The Trinity vs. Polythism

I was looking that the doctrinal statements of America's two largest mega-churches and thought they looked more polytheistic than Trinitarian. I thought I'd see what you guys think.

Lakewood Church (Olsteen): "We believe in one God who exists in three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Lifechurch.tv: "[God] has eternally existed in three personalities: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three are coequal and are one God... Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is coequal with the Father and Holy Spirit. Jesus lived a sinless human life..."

Lakewood Church (which has no verse references in their statement of beliefs) paints a picture of three individual gods in a single governing body functioning as our God. And, with the Father and the Son, one is left to suspect there's a mommy god somewhere. Joseph Smith could have used the same words.

Lifechurch.tv (approaching 50,000 members, for #2 in size) tries to mute the polytheistic inference by replacing "distinct persons" with a schizophrenic "three personalities." Their statement itself seems a bit schizophrenic, in calling Jesus both eternal (in the past) and a the son of God. A son isn't eternal, but has a beginning And, co-equal? What of Jesus saying the Father is greater than Him?

I take "Son of God" to be a figure of speech for the incarnation. Jesus isn't the son of God, He's God manifest in the flesh. Phil 2:6 [Christ Jesus], 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped [held on to], 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Why do these churches avoid the concept of incarnation?

I would love to address this at length and deconstruct Trinity doctrine as representing the subjective Egregore that it is and has become; but it got really ugly last time I did so.

This is a strong Trinity site. The Lakewood faith statement IS Trinity. Lifechurch has just diluted it to personalities vs. persons.

You are correct. The difference between Trinity and Polytheism is preferred semantics. There is no exegetical distinction between divine OR human persons and beings. God is not, and cannot be, three persons in one being.

The church is in apostasy, and has been since at least Nicea; just from its Theology Proper. But there's enough truth in Trinity for hearts to hear the Rhema for salvific faith.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:I would love to address this at length and deconstruct Trinity doctrine as representing the subjective Egregore that it is and has become; but it got really ugly last time I did so.

This is a strong Trinity site. The Lakewood faith statement IS Trinity. Lifechurch has just diluted it to personalities vs. persons.

You are correct. The difference between Trinity and Polytheism is preferred semantics. There is no exegetical distinction between divine OR human persons and beings. God is not, and cannot be, three persons in one being.

The church is in apostasy, and has been since at least Nicea; just from its Theology Proper. But there's enough truth in Trinity for hearts to hear the Rhema for salvific faith.

this post is loud and clear.
in spite of intensive discussion.
you have just made the statement this site is apostate.
why are you here.
to benefit from our work?
well considering us apostate?
carry on.

this post is loud and clear

But I've never been anything BUT loud and clear in opposition to Trinity doctrine, in spite of my deep and genuine love for you AND my insistence of your true salvation by grace through faith.

I'm not the one who has anathematized the remainder of the world via a doctrine that is literally an exegetical impossibility from the inspired text. That would be your predecessors and peers. I deal with exegesis, and don't make it a matter of judging individual hearts.

in spite of intensive discussion

Not really. I just left it alone at a point. I never do that, so it should speak volumes.

you have just made the statement this site is apostate.

No. I made the statement that this is a strong Trinity site, and another statement that the church is in apostasy. I also stated there's enough truth in Trinity for salvific faith for few/some/many/most.

why are you here.

Because Dispensationalism is apostasy ushering in the Eschaton, and I'm convinced you're a true believer. Am I not welcome? I'm not the one who was dragged through bizarre scrutiny and strong accusation by those who can't exegete the text and don't comprehend what I've actually said. My issue is with erroneous orthodox doctrine, not each individual.

to benefit from our work?

I came here because of my love and respect for you from CC, and I share your (Eschatological) view of the truth. Have I benefitted? In detail, yes. Is that a bad thing that I've appreciated your work? You certainly don't seem to have appreciated mine, and it's Theology Proper.

well considering us apostate.

One must go on to teleiotes FROM the doctrine of Christ. That's why the church has been trapped in infancy, and thus apostasy. Do you think the convoluted formulation process of orthodox doctrine was unhindered by the enemy? Do you think it escaped attention within the agenda of the ages?

Trinity Proper and the Hypostatic Union are built upon the foundation of the distinction between divine persons and beings and the distinction between human persons and beings. There is NO exegetical distinction possible between either, whether in Greek or English. It was a Greek vocab scavenger hunt to retroactively validate a pre-predicated eisegetic concept; and it remains an untranslated English semantics Scrabble game.

It's an Egregore, which is widely worshipped, regardless what scriptural evidence is presented to the contrary. Trinity presents two additional substances (hypostases), one of which was the source of creation. Contrarily... Creation was by God's Logos, which became flesh as the Son.

Many Trinitarians are just accepting what they believe is the best possible explanation and representation of scripture. I'm all about resolving the error before Trinity is deconstructed as the fallacy it is. It will be a major part of the coming Agenda.

Trinity is the ultimate Dialectic, having infiltrated Christendom at a foundational point. The Councilors didn't finish their job, and they were only concerned about the other views that were threatening to overtake orthodoxy. They got close, but they never understood that God created ALL, including the heavenly realm they consigned Him to for His inherent existence.

"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." Pslam 33:6

Who is the Lord? (YHWH)
What is the word of the Lord? (dabar/rhema)
What is the breath of his mouth? (ruach/pneuma)
Whose word and breath and mouth was it?

"But who is able to build him (YHWH) a house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him?" 2Chron 2:6

Was God so impotent He could not and did not created heaven and eternity, and is constrained to them?

God and God alone is uncreated. ALL else is created ex nihilo except that which proceeds from Him ex Deo. God, His Logos, and His Spirit; and the Logos became flesh as the Son.

God is a person(al subsistence) [hypostasis]. The Son is a person [prosopon]. The express image OF THAT hypostasis as the prosopon of Jesus Christ. God's own singular divine subsistence manifested in the likeness of sinful flesh.

The Logos created all non-divine substance. An additional divine substance (hypostasis) didn't create all non-divine substance. You should get that.

The Logos proceeded forth into the created heavenly realm, as did the Spirit. In due course of time, the Logos became flesh as the Son by conception of the Spirit within Mary's womb, by grace through her faith that came by hearing the Rhema. Procession and conception are not inception; so the Son had no beginning, being co-terminous with the Logos. The eternality of the Son is the eternality of the Logos.

The TRUE Eternal Son. Begotten. Fathered. Legitimate. Trinity's eternal Son is illegitmate, being unfathered and unbegotten. Trinity's eternally UNbegotten Son.

Do you think any Dispies have salvation, even though they're deceived? Are they intrinsically apostate in their salvation because of their apostate Eschatology?

Why must I represent every individual Trinitarian as apostate and unsaved because orthodox doctrine is erroneous and the church is apostate? Yet none of that changes the exegetical truth of Theology Proper.

Scripture gives us: one hypostasis for God (the Father), and one prosopon for the Son as the Logos Incarnate; and no ousia for God. Trinity is three hypsotases in one ousia. I can completely deconstruct it from the text, and it will be deconstructed in Christendom by others to unravel the faith of many.

carry on.

I will. I must. Just as you threaten total internet abdication every few months and yet return to that which burns within you by the Spirit.

Perhaps you would tell me what the exegetical distinction is between persons and beings, and what the means of doing so would be.

And then we could get to the exegetical validily of cessationism (not just the despicable abuse and perversion of supposed continuationists).

And this is in no way adversarial or personal. Do you think I'm apostate and unsaved?

Cosmogony and God's constitution are integral to the Gospel; at LEAST as much so as the Dispy perversion of Jews over Jesus. They both need to be exposed.

For many, Trinity is as much an Egregore as the god of the pseudo-jews.

DELETED

zone wrote:how about **** ***
because Doc and I KNOW JESUS IS GOD
JESUS IS LOGOS
JESUS IS ARCHE
JESUS IS THE EXPRESSION OF CREATION.
JESUS IS GOD

so save all the rest.

you said this site is 'strongly Trinitarian'
'Trinitarianism is Apostasy'.

so how about **** ***.

(i don't speak for Doc here...i speak for ME).

[admin edit - bad language]

Wow.

I just commented to Hammer that this was a Trinity site and his challenge of the doctrine might not be well received. ...which seems to have been a monumental understatement. And I'd guess Doc would more than agree (with you). I don't know.

(I guess this means no exegetical distinction between persons and beings will be forthcoming.)

I would love to address this at length and deconstruct Trinity doctrine as representing the subjective Egregore that it is and has become; but it got really ugly last time I did so.

This is a strong Trinity site. The Lakewood faith statement IS Trinity. Lifechurch has just diluted it to personalities vs. persons.

You are correct. The difference between Trinity and Polytheism is preferred semantics. There is no exegetical distinction between divine OR human persons and beings. God is not, and cannot be, three persons in one being.

The church is in apostasy, and has been since at least Nicea; just from its Theology Proper. But there's enough truth in Trinity for hearts to hear the Rhema for salvific faith.

This is what I actually said.

You wanna see gatekeepers in action on various forums? Forget correcting Eschatology. Try challenging Trinity.

Hmmm......

DELETED

Like I said.

I didn't say THIS SITE is apostate. Nor you.

Love you anyway.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:This is a strong Trinity site.

Is this based on our statement of faith?

Statement of Faith

Strangelove wrote:

Is this based on our statement of faith?

Statement of Faith

No.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

Is this based on our statement of faith?

Statement of Faith

No.

So do you wanna adjust your statement then?

By the way Hammer, if you want my thoughts on this stuff you can look here:

Merismos Monotheism

Triune Godhead

Basically, the whole subject doesn't really interest me.

Jesus is God.

If some folks wanna describe the nature of God as triune or whatever then I'm easy. As long as at the end of the day there is only one God, and Jesus is God then I'm not gonna clobber 'em over the head.

It would seem that not much attention has been given to researching the strong and verifiable influence of the Judaizers in the Hellenistic roots of Trinity doctrine.

Wouldn't it have been brilliantly deceptive if the Judaizers tainted the post-Apostolic foundation of orthodox Christian Theology Proper at a relatively early stage, along with everything else that came later?

Nah... they could never have thought of that or accomplished that. Everything is just incidental, not intentional. And they would never have any agenda for corrupting the biblical Logos into an additional divine substance (of three) from which all created substance derived rather than God's actual Logos.

All non-divine matter from divine matter (the Son as an additional hypostasis) rather than from Logos. Natural stuff from divine stuff rather than created ex nihilo by God's Logos. WAY more subtle than even the most clandestine later stages of deception. And with 17 centuries of momentum "inside" Christendom. Self-perpetuating.

Then pull the rug nearly two millennia later at whatever point to contribute to collapsing the Christian faith. The Word-of-faithers are Trinitarians, reclaiming their inherent divinity as their birthright. Change the Rhema into something by which one creates their own divinity from their professed Deity (the Son as the third hypostasis of three). Channel the supposed substance by which all things are upheld. The apostasy is within splintered sectarian evangelicalism; and it had its origins in the early RCC.

Sound familiar?

Indulgences, indeed. They pale in comparison. Sorry for being such a conspiracy theorist. I'm sure the late-developed Trinity doctrine is immune to the spirit of antichrist, both then and now. Why would the host of hell want to corrupt mainline Christian doctrine? What possible purpose could there be? Nothing and nobody could have that level of worldwide power over such a long period of time.

And a bunch of well-meaning Bishops facing internal threats of divisiveness within the faith wouldn't be vulnerable to their own Dialectic consensus being manipulated. Arianism was proposing the additional hypostasis (the Son) to be created divine substance. That was quelled to make the additional hypostasis (the Son) to be an uncreated divine substance. Either way, the Logos gets transposed into an additional hypsotasis ("person") from which all created matter derived.

Hybridize. Dilute. Just a drop of poison in the Living Water.

Someone who introduced subtraction by addition (the serpent with the knowledge of evil added to the knowledge of good) to mankind wouldn't subract from the Christian faith by addition, would he? Surely he wouldn't oversee the addition of additional hypostases to orthodox doctrine over a period of 2 to 6 centuries. That doesn't fit his modus operandi, does it?

Actually, it SO does. Create an Egregore for a purpose; then destroy it. Have men do it for themselves, and then worship at the altar of their own creation.

A large measure of truth laced with drops of untruth is more potentially deceptive than overt deceit. Both is a sure tactic from each perspecitve.

Strangelove wrote:

So do you wanna adjust your statement then?

Sure. How do want me to do so?

This site promotes that Jesus is God. Would that be simple and definitive enough?

(Arians and Modalists and others say the same.)

But no need to belabor it all. It was merely a responsive and preemptive comment to someone's OP.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:It would seem that not much attention has been given to researching the strong and verifiable influence of the Judaizers in the Hellenistic roots of Trinity doctrine.

Wouldn't it have been brilliantly deceptive if the Judaizers tainted the post-Apostolic foundation of orthodox Christian Theology Proper at a relatively early stage, along with everything else that came later?

Nah... they could never have thought of that or accomplished that. Everything is just incidental, not intentional. And they would never have any agenda for corrupting the biblical Logos into an additional divine substance (of three) from which all created substance derived rather than God's actual Logos.

All non-divine matter from divine matter (the Son as an additional hypostasis) rather than from Logos. Natural stuff from divine stuff rather than created ex nihilo by God's Logos. WAY more subtle than even the most clandestine later stages of deception. And with 17 centuries of momentum "inside" Christendom. Self-perpetuating.

Then pull the rug nearly two millennia later at whatever point to contribute to collapsing the Christian faith. The Word-of-faithers are Trinitarians, reclaiming their inherent divinity as their birthright. Change the Rhema into something by which one creates their own divinity from their professed Deity (the Son as the third hypostasis of three). Channel the supposed substance by which all things are upheld. The apostasy is within splintered sectarian evangelicalism; and it had its origins in the early RCC.

Sound familiar?

Actually, no....it doesn't sound familiar. It just sounds like a guy using lots of complicated words to make an issue out of something that is...quite simply....unimportant.

If there was a bunch of Christians running around saying that our religion consists of 3 divine totally separate triplet gods then you might have a point...but there arn't. I'm very sorry if you believed there were 3 divine totally separate triplet gods when you were snagged in whatever cult you were in but....erm....most people are just not that dumb.

Obviously now your tryin to overcompensate by acting all clever and wotnot, but...its still a completely uninteresting and unimportant topic, my opinion h'obviously, no offence.

Cheers bud.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Sure. How do want me to do so?

For example you could say, two of the main posters here have nothing against basic trini doctrine.

That would be a fair statement.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:This site promotes that Jesus is God. Would that be simple and definitive enough?

Uhm...yeah...?...? but that wouldn't really be relevant to the topic would it?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:(Arians and Modalists and others say the same.)

They also have foreheads.....so what?

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:But no need to belabor it all. It was merely a responsive and preemptive comment to someone's OP.

I think it sounded more like a desperate attempt to quickly snag a new member over to your side with the general message being "it's you and me versus THE TRINI FORUM"......but heh...again...just my 'pinion.

I don't think much about trini doctrine...I don't have much against the word "persons". I'm easy.

Jesus is God.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:I would love to address this at length and deconstruct Trinity doctrine as representing the subjective Egregore that it is and has become; but it got really ugly last time I did so.

With my lack of diligence, I wasn't aware of that "last time". Strangelove provided links to a couple of other threads related to the Trinity.

I don't believe the doctrine of the Trinity is polytheistic. Trinitarians believe in only one God. And, don't we all agree that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all the one God?

I've decided to study the official beliefs of America's biggest mega-churches. And, it did strike me that the statement from America's biggest church seemed compatible with polytheism, such as Mormonism. And, the statement of the second biggest church seems self-conscious of the polytheistic undercurrent of the popular expression of the Trinity, and so replaced "persons" with "personalities."

I think the main problem here, leaving maybe a bad impression, is a lack of detail. The point I made in the OP, which would help distinguish the Trinity from anything compatible with Mormonism is the doctrine of the Incarnation, which isn't part of the belief statements of these two churches.

I think a view of the Trinity that hints toward polytheism contributed to the success of Mormonism. But, can you otherwise make the case that the doctrine "God in three persons", especially where their distinctiveness is emphasized, has been harmful, in practical terms? (I think doctrines that lack harmful consequences aren't thing we necessarily need to worry about.)

I agree with Pneuma concerning "Trinity" doctrine being polytheistic in nature after its literal explanation. If 'persons' does no literal justice to explain it then why retain that word? It seems like everyone jumped on the Nicean bandwagon and are afraid to think on their own. The Catholic-style Trinity explanation is forced by the deductive processes it employs to deny that Jesus was literally begotten of the Father. That is not something anyone should be 'easy' with.

The word "incarnation" is dirty after its association with the Catholic-style explanation. Therefore using it, unless specifying clearly that it is not being used after the Catholic style explanation makes the person using it to appear to embrace polytheism.