You don't need to BE God the Father to have foreknowledge or to perform miracles. To call Jesus God is to commit the original sin. That is to call him intrinsically better than you, or to call yourself intrinsically of less value or less worthy than your neighbor. Its through sin with words and deeds we defile ourselves. Yes Christ is our example, our lord & our guide, but he is also our brother through baptism of Holy Spirit. Only through Christ may we come to the Father with righteousness and as sons of God. There is no proof that Jesus is God, but there is much proof to the contrary, one being he said the Father is his God, another being that he was killed, another that he called himself the son of man. Foreknowledge is available to us all, and this is proof of God himself because it is one of many gifts of the Spirit.
Discussion
No, friend. [John 1](https://esv.org/John+1), [Colossians 1](https://esv.org/Colossians+1), etc. Without the Trinity there is no Christianity.
>John 8:58 KJV — Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
I'm glad we have agreements in other areas, though, as well as freedom to disagree in this one. 🤙🏼
Consider reading [John Owen on the Trinity](https://ccel.org/ccel/o/owen/trinity/cache/trinity.pdf).
And John Owen [against the Socinians](https://books.google.com/books/about/Vindiciae_Evangelicae_Or_The_Mystery_of.html?id=zX4yAgAAQBAJ).
How would you explain the first chapter of the Gospel of John, where it says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us"? That points pretty clearly to the divinity of Christ.
Indeed, it actually makes what Christ does for us so much better. If we are adopted into Christ by baptism, and Jesus is truly God, then in Jesus we are divinized—that is, we are perfected by grace and made to share in God's own divine life.
Amen...and yet without blurring the eternal distinction between Creator and creation. (Our restored communion with God is a oneness of relation and fellowship, not a oneness of essence/being.)
The understanding of what the Word is and how it became flesh is where trinitarians make a leap. The Word is Logos, and the logos is from God and is the means by which everything is created. The logos is analogous to "truth" and "physical law" and "law from God" but its more than that. Anything God created, including Adam and Jesus, is through the logos.
It literally says, "the [Logos] was God."
It literally says, "Christ created everything that was created, and nothing that was created was created without him."
When people worshiped angels, they rebuked the worshippers. When people worshipped Christ, he received it without rebuke.
Jesus Christ is the 2nd person of the Trinity, period.
"Did God really say?"
If you're coming from a Mormon point of view, then Galatians *also literally* says to reject a false gospel "even if an angel from heaven" brings it. Satan disguises himself as an "angel of light."
Read Owen's defense of the Trinity. It will help you decide whether or not you are actually a Christian, because to reject the true nature of the son is to reject his father who sent him.
"Except a man believe this..." etc.
If being trinitarian is what it takes to be a christian, than thats not what I am. You can try to relegate me to some crazy sect like whatever you mentioned, but thats only ad hominem. There is God, and there are gods. There is only one God and he created us all and everything else. Christ says its ok to call him our god, but he only points us to the father, and we only have the authority to do so through faith in him. He never claimed to be the creator, but he does claim to be the reason everything was created, because if not for him God would have never have made creation. He was part of the plan from the beginning, and his will and the Father's will are united, so in a sense he did exist from the beginning the same way we have existed from the beginning as part of the movie playing out as God could see it before it was set into motion
Friend, there was nothing 'ad hominem' about what I wrote. For example, if a person likes wine then he is an oenophile by definition. If he does not like wine, then is not an oenophile by definition. The definition of who is and who is not a Christian is not *mine*, but comes to us first from Scripture, and second from the church -- i.e., in the ecumenical creeds and confessions. If you've never read the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian creed, or the definition of Chalcedon, for example, then please do check them out--all are free online--comparing Scripture with Scripture always (Acts 17:11).
Drawing from one of those confessions, namely, the Westminster Standards (WLC), we believe the following:
Q. 6. What do the Scriptures make known of God?
A. The Scriptures make known what God is, the persons in the Godhead, his decrees, and the execution of his decrees.
Q. 7. What is God?
A. God is a Spirit, in and of himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.
Q. 8. Are there more Gods than one?
A. There is but one only, the living and true God.
Q. 9. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A. There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.
Q. 10. What are the personal properties of the three persons in the Godhead?
A. It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the Son to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity.
Q. 11. How doth it appear that the Son and the Holy Ghost are God equal with the Father?
A. The Scriptures manifest that the Son and the Holy Ghost are God equal with the Father, ascribing unto them such names, attributes, works, and worship, as are proper to God only.
This last one, Q11, is of particular interest: "ascribing unto them such names, attributes, works, and worship, as are proper to God only." If you'd like a version with proof texts, see the 2nd link below.
[Westminster Larger Catechism](https://opc.org/lc.html)
[Westminster Larger Catechism (with proofs)](https://opc.org/documents/LCLayout.pdf)
I am a former proselyte of the Catholic Church studying to be a priest, I am well aware of the Nicean creed. These arguments are not new to me. As a former devotee to Mary, of the discalced carmelites, and the Holy Roman Catholic Church, I prayed to know the truth at all expense. The depths of centuries of error were revealed to me through studying the scriptures, and as a result I am not only excommunicated but rejected by most of all of christiandom. There is no church for hundreds of miles where I can find communion with. Its truly miraculous the word is preserved to the integrity it is today. I have reviewed your referenced writings of John Owen (I did find them,) and see the same arguments I have long overcome to my own satisfaction. My statements, likewise, are not directed at your personhood but are intended to share the poorly understood perspective I have come to.
I cant access the pdf you sent, id like to read it
Christ was charged with blasphemy--equating himself with God. He did not deny this.
John 17 also disputes unitarianism. "Restore unto me the glory I had with you *before the worlds were made*."
What you're promoting here is Christian heresy. As I said before: believe it if you'd like, but don't call it "Christian."
I will also reiterate that I am thankful to be a co-belligerent with you on other causes/topics.
🤙🏼
I likewise agree we are on the same side as followers of Christ and other issues. I will accept your authority on the definition of what it means to be christian, and am happy to be rejected by people that would not have me in their group. Its a price I'm more than willing to pay to not betray what I know to be true, and I have paid dearly.
Please don't misunderstand me -- rejecting your belief *is not* the same thing as rejecting *you*. Even though we disagree, I would defend your right to believe what you'd like, and I applaud your willingness to suffer for what you believe in. Just because we could not worship together doesn't mean we cannot work and even socialize together. One of my oldest and most dear friends firmly holds to a set of doctrines against which I would vehemently protest. We're still dear friends.
Heresy is to disagree with the church. Which church should I accept as the authority of what is heresy?
That's a good question.
To drastically oversimplify it ("the medium affects the message"):
The whole church embraced the Apostle's Creed, so start there. For what is meant by it, see the Nicene Creed, Athanasian "creed", and the definition of Chalcedon. This means orthodox (with a small 'o') Trinitarianism.
From there, testing everything according to Scripture, decide who continued the Apostle's teaching, and *on what grounds*, whether Rome or the Reformers.
Then, decide your position on the Synod of Dordt.
There hasn't been much new by way of "heresy" since then--just periodic revivals of questions long since answered.
Shortcut: embrace the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, or (if you reject household baptism) the 1689 LBCF. And you'll generally be in a good spot in terms of where the Apostle's teaching persists today.
*Westminster (American Revision of 1788)
I accept your argumentum ab auctoritate regarding the definition of christianity.
Sola Scriptura above all.
The question is, which groups have remained most faithful to the teaching of Scripture (Acts 17:11) -- despite any self-referential claim to authority?
As a Protestant I affirm the "succession of truth" over the so-called "Apostolic Succession" of Rome -- for the simple reason that God's Word always takes the place of preeminence over man's word.
Hence: sola scriptura
I have no qualms with sola scriptura. I also have no contention with the fruit of the tree argument. As a reformed catholic myself, we are on the same side there. The only difference is in the interepretation of the word. Knowing what I have learned from this interepretation and hence the consequence of this knowing that leads me to very different conclusions than what the church has taught since Constantine and the Council of Nicea.
Sola scriptura is a fallacy from a mind that made up a lot of new formulas ignoring fundamental theological aspects.
The tradition came first.
If you did believed scriptures came first, you would have never accepted the removal of 7 books, from the original 73 to 66 of the protestant imposters.
How do you explain their removal without attacking the scriptures themselves?
We received the OT from the church under age. The "aprocrypha" were never considered the Word of God, even if helpful or historical (or not). See Kline, [The Structure of Biblical Authority](https://amzn.to/3rz8MMj). Either way, authority of an inspired text is not bestowed (per Rome) but recognized and acknowledged (as per the Reformers). God's word speaks for itself.
In our circles, this is reffered to as [the self-attestation of scripture](https://modernreformation.org/resource-library/articles/the-self-attestation-of-scripture/) (q.v.).
Some books, even of the 66, are more important than others.
Why is it such a leap to affirm that the Logos is a person? John 1 literally says that the Logos *is* God. If we believe that God must be personal, and we believe that the Logos is God, then the Logos must be a person, or he is not God.
Likewise, if we look at John 1, the Logos cannot be the same person as God the Father, because it also says "the Word was with God." It is nonsensical to say something is with itself. So that Logos is both separate from the Father, and he is God, and he became flesh. Thus we say that Jesus is God.
I didnt say the Logos isnt a person, I just said he is not God the father, he is a creation. From our perspective he may look like a god (and he is) but he is not the singular first mover, and he isn't Jesus. The bible is pretty clear that Jesus is higher than the Logos, as are we as christians..
Right, the Logos is a person, and he is not he Father. But he is God, and he is eternal. "In the beginning was the Word." Going back to Genesis, there is nothing "in the beginning" except God. Scripture speaks of no moment in which the Logos was created, but it does say that the Word "was" in the beginning, that the Word was "with" God, and that the word "was" God. This points to an eternal person coexistent with the Father.
meanwhile, scream your as-yet-unborn children from the 6th bardo before incarnation : 
Here is a question I'd like you to answer: Can God create gods?
No, that is a contradiction in terms. As long as we are speaking about God as a self-existent entity from which all being proceeds and on which all being depends, there can be only one such entity. So God cannot create another of himself, properly speaking.
Well said.
As a Christian, are you a son of God?
I am "a" son of God by adoption; I am not "the" Son of God by eternal generation.
☝️ We are made sons of God by participation in Christ, by which we are given a share in his divinity. This is possible because the Word first became human, thus uniting human and divine nature in his person.
nostr:npub1nf9vm6uhs4j7yaysmjn9eqlf7et5t6hvrkdqgpd995vcc9yfjyas0pxa3x
nostr:npub1wtuh24gpuxjyvnmjwlvxzg8k0elhasagfmmgz0x8vp4ltcy8ples54e7js
nostr:npub1qfkcklnmes45z75y7y8dkud5yll8vp5eq5ysk9rmgqdxeasv8unsrfj6kq
By Christ we become partakers of the divine nature 🙏 fiat
Either you are a son of God or you aren't. You aren't less a son of God due to your adoption, otherwise you would be a mere servant. As sons of God, we have a brother that is the firstborn which is Christ. This does not put us above Christ, nor equal to God, but brethern regardless of our earthly father's seed we are still sons of God and by birthright have access to God Himself as our Father. If we are sons of God, than we too are gods. Though presently being in this infantile fleshly state, we will be made higher than the angels and sit in judgement. Our wills will be clensed in the blood of the Lamb and united with the Father under appointment by Christ himself, but we do not need to wait for the next world to be purified. That purification is at hand.
The firstborn son always sits higher. He is our elder brother, yes, and he is also our King. I am not the King. He is.
Yes Lord and King
...and we are not. Therefore not all "sons of God" are equal in every way. Distinguo.
I don't believe I said we are equal with Christ, nor do I know why sons of God require scare quotes.
"If we are sons of God, than we too are gods."
believe he is referring to that
I refer back to the original sin; To believe you are intrinsically superior or inferior to your brother is the root of all sin. Hierarchies that are based on righteousness, these are orthogal to judgement. Christ is our King, God is the only creator. God appointed Jesus Christ as head of his church and he has all authority over creation. If you see a man that has his will purified and united with the Father, you also see the Father. There is no differentiation, because he will act in accordance. We are all called to be perfect, and God would not ask us to do the impossible. Only through Christ can we be purified to come into the presence of the Father and be perfected by Him.
* orthogonal
can even a child understand that ?
Everyone knows it in their heart that hate is evil
Yet hatred of evil is good.
We all know that we are not God and that he ought to be worshipped, so are without excuse (Rom. 1). But by nature we reject the Creator and worship the creation (Rom. 1). We also tend excuse our own sin (Rom. 2). "All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3). "The wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6). But if we believe in Christ, we shall be saved. (Romans 10) because of Christ (Isaiah 53, Romans 5).
Agreed, this is the state of the christian when they are yet "little ones" in Christ. The kingdom of heaven is at hand, and we are not condemned to sin for our remaining years. It is within reach to live with the love of God and be ambassadors for Christ.
Yes, the gospel in its simplest form, can be understood by a child. But we are not called to have the understanding of a child, but of a mature man. Trust like a child, understand like a man.
just asking because its a bit hard for me to grok -admittedly only read once- and i thought the truth is simple enough for a child to understand
It wasn't impossible for Adam, but (since the fall) it is impossible for us (we are cursed). Hence our need for Christ and justification by faith alone. I am inferior to Christ. He is my head (kephale) and I submit to him as Lord.
If by "gods" you mean lesser, created beings, then yes he can and yes he did: he created angels (some of whom fell and became demons = the false 'gods' of the pagans). And if the point you're making is that men will eventually be higher than angels (Heb. 2), than I won't argue that except to say that we are now "for a little while" lower than them. But in the next age, we will judge them.
If you look at the creation account in Genesis 1, the word used for God is plural. The trinity is there from the very beginning.