The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Is God a Closed TRINITY or an Open FAMILY?

I’m a Lutheran - I am highly ‘churched’ - I love the liturgy and the history of not just my church but THE church from which we draw our liturgy and service - the communion of saints.

You’re a renegade and proud of it. **Moderator Deletion: RanRan, your getting too personal and unfriendly. This goes against the board rules and needs to stop, regardless if it’s against others that get edited by moderators.

Deleted by Moderation: Personal fights cannot remain on this board. Respectful opposition to the doctrine of the trinity and any other Christian doctrine is okay, except of course “civility”. That’s one doctrine insisted upon here.

Moderator Deletion

Moderator Deletion

Well, I got “immutability” (unchangeable) mixed up with “simplicity” (indivisibility), which have some similarities. Anyway, a lot has been written about the immutability of God and the incarnation since the Ancient Church. One of the main points is that the divinity of the Son never changed because of the incarnation. And this is possible because humans are made in the image of God while Jesus is the only human who never fell from grace.

I also want to clarify that I don’t believe in strong divine simplicity, which says that there is [no] difference between omnipotence and omniscience, and so on. I hold that the attributes of God are not all the same while they cannot be divided.

I do see the difference, and I’m sorry that I (sort of) missed your point! :slight_smile:

I just realized who this is! :astonished: How the Craig are you bro? :laughing: (jus kidn’)

I don’t know how I missed the SONSHINE link! :cry:

I hope you are in the best of spirit and health in this day my dear friend! :wink:

…willieH :mrgreen:

willieH: Hello to all… :smiley:

I have found in years of study that the most common earmarks of a fallacy concerning teachings in the Scriptures are either due to:

(1)MISTRANSLATION of original lingual terms –
(2)NON MENTION of the term at all in the WORDRev 22:18 – Prove 30:6
(3)UNREASONABLE – Proposed teaching is not in alignment with REASONIsaiah 1:18

Here are a few such examples of each of them:


The RAPTURE – not mentioned at all, based on very little scriptural interpretation, noting blatant PARTIALITY enacted by an IMPARTIAL God – Acts 10:34 (& 9 other scriptures) —> :unamused:

TRINITY – also not mentioned, based on very little scriptural interpretation – contradicts statements made by YHVH in the OT – Ex 20:1-3 – Isaiah 43:10-11 – Isaiah 44:8 – as well as JESUS in the NT – Matt 19:17 —> :open_mouth:


HELL – Mistranlated terminology, which has in recent translations has been eliminated due to that fact. Root English word [HEL] does not even indicate “FIRE” at all, rather notes “COVERING” or being “UNSEEN” —> :confused:

ETERNAL – Mistranslated terminology, which proposes a term that cannot even be comprehended by finite humans… which includes having …NO BEGINNING, as well as NO END —> :question:


ETERNAL TORMENT – A precept which UNREASONABLY engages UNENDING, UNBEGINNING torment, for SIN, which is levied upon those who were CONCLUDED by GOD in their UNBELIEF – Rom 11:32 – and which far exceeds even the punishments due of LAW, which required “an EYE for an EYE”… not a TRILLION, TRILLION, TRILLION, QUADRILLION (unto infinity) EYES for an EYE —> :unamused:

SALVATION of a FEW – A misleading and UNREASONABLE precept which DIRECTLY contradicts Scriptures that note that the SAVED shall be AS the STARS of HEAVEN, or SAND of the SEA, …INNUMERABLEDeut 1:10 – Heb 11:12 – INNUMERABLE can NEVER be known a “few” —> :exclamation:

Peace… :wink:

…willieH :smiley:

You didn’t realize that John was Jack? I hope to believe that Jack and I have come to terms with our differences and find unity in our agreements. I don’t think Jack and I have had any disagreements since Feburary. lol.

Hi Craig… I noticed at the bottom of “John’s” posts was a link to SONSHINE… which is Jack’s blog!

Glad to hear you and Jack are getting alone bro… :sunglasses:

I hope you are doing well brother…

…willieH :smiley:

The very little of this thread that I’ve read has mystified me. How is it that it’s the Trinity that drains all the mystery out of God? I always had the impression that it’s the belief that has more mystery, and unitarians and modalists would make a better case saying that their beliefs are simpler and less mysterious. :confused:

Are we using the term ‘is God an open family’ not to mean a trinity but the idea that God increases by one more person as each person is saved (or post mortem after salvation or somesuch)?


If you haven’t discovered yet in your many years of biblical study, Willie, that trinitarian doctrine (in various sub-flavors) is based on dozens and hundreds of scriptural interpretations, then your study has been somehow extremely truncated.

You may not agree with the way all those scriptures have been interpreted and put together systematically. (I don’t either myself sometimes!) But that’s very different from claiming that such systemization doesn’t exist.

And you seem to know well enough that it exists, or you wouldn’t be complaining elsewhere about over-complexity of the theology. That complaint is at least consonant with the actual facts. Claiming that trinitarianism is based on “very little scriptural interpretation”, is not consonant with the actual facts.

(Granted, the vastly huge amount of detailed scriptural interpretation that goes into ortho-trin theology is not popularly taught or known about. But your many years of scriptural study should have turned up its existence anyway. Including on this very forum, btw. In answer to you, no less. :wink: Which you then explicitly chose to completely ignore.)

An appeal to a lack of terminology that doesn’t appear in the scriptures themselves, meanwhile, has exactly as much weight as if I tried to argue against some kind of unitarianism or modalism being true (or if someone else argued against universalism being true, by the way) by claiming (quite correctly) that those terms never once show up in scripture anywhere in any language.

(Which has been pointed out before, the last time you were here.)

If you answer (as you should) ‘but those positions have plenty of scriptural support anyway’, I’m going to reply, “Yes, and you ought to know that trinitarians basically put together all the scriptural support appealed to by both modalists and unitarians of various stripes!” I am a biblical trinitarian, put shortly, because I think both you and John Sonshine have good points. (Much like I’m a biblical universalist because I think Arms and Calvs both have good points scripturally.)

Your complaint ought to be that ortho-trins include too much scriptural analysis (namely the portions modalists like to point up; ditto for their complaints about us including the portions unitarians like to point up!)–which you do in fact complain about sometimes, when you think that makes your position look better. Such as when I wrote 76 pages worth of scriptural analysis in answer to you before–which I could have easily and substantially extended further. Critiquing those points, as AaronW does pretty well in at least a few instances (partly because I didn’t go into more detail when I could have done so, trying to hurry things along too quickly), would take actual work and, well, many years of biblical study. :slight_smile: Ignoring them or complaining about their length is admittedly easier.

Meanwhile, would you care to comment on John’s notion that modalism somehow counts more as a family theology than trinitarianism (and I suppose unitarianism?) Since that was the original topic of this thread? Or did you do that already and I missed it?

That’s a good question, and I suspect John means something kind of like that (except without any personal distinctions, of course, since then he’d have no reason not to admit at least a starting Trinity of distinct persons!)

However, everyone needs to know that John won’t be able to comment here for about a month, having impenitently violated the forum rules about demonizing opponents again. (So don’t hold a lack of reply against him, to this or any other question or challenge in the thread.)

willieH: Hi Jason… :smiley:

Please keep this in mind as you read this answer brother…

I do not at all, hold any of your beliefs against you… I once considered the “trinity” in my early years as a Christian, but studied what the WORD has to say on the subject with an open mind, and have concluded otherwise.

So please do not think I condemn you in any way for your present belief… and I apologize ahead of time if my answer might appear to be condescending or condemning… I do not mean it to be either. :smiley:

hmmm… so many that you didn’t even bother to name one…

“all those scritpures”… What scriptures? You have named NONE.

Complexity of theology? Psalm – 19:7 – *The law of YHVH is perfect converting the soul, the TESTIMONY of YHVH is sure, making …WISE, …the SIMPLE… *

FYI, …I spent 25yrs in “trinitarian” churches… so I am pretty aware of the shaky and inadaquate Scriptures which facilitate this (no offense intended to you) fallacy.

Quit beating around the bush Jason… Name some of this “existent” proof, let’s discuss it.

As I said, one of the primary evidences of a doctrinal fallacy, is that the DOCTRINE for which it (the fallacy) is NAMED, fails to appear in the Scriptures… :bulb:

That’s a lot of hoo-ha and you know it Jason… Let’s offer a course in CALCULUS, but just name it as a math class…

The doctrine of the SALVATION of ALL MEN, actually does appears in the Scripture – 1 Tim 2:4 – 1 Tim 4:10 – So if one begins by entitling this teaching “UR” or “Universalism”, then one opens themselves up to presenting UNBIBLICAL terminology.

The terminology of the “SALVATION of ALL MEN”, should therefore be proposed by those who endeavor to teach it, not “UR” or “Universalism”…

(Which has been pointed out before, the last time you were here.)

FIRST — This is a thread which was largely YOU posting 46 posts before anyone answered at all, then 11 by Melchisidek and 1 by JeffA were interspersed by 9 more from you… 55 posts, 12 replies… to them…

So this THREAD was not posed to me at all, it was your large oration of what you believe,

SECOND — The basis you argue from above, that terminology which is absent from Scripture does not matter is also questionable — in your mention of (to name one) terms as “OMNIPOTENCE” which is an UNSCRIPTURAL term, absent from the WORD, and oftentimes used in discussion, is basis for the use of the word “OMNIPOTENCE” as INVALID point due to the absence of it is just plainly a strawman ignorance (no offense)

For the defintion of the term “OMNIPOTENCE” (which just amounts to a fancy english word) simply means ALMIGHTY… which in fact, MANY, MANY, MANY times, DOES appear in the Scriptures… :smiley:


[size=150]**om·nip·o·tent **[/size]
Pronunciation: -tənt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin omnipotent-, omnipotens, from omni- + potent-, potens potent
Date: 14th century
1 often capitalized : [size=150]almighty[/size] 1
2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence
3 obsolete : arrant

— om·nip·o·tent·ly adverb

This is a poor foundation upon which to build the absent teaching of the “trinity” which is IN CONTRADICTION to REASON as well as, does not explain the SINGULAR notations made by YHVH that He alone is God… using I, ME, HE, MINE, MYSELF, HIMSELF, etc… in continual reference to Himself.

Not to mention the EXPLICIT noting that NO OTHER “GOD” or form which can be considered GOD, is repeated by ISAIAH over and over, as well as the SINGULARITY of the FIRST commandment of the LAW.

There is no “3 in 1” thing going on, except in the imaginations which have been invaded by external pagan and mythological influences which entertain MULTIPLE “GODS” as worshipped, and believed to be existent.

We have MORE than just “good points” bro… we have SCRIPTURE which PLAINLY state the YHVH alone IS GOD – Isaiah 43:10-11 – Isaiah 44:8 – Isaiah 44:24 – Isiah 45:18 – Hosea 13:4 – Ex 20:1-3 – no MYSTERIOUS — “WE, US, OUR, or THEM”… just simply the UNMYSTERIOUS — "I, ME, MINE, MYSELF, etc.

Not only that… but. that we are made in the IMAGE and after the LIKENESS, of GOD… how many persons compile the entity known as Jason Pratt? Unless you are unfortunately encumbered by mental disease… the common state of humanity is — ONE PERSON each… not THREE.

Not only that… but Paul notes via the INSPIRATION of the HOLY SPIRIT – YHVH, …that CHRIST has a “GOD” – Eph 1:3 – please if you would be so kind, …note even ONE SCRIPTURE which notes that YHVH has a “god”…

Not only that… but CHRIST Himself from His own lips confessed this factMark 15:34

Please spare me the 25cent theological words bro, of which I proudly confess to be illiterate… I have no interest whatsoever in COMPLEX, overclouding the subject, …theological dialogue!

Would you mind quoting some of these instances Jason? — (“you do in fact complain about sometimes, when you think that makes your position look better”)

That you had to write 76 exhausting pages of complex and mind draining wordings (no offense)… only goes to show that in your desire to verify what you believe, that your TESTIMONY of that belief must weary others, and in doing so, hope to verify what you believe…

There are easily myriads of Scripture which defy your belief in this non-existent 3 person entity… but in the interest of SIMPLICITY which is the notation of the nature of the TESTIMONY of YHVH GOD – Psalm 19:7 – I shall only name ONE that really stands out to me…

CHRIST was TEMPTEDLuke 4:1-2 – Yet SCRIPTURE specifically notes that GOD cannot be TEMPTED! – James 1:13

Please explain, how it is possible that GOD cannot be tempted with evil, and yet the claim is made that CHRIST is God, yet WAS TEMPTED WITH EVIL.

GOD is an “open family”, because from Him, emerge SONS of HIS CHOOSING and WILL, that said “family” exists as separate and emergent from Him and subject TO HIM…

FIRST – TRINITARIANISM implies that there are 3 distinct and SEPARATE persons which occupy the position of ONE GOD… This is essentially an OXY moron… something like – LONG shortness or EMPTY fullness or PARTIAL completeness… And from this fallible basis, emerges all other associated beliefs, one of which proposes that we are subject EQUALLY, unto these “3 persons”… which NT Scripture plainly notes is not the case – 1 Cor 15:28

SECOND — SCRIPTURE notes that ALL THINGS and ALL PERSONS to include JESUS CHRIST are SUBJECT to YHVH God, as noted above and below…

Which is what “makes HIM”… Father to all. That we are eternally emergent from HIM, does not indicate that we are (1) not a family because of being emergent from Him – (2) emergent from HIM of ourselves (3) that we as sons, even CHRIST as the only BEGOTTEN son, is not SUBMITTED unto …HIM1 Cor 15:28 – Even the SON also Himself must BE SUBJECT UNTO HIM YHVH=singular] that put ALL things UNDER Him CHRIST]… :bulb:

Peace brother… :exclamation:

…willieH :wink:

If you’d read what he wrote, you’d know that all he meant was this:

willieH: HI JeffA… :wink:

You may well object to this answer… many do… :confused:

God is FOREVER (in the Eternal), the FATHER (source) of ALL SPIRITS – Heb 12:9 – Eph 4:6

He did not ever “begin” His Fatherhood, nor did He “begin” anything else, for if any part of Him “begins” then CHANGE is afoot… I can almost hear the rumblings in your mind which immediately bring forth – “what about the BEGINNING” of Genesis"?

I can understand immediate objections to what I just stated… but as I believe that there is NEVER CHANGE in YHVH God… I also believe there is NO BEGINNING to anything He does or says… IOW the “beginning” of Genesis was the opening of the REVEALING of the KNOWLEDGE of G & E to the entirety of all existent beings… which was a KNOWLEDGE that is ETERNAL… without BEGINNING or END… The REVELATION was/is/will be due to the factors of TIME, but concerning the ETERNAL …it shall ALWAYS be KNOWN without beginning… without end… as part of ALL that YHVH is in ALL…

Which is WHY the REVELATION was noted END to BEGINNING for BOTH are one & the Same – Rev 1:8 – the END …IS… the BEGINNING… the BEGINNING …IS… the END…

For GOD and ETERNITY, there is neither beginning nor end, for both are in fact, the same…

Quick example — When you (as a human being) took your first breath as a child being born… it was your BEGINNING which immediately begins to your END… and when you arrive at your END… you shall be back at the BEGINNING. When your first breath was taken, the END was ALREADY set in place… for DUST you are (began), and unto DUST will you return (end)… Your humanity and involvement in the REVELATION of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL — BEGAN as DUST, and shall END exactly where you BEGAN — as DUSTGen 2:17

God’s FATHERHOOD, has ALWAYS BEEN… as have ALL His Sons… We have just forgotten who we are… (UNAWARE – impeded by the SINFUL condition in which we are become SEPARATE from HOLINESS, which alone has COMPLETE awareness)

ALL SONS (that are SONS of YHVH), were already SONS, prior to their involvement in this realm… as they (we) ALL SHOUTED for Joy at the Creation of this realm:

Job 38:7when the morning stars sang together, and …[size=150]ALL[/size]… the …[size=150]SONS[/size]… of GOD – shouted for Joy…

Luke 15:11-32 — The “LOST” son (which we all are) mentioned in the parable of the “LOST” [destroyed/Apollumi] SON:

(1) was WITH the FATHER (not “LOST”)…
(2) LEFT his FATHER (and became “LOST”)… and eventually
(3) RETURNED to where HE LEFT (once again NOT “LOST”) and again was WITH the FATHER

Peace brother… :wink:

…willieH :smiley:

Hi WillieH,

I would not be offended by your answer either way as I am one of the non-believers here (maybe the only one at the moment as I haven’t heard from the others in a while).

My question related to the notion I have sometimes seen on the web that God gets bigger, as it were, by each person that is saved - in the ‘God became man so that man can become God’ type of way.

but from your answer you would not seem to be saying that but just that God is one in the usual unitarian sense (am I getting that right?).


Jeff. :slight_smile:

Hi WillieH,

From what you say above it would appear that you hold to the doctrine of pre-existence. Is that correct, or am I misunderstanding you?

willieH: Hi Aaron… :wink:

No, you are not misunderstanding me… (for the most part anyway)…

I do not consider the observation of OBVIOUS Scriptural notations as “doctrinal”… rather as REASONABLE premises, when observed impartially and REASONABLY… (aside from the prior influences of teachings of others)…

For example; “thou shalt not kill”… is not a teaching, it is SPIRITUAL REASON — which when observed impartially and REASONABLY, notes that the option of REMOVING life is not an option given to us… for we did not IMPART that life to its possessor.

“Preexistence” is a term which is much the same as “afterlife”… neither of which IMO are valid observations… YHVH in the ETERNAL is ALL in ALL… that the manifestations of TIME and the unfolding of the LIVING KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL, are moving on a linear and chronological basis (end to beginning) does not affect that UNCHANGING and ETERNAL position that YHVH occupies…

Likewise, the SONS of God which are emergent of the ETERNAL, being permeated (all in all) by YHVH in the ETERNAL realm… always ARE… not were (“preexisted”) or will be (“afterlife”)

That which had “beginning” is the revelation of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil as KNOWN and DECLARED in and through the WORD of GOD… whose “END” is also, its “BEGINNING” – Rev 1:8

The term ETERNAL describes a state that is WITHOUT BEGINNING as well as WITHOUT END

How could you truthfully as a FINITE, have “ETERNAL” LIFE, if your life (when all is considered) indeed had a BEGINNING? That in itself is a contradiction in terms. :bulb:

The “life” we live on this earth, and in this realm of time… is linear (limited by time) and directional (limited to “forward” only)…

The life of the ETERNAL is emergent ETERNALLY in ALL directions continuously and simultaneously.


Think of the SUN… It has no “beginning or ending” points (i.e. where does the sun begin? end?)

Its “heat” emanates from EVERY POINT of its surface… Not just from a portion or particular LINEAR area of its surface. This is the example of how I “view” the concept of ETERNAL life…

If you (just for the sake of illustration) picture YHVH to be the sun, and WE (collectively) to be the heat… at ALL TIMES from ALL AREAS, does the HEAT continually emerge from its source.

…willieH :sunglasses: