. It took a few generations for it to catch on in theological schools, but it was preached by the Apostles and accepted among the common believers all through the New Testament and referenced on the Old.
About Bible doctrine and division:
Biblical doctrine when wielded by the Spirit is the sword that severs the true from the false. Those who are deceivers and themselves deceived will gladly continue among us as long as we allow them to hold and teach their false doctrine, (See 2Pet chapter 2 and Jude). When we contend for the one Truth they will go out from among us and blame us for causing the division. We are never to be the cause of disunity but the truth will always divide the light from the darkness. The same spirit that unites the brethren will divide from our company the insincere. One may look a lot like a Christian as a donkey looks much like a horse, but the offspring of that union will always be a mule, having characteristics of both parents, but never able to reproduce.
@Tim: I appreciate why ‘trinitarianism’ is firmly fixed within ‘orthodxy’, but to deny (or to fail to appreciate) the doctrine of trinity does not necessarily mean one denies the divinity of Christ.
I have no doubt the doctrine of the divinty of Christ was taught early (people worshipped Christ early enough to have been recorded in the bible) but the doctrine of the trinity is not explicit in the bible, rather it is implicit. To call it an add-on doctrine then, I meant no disrespect. (I firmly believe in the trinity, myself).
Even so, as you point out, it took some time to become formalized in its expression, and acceptance. This does mean it is false, but does mean it is not essential.
However we understand the trinity, I would agree with you that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ is essential doctrine. But then again, I would also argue, this doctrine was one confessed by the thief on the cross [Luke 23:42].
Jakes belief statement has not changed:
“There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
http://thepottershouse.org/mobile/who-we-are/beliefs.html
I used to be a Oneness Apostolic Christian and I still believe that Jesus is God almighty manifested in the flesh. However, I/we can’t look past what the word of GOD says. There are many areas where Jesus seperates himself from the Father and Holy Spirit, but there are areas where he speaks as being one with the Father. We as humans will NEVER be able to completely understand the Divinity of God until we see his face. I think a lot of our struggles lies within our translations of the bible. We take things “literally” when Jewish people who have studied the original manuscripts seem to have a better understanding. When the Lord said “Let US make man” did he mean “Father, SPirit & Son” or did he mean Himself and Angels, OR was that word US meant as statement of Power? I have decided to study from a Jewish translation. I also believe as a former Oneness Apostolic that both Oneness AND trinitarians are saved and that’s that. It is SO sad to see how the Oneness people are so happy to say that they are the only ones saved just because they don’t cut their hair (or do they?), don’t wear make up (or do they), don’t wear pants (or do they?);etc…Speaking in tongues is also something that God gives and therefore we should not judge someone who has not been baptized in the Holy Ghost as being unsaved (the Oneness teach this). Also, being baptized in only Jesus name is not what the bible teaches. We have to look at ALL scripture (Mat 28:19) and not just Acts 2;38. We HAVE to speak ALL scripture and not only those that back up Oneness. Please people, can’t we all just get along? We have to learn to get along here on earth because I PROMISE you, we will in heaven.
To Andrew; the thief on the cross was under the law, as was John the Baptist. Neither were in the New Testament church. However, (and I am not throwing stones here), no self respecting Jew would ever have believed in multiplicity in the godhead. The greatest commandment of all is…
Hear O Israel…” The reason that there is no peace in the world today and indeed never will be, is because, “love your neighbor as yourself…” is the second commandment. Humanity will never get the second commandment right until they get the first one right, “Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord…”
Eric,
Before making that claim I’d read some of the work of people like Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado ( http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/monotheisms-of-the-ancient-world/ ), and Michael Heiser (http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/ ) for beginners. Second Temple Jews had a more dynamic monotheism than popular dialogue might suggest.
There was no trinitarian doctrine prior to the Nicene creed, a work of the Roman Catholic church. Not sure how you can square their doctrines with anything in the bible as they have now elevated Mary to deity status and pray to her instead of God.
Jesus said, I and my father are one……if you have seen me, you have seen the Father. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Matt 28:19 was a command and not a baptismal service…..also if you write a title such as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit on a check ain’t no bank in town gonna cash it until you put your name on it!!
If we are supposed to be baptized in the titles, why didn’t the other Apostles protest what Peter preached in Acts on the day of Pentecost. Also there is no mention of anyone being baptized in the titles in the New Testament…..all were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, or Lord Jesus Christ….no other way!!
Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh, following the resurrection, the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) was sent to comfort those that he had left, and to give them power to be witnesses. Jesus was not just the Son of God as some would claim, but was God in the flesh….all the fullness of the godhead dwelt in him bodily.
There is only one name given in heaven and earht whereby we must be saved…..Jesus!!
That is why it matters what you believe. Every debate that has been ever been held between oneness/trinitarian, oneness doctrine has been proven!
If trinitarian doctrine is correct then why do Jews not believe it? Ask any Jew whether they believe in trinitarian doctrine and they will say no way. Hear Oh Israel, the Lord our God is one!!!
I am glad I know who Jesus is!!
Oh geez…where are my clear thinking, clear communicating OP friends who know the dangers of proof-texting and revisionist histories.
Future Oneness Pentecostal commenters:
Please, please, please stick to the question at hand. I know you love a forum for listing a dozen or so proof-texts that work for you, but that is not the discussion the subject being addressed. We know your favorite passages. Also, let’s avoid broad claims that Jews in the Second Temple Period didn’t have a dynamic monotheism. Not all Jews affirmed a monoid. Likewise, let’s avoid silly claims like “the Roman Catholics invented the Trinity”. That is an anachronism at best.
3 spirits representing one God. One of those beings became a person. I don’t understand why this concept is so hard for so many people to understand? We look at a single drop of water & we accept it as one yet 3 components or 3 gases. In our Christian lives we see the works of all 3 of the Trinity or 3 spirits which we can compare to us seeing the drop of water or 3 gases working in our lives. We can also think about how many uses we could use those 3 gases or that single drop of water for & compare it to all the uses we can use the 3 spirits of the Trinity for. That drop of water has 3 gases that we cannot see with the naked eye but we know they are still there. We also cannot see with the naked eye the works that those 3 components do or will do. As we cannot see with the naked eye the works that the 3 spirits of the Trinity do or will do. Also one of those gases of the drop of water can combine itself with an entirely different component as Jesus the spirit combined itself with a human body (an entirely different component), then uncombined itself. Just as the gases of the drop of water can do. On earth without water 3 gases we cannot see, there is no life. On earth without the Trinity spirits we cannot see there is no life either. To further use the gases of water we must look closer through a microscope. To further use the spirits of the Trinity we must look closer through the microscope called the Bible. If we do this we find the Trinity is the water of life. We find the exact example we need to understand in our human concepts the exact definition of the Trinity. We can use all sorts of fancy words to describe what I just wrote. But the simplest way to describe a drop of water is 3 gases that are one drop. And the simplest way to describe our single God is 3 spirits representing one God.
David: You’ve got most of the facts mixed up. Catholics don’t pray to Mary instead of God. You should attend a Mass one of these days and note how little Mary is mentioned and how many times God is. You might also want to check out what Messianic Jews actually believe concerning the Trinity. Here’s one for starters: http://www.brithadasha.org/brit/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=72 I think you’d be surprised to know that there are more Messianic Jews who believe in the Trinity than Messianic Jews who reject it.
@Rev. Eric L. Garrett:
Respectfully Rev, I don’t believe you understand the Law. The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good [Rom 7:12]. The Law has not been abolished, and is still in effect [Matt 5:17-20][Eph 2:13-15] for those who living according to the flesh. As long as we live according to the flesh, the Law will condemn us (even now). However, we are not condemned by it now because we no longer live according to the flesh (because of Christ’s death) [Rom 7:6], we live according to the spirit [Rom 8:2]. When we live according to the spirit (of holiness) we are not condemned by the law because the Law is spiritual [Rom 7:14] and so are we (That’s what [Gal 5:18] means; the law cannot condemn an essence in accordance with its own essence, but it can condemn flesh which isn’t)
It’s easy to misunderstand verses like [Rom 7:6]. Imagine a scenario where an adulterous wife is married to her husband. The Law establishes her as wife bound to her husband. If she does not respected the sanctity of that covenant established by law, she is an adulterous wife; the law condemns her. Now image her husband dies, is she still an adulterous wife? No! because she has been freed from being bound to her husband by law through the death of her husband [Rom 7:2]. That law has not changed but she has been freed from its condemnation. This is how we are when we live according to the flesh. Has the law gone away? No, of course not.
Now image this same woman, formerly an adulterous wife; once her husband dies she is free to remarry [Rom 7:3]. If she remarries the same husband who dies, she is no longer an adulterous wife because the bond of the previous marriage has been replace with the bond of the new marriage. Yes her old marriage is gone, and she is in a new marriage, but the law remains, and her former condemnation under the law has been removed by the death of her husband. This is our new relationship in Christ, and what happens when we are baptised into the spirit of life through the death of Christ. Notice, the law remains, eternal, unchanging, without shade or variation; just like the God who spoke forth the law in the first place [James 1:17]. But it’s ability to condemn remains.
When [Romans 7:6] speaks of being released from the law it is not saying the the Law has changed, rather it is saying our relationship to the Law has changed ([Rom 7:5-7] shows that it is us who have changed in relation to the Law).
If the thief on the Cross was saved, he was saved specifically because he was not under the condemnation of the Law. It doesn’t matter if the thief on the Cross was a Jew (even a self respecting one), a Judean, or even an Israelite, in the last moments of his life his confession shows that he was freed specifically because he became like the law, which is to say adorned with the spirit of life [Rom 8:10]
As a Rev, and a shepherd of the flock, I implore you to not see the Law as the Pharisees did, a dead thing (that only condemns) for their view was defective. Instead, see it as the living spiritual thing it is, that saves, just as Jesus saw it. The circumcision of your heart could only be inscribed through the power the law [Jer 31:33][Heb 8:10] (which is holy and righteous, and good [Rom 7:12]). It is a blessed thing to be under the law, when one is under the law according to the spirit as we can see from the thief on the cross.
Donald: You say: “3 spirits representing one God. One of those beings became a person. I don’t understand why this concept is so hard for so many people to understand?”
Three spirits may indeed represent one god, but then that god is not an individual.
You refer to the three spirits as “beings, one of which became a person” which implies your understanding of god encompasses multiple persons.
Which is fine as long as you understand that your explanation contradicts your professed belief in the Trinity.
Unless of course you argue that one = three and three = one, which takes us down a rabbit hole. Why is that so hard for so many people to understand?
@Donald
Here’s a simply math question for you:
Set 1: All Integers (both even and odd) are (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, …)
Set 2: Odd positive Integers are ( 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, …)
Set 3: Even positive Integers are (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, …)
Are there more even AND odd positive integers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, …) in Set 1, than there are even positive integers (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, …) in Set 3 alone?
If you answered ‘Yes’ you’re incorrect. Our intuition says there are more even AND odd positive integers than even positive integers alone, but our intuition is incorrect ( as Georg Cantor [1845-1918] proved ).
There are exactly as many even positive integers in (Set 3) as there are even and odd together in ( Set 1). Our intuition cannot grasp this. If our intuition cannot grasp simple concepts in math, how can it grasp something as infinite as the nature of God?
[If you doubt the assertion above, that ‘there are exactly as many even positive integers in (Set 3) as there are even and odd together in ( Set 1 )’ here’s proof:
The set of even positive integers is said to be ‘equinumerous’ with the set of are positive integers if and only if both classes contain the same number (i.e. they share the same cardinality).
That the cardinality of even positive integers is equal to the cardinality of positive integers can be demonstrated if the members of the two sets can be uniquely ‘paired off’, or put into a “one-to-one correspondence”. Since each member of the set of positive integers has a ‘double’ AND since each member of the of positive even numbers has a ‘half’ we know this correspondence exists and thus both sets share the same cardinality:
1 2 3 4 5 . . .
| | | | | | etc.
2 4 6 8 10 . . .
Thus the number of even positive integers is equal to the number of positive integers]
As humans we arrogantly believe we know more than we actually do, and this is no different then the knowledge we possess of God.
My church history prof at seminary said last fall (when we were discussing the early creeds and the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, along with the Sabellian/patripassionist heresy) that he has been in some dialogues with Oneness theologians and leaders, and some of them are very close to embracing classic Trinitatianism.
@Brian R: I find, often our disagreements are a result of us making tempest out of teapots, where the teapots are us fighting over minor connotations in words.
@Donald
I have to agree with Bondboy that your explanation doesn’t jive with classical Trinitarianism and in fact, many Oneness adherents can use that very example.
@Brian
I’ve know a few people that participated in the Oneness-Trinity dialogue. I hadn’t heard that many were considering changing their views, but I have met many OPs who hold beliefs oh-so-close to classical Trinitarianism.
I was at the ER yesterday; he affirmed, when Driscoll questioned him, point blank, that he believes in one God three persons. He also used the language of seeing real distinction between the persons; which made me think he was more if not fully Trinitarian V. pandering to Trinitarians. He’s still fuzzy, but then again James MacDonald could be consider fuzzy on some things he said too in this re.
I am amazed that either modalists or trinitarians would say that their respective doctrine is taught by the Scriptures. Any honest reading of the Bible would have to acknowledge that if either doctrine is true it is because the Scriptures imply it, not teach it explicitly. To state the obvious, neither the term trinity nor modalism is found in the Bible. And the formulations of each doctrine are constructed by pulling together a variety of verses into an extrabiblical conceptual framework.
As for myself, I’d be prepared to believe either doctrine if I could find the basis for inferring it from Scripture because I believe it is perfectly valid to establish doctrine based on inference from Scripture. God expects us to use our minds, and He did not put every truth in propositional form in the Bible. However, I cannot find a sufficient basis for inferring either doctrine from Scripture.
What then do I believe? That Christ is God. And I believe that we know Christ is God not by explicit scriptural statement but in the same way Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ – that is, not by flesh and blood revealing it, but by heaven revealing it. Thus, whether we are OP’s, Trinitarians, or neither…we are blessed, as Peter was.
Brian Leport:
Shouldn’t trinitarians be troubled by the fact that even people who desperately want to believe in the Trinity and in fact claim to believe in the Trinity are:
a) unable to explain it in any coherent way, or more likely,
b) explain it in a way that contradicts it?
Like billions of others, I reflexively defended the trinity for decades until I actually tried to figure out why I believed that way. I can understand why the idea developed more than I can understand the idea itself.
Brian, wasn’t second temple theology heavily influenced by Hellenism and their teaching that God is wholly transcendent and thus needed an intermediary as God could not have direct contact with the physical universe? Thus the Memra arose which became the precursor to the Logos and early Christian theologicans developed Logos Christology which took the second temple theology’s personification of divine attributes and characteristics and made them into a person, Jesus Christ.
@Mike:
You are correct that neither of these views of God are outlined in Scripture. In part, we discuss/debate our understanding not so that we can “grasp” God, but so that we can avoid errors that will be detrimental to orthodoxy in the sense of right worship and missional impact. I think the debates are worth having though I do wonder if we’ve sometimes reacted too violently against those with whom we disagree. Some ideas seem just absurd (e.g. some forms of so-called ‘gnosticism’) while others seem to run along a range of probability.
@Bondboy:
I can agree with your statement “I can understand why the idea developed more than I can understand the idea itself.” I hate to generalize our Orthodox siblings, but many of them have emphasized orthodoxy as avoiding saying things that are wrong about God, not necessarily defining God. Even as one reads Basil or Athanasius you get the idea that they knew they couldn’t perfectly describe God, but they knew that some ideas flatly contradicted the Christian understanding of God. So how Jesus is united to the Father is a difficult thing to understand, but they reacted violently to the idea that he was just the highest created being because of the foreseen implications such a teaching might have upon a church that had been worshiping Christ for a few centuries. In that sense the debate is healthy and we shouldn’t avoid seeking to understand God as much as possible even if we know we cannot fully comprehend God.
@Carol:
Yes, Jews of the Second Temple period had a push-and-embrace relationship with Hellenism. We find people like Philo who seem to think and function in very, very Greek categories. Josephus seems to have adapted to Rome quite well. On the other hand, the Pharisees and Qumran community fought hard to preserve their unique Jewish identity. So we can’t generalize since there isn’t one “Judaism” of the period, but rather “Judaisms”.
Some of those strands may have very well contributed to how early Christians formulated their Christology. Memra may have influenced Logos Christology or some of the Pauline formulations in Colossians and Ephesians. I am sure that any attempt to simplify influences and strands is bound to oversimplify by default though.
JohnDavid, I was raised Roman Catholic and I prayed to Mary just as much as I prayed to God…per the priest at confession…”say 10 Hail Mary’s and 10 Our Father’s [for penance]. Go in peace, my child.”
CarolJean: What you’re saying is something quite different than either I or David was talking about. The gist of what David wrote is that there are no more prayers to God as now prayers are directed to Mary. I’m talking about prayers in the context of the Mass, which is the highest prayer, which is why I referred David to the Mass. Personal prayers to Mary or prayers of penance that include Hail Mary — and not all penances do — are something different. In either case, they’re don’t make Mary the sole recipient of prayers.
Brian Leport:
There are perfectly simple (and I think more accurate) ways to describe God and Jesus, but the problem is that it doesn’t comport to Orthodoxy. IMO the complications are only necessary to defend bad theology.
The bible has a perfectly simple definition of god: “Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one.” Nobody in the scriptures had any debate or doubt about that definition, and it was endorsed by Jesus. No formulas involving natures or multiple beings or homoouiseses and so on. Nobody needed a college course to explain it. In fact, you didn’t even have to be literate to understand it.
In biblical accounts Jesus was a human, in some (but not all) supernaturally born. As James Dunn has painstakingly documented, even where he was worshipped in the bible, it was part of praise of God, not as God himself.
Where it all came unglued was the split from Judiasm, which started after the fall of the temple and accelerated 50 years later after the next Jewish uprising against the Romans. Then Christians exalted their guy — Jesus — trying to avoid seeming too Jewish as the Jews were in the empire’s doghouse. From there it was a long and gradual process that ended with Athanasius in the year 380.
What’s notable (to me) about the eventual agreement was that it wasn’t so much a compromise but an assertion that everybody was right. Jesus wasn’t one thing or another, but all of everything. That was truly brilliant as a political decision, not so much for logic.
@Bondboy:
To rehash to old narrative that all the Christological controversies were settled by means of political engineering is to great oversimplify things and I am sure you are aware of that. As assertions are made responses are given and that is the theological side of the formation of Christology. Let’s set aside claims regarding political engineering and ask ourselves the same questions the church was asking itself.
For instance, let’s say Dunn is correct that the Evangelists didn’t make quite the leap of the early church and that they were much more vague regarding how worship of Jesus is incorporated into worship of God (something Dunn, Bauckham, and Hurtado having been hashing out for a bit now). The church cannot avoid the questions of whether or not, considering the four-fold gospel they adopted, Jesus should be considered divine (especially as the Synoptics are read in light of John). The theological task of asking what it means for Jesus to share the divine nature is still a question they had to answer, and one they began debating, even before the political influence was involved.
If you want to simplify and be a bit more agnostic than the church that is OK, but let’s not chalk it up to politics like this is some sort of Dan Brown conspiracy. The Sabellian controversy, the gnostic controvery, the Ebionites, Marcion, and other problems of how Jesus relates to God and how the Christian story relates to Israel’s story were debated before Constantine was involved. If you think Constantine manipulated it at the stage of his arrival explain why you think the church, at that stage, missed the point. That is something worth discussing.
Yes, I understand that I’m simplifying, and no, I don’t think it is a conspiracy and I don’t recall saying anything at all about Constantine.
My point is simply that that was at one time a simple truth and as time and circumstances changed, people’s views changed gradually over time. Nobody went from the Ebionite stage to being a full Trinitarian. Each change was the result of some pressure or new view that shifted the ball gradually and after more than 300 years it was somewhere unrecognizable.
john 20:28
and then in john 20:29 Jesus refutes Thomas and chastises him soundly for his irreverence. oh wait, no he doesn’t….
What is really destirbing is the fact that other religions laugh at Christians because of their internal strugles who is right and who is wrong. That is why the Christian church have lost it’s ability to really effectively influence the world in spreading the Good News, the Gospel that Jesus is the only savior and way of salvation. One fact is that both sides believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven, and yes i am also a uniterian but does it really matter? Can’t the church of Christ for once just forget about who is right and who is wrong, and start living out the love of CHrist as He have set the example on earth? Chrsit himself said that a devided kingdom is a powerless kingdom, and what we don’t realize is that the devil manage to bring division between the believers and that is what makes the Christian church powerless. We must understand one thing; God knows the heart of every man. One pearson may believe that the only way to pray is on his knees, while the other believe it is ok to stand and pray, but both is praying and as long is it is out of the heart, do you want to tell me God will not accept both? So come on, why the fuss? Lets rather live out Christ as our Lord and savoir, leave the religious fight and unite against our common enemy, the devil; who comes to steal destroy and to slaughter. Let’s rather live out the love of Christ as it is written ” by this will te world know that you are My decilpes, if you love one another”.
God bless!
Morne
To the gentlemen that insisted bondboy over simplified everything,well how is this, There is only one God our Father who is Spirit not 3 spirits and one Lord Jesus Christ who is the radiance of Gods glory and the brightness of His Hypostasis. How hard is that to understand. No interpretation needed and it most definitely don’t need a qualifying statement. By the wayTD Jakes is a church politician which me he is Apostolic no matter how hard he tries I talk to trinitarians all the time and when I ask them to explain it they give an Apostolic answer.I take that personallyto mean if you take out all the add on language that overqualify scriptures then we all would truly be the Apostolic CHURCH.
Even in the American Catholic University website, there is proof that the trinity was a later development of the Roman Catholics. This website will even tell you that Matthew 28:19 in the original text read like this….Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations “BAPTIZING THEM IN MY NAME.” refute that Mr. 3 god believer. Trinity doctrine was not even introduced until the 3rd century, and was not even ratified by the catholic popes until the 4th century. Oneness doctrine has been preached since the dawning of the ages. “Here O’ Israel the Lord our God is one… There is nothing spiritual or true about the doctrine except that it is “FALSE.”
To all those who believe the trinity! There is several scriptures that will refute anything that you can put out there and even history refutes it. One of them is: “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.” The word Faith here should have been translated as the word “Doctrine.” Another scripture is: Except ye believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” Still another is: If ye believe as the scripture hath said, out of your belly shall flow rivers of living water. The river of living water is evidenced by the tongues that are given by the spirit of God. You better seek for God to reveal Himself to you through the power of the Holy Ghost, or as the scripture has said, “you will die in your sins.” You also need to be baptized in Jesus name for the remission of sins, or you shall in no wise enter in.