The Trinity from Communications Science

[dwight92070]

But, then again, many aspects of Revelation are similarly difficult considering its imagery and the impressionistic aspects of so many of the scenes. It also has some of the most suspect canonicity and between those two issues, it's not a great place to establish a major doctrine such as the identify and nature of God, Himself. That notwithstanding, one thing is pretty striking about the Lamb - it would be hard to imagine how it could further distinguish the Lamb from God.

Consider this article...
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/artic ... is-not-god

Darin,
You state above that, because of 2 points that you made, that Revelation is not a great place to establish a major doctrine such as the identity and nature of God, Himself. Yet, you ask me to consider an article THAT DOES EXACTLY THAT. So you are not being consistent. It's okay to use Revelation to show YOUR understanding of it, but I cannot use it to show MY understanding of it. It's reliable when your side uses it, but unreliable when my side uses it.
Yes, you are right, the Lamb is distinguished, not from God, but from Him who sits on the throne. In fact, immediately after the introduction of the Lamb, verses 6 and 7, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders do something that is ONLY reserved for God Himself - they fall down before the Lamb, with harps and incense (prayers of the saints can ONLY be offered to God) and they sing to Him (the Lamb) and worship Him. Then the angels, myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands of them, are inspired to join in the worship of the LAMB. ONLY GOD IS WORTHY OF SUCH WORSHIP. Finally all creation joins them - all mankind is now included - to CONTINUE TO WORSHIP HIM WHO SITS ON THE THRONE AND THE LAMB. When it comes to worship, there is no distinction made between the Lamb and He who sits on the throne - they both receive equal worship.

The same is true with Jesus. He is not distinguished from God in scripture, but He is distinguished from the Father. Yet both are to be worshipped equally and freely.

Dwight

[darinhouston]

Not time to respond more fully at present, but I am not trying to establish anything by that article - just trying to explain how a non-trinitarian might answer your question. The overwhelming and fundamental theology in Judaeo-Christian doctrine of God is monotheism. The burden of establishing a different or more nuanced doctrine is on the trinitarian. You suggested Rev did that - I provided a counter-argument to your position.

[dwight92070]

The last time I checked, Trinitarians are monotheistic as well. We believe that there is one God, as do the Jews. Not only that, but I would venture to say (I don't have statistics on this) that most Christians are Trinitarians. I don't feel any overwhelming burden to try to convince you or anyone else. But I do enjoy pointing out to anyone who will listen what the Bible actually says. I also enjoy listening to other opinions that are based on what the Bible says. It's real convenient for you to say that you weren't trying to establish anything with that article - rather you just let the article do that for you. The article was definitely trying to persuade the reader that the Lamb was not God, or that Jesus is not God, using Revelation to do so. But you had already said that Revelation is an unreliable book to do that very thing. So here you endorsing the very thing that you cautioned against. As I said, Revelation was fine to use for someone who agrees with you, but when I used it, it was considered by you, to be unreliable. At the very least, that is an unfair way to debate a topic. I believe that Revelation is very reliable, as it stands, and that either of us should be able to use it.

God bless you,

Dwight

[dwight92070]

The Trinity doctrine has been around almost as long as Christianity itself, starting with Athanasius in the early 3rd century. Theophilus actually referred to it in the late 2nd century. I don't think there exists any burden on me or any Trinitarian to establish the doctrine. I would say that a doctrine that's been around over 1800 years now is quite well established. Let's compare that with the Unitarian church, which started in the 1560's, or a little over 460 years. If they were among the first to reject the Trinity - I don't know if that's so - then it looks like they are the ones who established a different, nuanced doctrine. Consequently, it is not the Trinitarians who changed the more long-standing belief, but the anti-Trinitarians.

God bless you,

Dwight

[darinhouston]

Quick reply. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Unitarian church.

[dwight92070]

You are the one who brought it up with your article, not me. I'll admit that I know very little about "biblical unitarianism", but I'm learning, starting with the article that you sent, and now other articles online. It appears that there exists unitarian thought apart from the Unitarian church - maybe that's where you're coming from - I don't know. But it also appears that unitarian thought evolved relatively quickly into a denomination - the Unitarian Church. The original thinking still appears to be around 1560. So I don't know why you would be so defensive about the fact that the 2 are very closely associated.

God bless you,

Dwight

[Paidion]

Clearly Paul was not a Trinitarian. He wrote:

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 2:5 ESV)

Does Paul not distinguish between the ONE GOD and the ONE MEDIATOR—the man Jesus (who is also the divine Son of the only true God.)

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

The apostle John also distinguishes Jesus from the only true God:

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3)

Since Paul and John call the Father "the one God" and "the only true God" and then refers to Jesus as some on else, it follows that Jesus is NOT God.
Why not just accept the true claim of the New Testament writers?—that He is not God, but is the divine SON of God?

[dwight92070]

So how can both Jesus and God be our Savior, as Paul says three times in his letter to Titus, when Isaiah quotes God saying that He is the only Savior in 45:21?

Dwight

[Paidion]

Jesus, having been begotten by God (the first thing that God ever did)1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,, was Another Divine Being exactly like his Father, but yet a different Individual.

What the Father was, His divine Son was. God is our Saviour; God's Son is our Saviour.

Here are two statements by Paul that clearly distinguish the ONE GOD from His Son:

1Co 8:6 ... yet for us there is ONE GOD, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, AND ONE LORD, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

1Ti 2:5 For there is ONE GOD, AND there is ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

[darinhouston]

And God saved us THROUGH His Son. Therefore, in that sense they both saved us.