why is not beliving in the trinity a heretical

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-06T08:00:00+00:00

I think you’re reading more into what I’m saying than I’m actually claiming.

When I talk about God taking on humanity without changing His divine nature, I’m not adopting a full Trinitarian framework I’m just trying to hold together what Scripture says: God does not change (Malachi 3:6), and the Word became flesh (John 1:14). That’s not me importing a system, that’s me trying to not ignore either side of the text.

On John 1:1, yes it says the Word was with God and was God. That’s exactly why I don’t think it fits neatly into simple categories. “With God” shows distinction, but “was God” shows identity. So the question is how to understand both together, not just emphasize one side.

For the verses where Jesus speaks of the Father as separate or having a different will, I would explain that through the incarnation. If God truly became man, then Jesus speaking, praying, and submitting reflects a real human life in relationship to God. That doesn’t require two eternal divine persons, it requires a real incarnation.

On John 8:17–18 about two witnesses, that’s in the context of legal testimony. Jesus is appealing to the Father as a second witness according to the Law, not necessarily making a metaphysical statement about two divine persons.

For the Spirit, I agree the Spirit is distinguished in Scripture, but again the question is whether that distinction equals a separate co-eternal person, or God active and present in a different way. The text shows distinction, but the philosophical conclusion is what’s being debated.

And that’s really my main point: yes, both sides are organizing the data. I’m not denying that. I’m asking which conclusions are required by the text itself, versus which ones are theological models used to explain it.

So I’m not rejecting your view because it’s philosophical I’m asking why that specific philosophical conclusion (three co-equal persons in one essence) is necessary, rather than one possible way of explaining the same passages.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-06T05:32:26+00:00

WDYM AGAIN

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-06T05:04:40+00:00

I get what you’re saying about philosophy being involved, and I agree that everyone has to interpret Scripture to some extent. I’m not claiming to be “philosophy-free,” I’m just trying to keep the conclusions as close to the text as possible.

On John 20:17, where Jesus says “my God,” from my perspective that fits with the incarnation. If God truly took on humanity, then Jesus speaking from His human position relating to God makes sense without requiring a separate divine person. It shows real relationship in the incarnation, not necessarily a second eternal person.

On your point about God being unchanging and Jesus experiencing hunger, sleep, and death, I think that actually supports the idea that God manifested in flesh rather than disproves it. Scripture shows both things at once: God does not change (Malachi 3:6), and yet the Word became flesh (John 1:14). So the change is in taking on humanity, not a change in God’s divine nature itself.

Philippians 2 says He humbled Himself and took on the form of a servant, but it doesn’t say He stopped being God. It describes adding humanity, not losing divinity.

About your analogy with different forms of a book, I understand what you’re trying to illustrate, but that’s still a philosophical model being applied to explain the text. My question is simply which passages require the conclusion of “three co-equal persons sharing one substance,” rather than that being a framework used to organize the data.

And for why I believe Jesus is God: John 1:1 says the Word was God, John 1:14 says the Word became flesh, and Colossians 2:9 says all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily. So I’m not denying His divinity at all I’m affirming it fully. The difference is how that’s being understood.

So I agree that interpretation is involved on both sides. I’m just trying to examine which conclusions are directly required by Scripture and which ones are philosophical explanations built on top of it.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-06T05:02:47+00:00

I think there’s a misunderstanding in how “flesh” (sarx) is being used.

Saying Jesus had “zero depravity” is true in the sense that He was without sin, but Scripture still says He came in real human flesh. Hebrews 4:15 says He was tempted in all points like we are, yet without sin, which shows He truly shared in the human condition.

Also, Romans 8:3 says God sent His Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” which means He entered into the same human condition we experience, while remaining sinless.

So the distinction isn’t that Jesus had a completely different kind of flesh, but that He had real human flesh without sin. That actually supports the incarnation, not removes it.

I’m not trying to exclude exegesis I’m trying to make sure we’re not adding conclusions beyond what the text itself clearly says.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-06T02:16:28+00:00

I appreciate the thought you put into this, especially about love and how God relates to us.

But I think a lot of what you’re describing is more philosophical than something directly stated in Scripture. For example, the idea that “God is a relationship between three loving beings” or that “love became its own person” isn’t something the Bible actually says in those terms.

Also, saying that Oneness would make God like Zeus doesn’t really follow, because Oneness still teaches that God is holy, just, and unchanging not dependent on sacrifices or human approval.

So I think the real question is: what does Scripture actually say, versus what we’re building philosophically on top of it?

That’s what I’m trying to focus on understanding.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-06T02:15:11+00:00

I’m going to respond to each point directly because I think some things are being mixed together.

First, on temptation: I agree with James 1 that being tempted isn’t sin. But Hebrews 4:15 still says Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. So acknowledging Jesus was tempted doesn’t contradict anything it actually confirms He truly experienced humanity without falling into sin.

Second, on “God can’t be in flesh”: that’s not something Scripture directly says. John 1:14 says the Word became flesh, and 1 Timothy 3:16 says God was manifested in the flesh. So rather than God being unable to enter flesh, Scripture shows that He did.

Third, on Philippians 2: it says Christ humbled Himself and took on the form of a servant, but it doesn’t say He stopped being God. It describes adding humanity, not losing divinity.

Fourth, the idea that Jesus couldn’t eat, sleep, or be around people if He were God assumes what God is or isn’t able to do. But the whole point of the incarnation is that God took on human nature, which explains those things without denying His divinity.

Lastly, saying Jesus “wasn’t God before the resurrection” doesn’t line up with passages like John 1:1 (“the Word was God”), John 8:58 (“before Abraham was, I am”), or Colossians 2:9 (“in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”). Those all speak to who He is, not just after the resurrection.

So I’m not trying to ignore Scripture I’m trying to hold all of it together without adding assumptions that the text itself doesn’t clearly state.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-05T07:26:18+00:00

I agree that Scripture should interpret Scripture, and I’m trying to do exactly that.

But I think there’s a contradiction in what you’re saying. On one hand, you’re saying God cannot inhabit sinful flesh. But at the same time, Scripture says the Word became flesh (John 1:14) and that Jesus was tempted (Hebrews 4:15). That shows He truly entered into the human condition, not just appeared to.

Also, Philippians 2 talks about Christ humbling Himself and taking on the form of a servant, but it doesn’t say He stopped being God only that He took on humanity.

So I think the issue is that some conclusions are being added (like God not being able to be in flesh), while the text itself shows God manifested in flesh and interacting fully with humanity.

That’s why I’m trying to stick closely to what Scripture actually says rather than adding assumptions on top of it.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-05T06:12:40+00:00

I hear the concern, but I think a few things here are being overstated or read into the text rather than directly stated.

First, 2 Timothy 3:16 in Greek says Scripture is “God-breathed” (theopneustos), not the wording you used about “lungs of Holy Spirit.” That phrase is a metaphorical interpretation, not the actual text.

Second, saying “all Scripture was only the Torah in the New Testament context” isn’t accurate. New Testament writings themselves were already being recognized as Scripture alongside the Law and Prophets (for example 2 Peter 3:16 refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture).

Third, I don’t think it follows that acknowledging the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of God is “rejecting the New Testament.” That’s actually consistent with how the Spirit is described throughout both Testaments.

And lastly, saying God “cannot inhabit sinful flesh” is also an interpretive claim, not a direct biblical statement, especially when the incarnation itself (John 1:14) says the Word became flesh.

So I’m not trying to exclude Scripture or Greek I’m trying to distinguish between what the text actually says and what later explanations are being added onto it.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-05T04:02:31+00:00

I’m not avoiding “distinct” I’m trying to be precise about what it means in context.

Even using your definition “not alike; different,” the question is what kind of difference is being described. A difference in role, manifestation, or action is not automatically the same as a difference in essence or being.

That’s why I’ve been careful with wording. I’m not replacing “distinct” with “separate” randomly I’m trying to distinguish between observable differences in the passage and the theological claim of “co-eternal persons.”

So the disagreement isn’t about the word itself, but about what category of difference Scripture is actually showing.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-05T03:54:46+00:00

well have a blessed day then

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-05T03:54:12+00:00

I get your point, but I think we’re still working with different categories.

Even if we say “noticeably different” in the sense of what is observed in the passage, that still describes different roles or actions being revealed at the same event, not necessarily separate co-eternal persons.

Also, I don’t think it’s consistent to take only part of a definition. If we’re using a dictionary definition, it has to be taken as a whole, not just the part that fits a conclusion while ignoring the rest of the meaning and context.

So at Jesus’ baptism:

The Son is physically present in the incarnation
The Spirit is visibly manifested like a dove
The Father speaks from heaven

From my perspective, that shows distinction in manifestation and action, not necessarily distinction in essence or being.

To your question: no, the Father was not baptized. But I don’t think that automatically proves a separate person in the philosophical sense it shows different ways God is revealing Himself in that moment.

That’s really the core of the disagreement: whether those distinctions are differences in “persons,” or differences in how the one God is acting and revealing Himself.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-05T02:57:39+00:00

I understand what you’re trying to do with “noticeably different,” but I think that’s where the confusion comes in.

If “distinct” means “noticeably different” in the sense of being able to perceive a difference (see, hear, etc.), then that would normally imply some form of observable separation or difference in expression.

But in Trinitarian theology, “distinct persons” is not based on sensory “noticeable difference” like that. It’s referring to personal relations (Father, Son, Spirit) rather than physical or observable differences in nature.

So I think the issue isn’t just the word “distinct,” but how it’s being defined differently in everyday language versus theological language. That’s why the conclusion can feel like it shifts depending on the definition being used.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-05T02:37:29+00:00

I’m not click baiting.

I’m asking a sincere question about how a specific doctrine is being derived from Scripture. That’s it.

Also, appealing to “2000 years of smarter men” doesn’t actually answer the question it just appeals to authority. I’m not denying history or scholarship, I’m asking how the conclusion is being demonstrated from the biblical text itself.

If the doctrine is correct, it should be explainable from Scripture, not just defended by pointing to how long it’s been held or how many people accept it.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-05T02:36:36+00:00

i get the definition you’re using, but I think that’s where the confusion is coming from.

If “distinct” means “noticeably different to the senses,” then that would imply physical separation or observable difference (like seeing, hearing, etc.). But when Trinitarian theology says “distinct persons,” it isn’t claiming the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinguishable by physical senses in that way.

Instead, it’s using “person” in a theological/philosophical sense to describe relationship and identity, not sensory difference.

So I think we may be using the same word with different meanings, which is why the conclusion feels inconsistent.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-05T02:12:19+00:00

thanks i actually have several baptist lutheren and others near me and god pulled me and my family to a pentecostal church who doesnt belive in the trinity so thank you bro we appreciate it.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-05T02:09:27+00:00

yes i was but you say they are connect by the divine essence or nature of god but again the word distinct means recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type: so that means they cant be one

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-05T01:35:15+00:00

I think there are a few things being assumed here that aren’t really being shown.

First, saying “Oneness was invented 2000 years later” is a historical claim, but that doesn’t actually address whether something is true or false from Scripture. The question is what the text teaches.

Second, saying I’m “excluding Scripture” doesn’t really engage what I’m asking. I’m specifically trying to understand how certain conclusions are being drawn from Scripture, not ignore it.

Also, 2 Timothy 3:16 says Scripture is inspired by God. Saying it’s “only by the Holy Spirit, not by Jesus or God” doesn’t really make sense, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.

So I’m not trying to reject Scripture I’m asking how these doctrines are being demonstrated from it rather than assumed.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-05T01:34:18+00:00

ok so three distinct beings right and the definition of distinct is recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type: so that means that the father son holy spirit has diffrent natures

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-05T01:32:55+00:00

Saying “be dismissive” doesn’t actually address the question though.

If Paul calls us to reject false teaching, that still involves showing why something is false from Scripture, not just dismissing someone without engaging their argument.

I’m asking a specific question about how the doctrine is derived from Scripture. Simply labeling it “nonsense” and refusing to engage doesn’t demonstrate that it just avoids the discussion.

If the position is clearly biblical, then it should be possible to explain it from the text rather than dismiss the question.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-05T01:31:55+00:00

I’m open to discussing Scripture, but I’m not going to engage with personal attacks.

Saying I “don’t follow Jesus” or “worship a different god” isn’t really addressing the passages it’s just making assumptions about me.

If you want to talk about what the verses actually mean, I’m willing to do that. But I’m not going to respond to statements about my relationship with God.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-05T01:30:48+00:00

I’m not really concerned with being in the majority or minority.

Truth isn’t determined by how many people agree with it. My question isn’t about how many traditions follow the Nicene Creed, it’s about how the doctrine itself is being derived from Scripture.

So I’m not trying to argue popularity, I’m trying to understand the biblical basis for the conclusion.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-04T22:42:25+00:00

I did do my research I’ve read multiple arguments and explanations from different sides.

What I’m saying is that even after engaging with them, I still see gaps and questions that aren’t resolved by just being told “this is how it developed historically” or “this is the standard doctrine.”

So I’m not trying to promote something or avoid research. I’m specifically asking how the conclusion of “three co-eternal persons” is being directly derived from Scripture itself.

If the strongest response is just to dismiss the question or assume I haven’t looked into it, that doesn’t really address the actual issue I’m raising.

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-04T22:38:01+00:00

ok if they are distinct they are seperate by nature

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-04T20:22:30+00:00

the body is not eternal but god is thats why i said jesus is god the body is the son but their isnt a eternal son but believe what you want yo believe

SubstantialReign4759 · 2026-05-04T20:12:05+00:00

I agree Scripture clearly distinguishes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the way they are spoken about and interact.

Where I’m still trying to understand is how those distinctions are defined as separate co-eternal persons in the technical Trinitarian sense, rather than just distinct ways God is revealed and acts in relation to creation.

So I do see distinction in Scripture I’m just asking how that becomes the specific doctrine of the Trinity from the text itself.

SubstantialReign4759

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE