How did this become who has ‘problems’ and who doesn’t. I don’t care what kind of tarian or non-tarian a person is. It is stuff like this, which makes me have no respect for many who claim to be Christian, universalist or not.
In a sense, I don’t care either.
But according to this site’s statement of faith, this is a trinitarian site.
The owner of this site obviously “cares.”
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding by trinitarians about why some Christian are not.
Just like there is a lot of misunderstanding by ETers why some Christians are not ETers.
On several occasions I have even heard it said that salvation depends on belief in the trinity.
Even if you wind up not completely agreeing with this article, I think it does a good job of getting rid of some of the misunderstandings that trinitarians have about non-trinitarians. It sure did for me 
concordant.org/expohtml/GodA … eity1.html
Christ Compared With Deity
Christ Contrasted With Deity
Here are relevant quotes from it. The highlighting is mine.
“We shall compare our Lord with Deity and show that He is the Word and Image of God, so that we are justified in calling Him God. We shall show that, in the sphere of the will, they are opposites, for God always insists on His will but Christ is subject to His God. God never does the will of Christ. The Son is always subservient to His Father.”
“The fact that our Saviour adores and acclaims Another, that He is not the first Cause, that He is subject to God’s will, that He receives all from His Father and that He is empowered with authority by Him, does not dim His glory by a single beam, for these are His glories. He is not God’s rival, but His Revealer. He is not His master, but our Mediator. God’s glory is in self-revelation. Christ’s glory lies in self-abnegation. After all His mediatorial work is finished, then the Son will be subject, not supreme. The furthest reach of faith’s telescope finds Him first, not in eclipsing the Deity, or in sharing His sovereignty, but in such subjection as will make God All in all.”
In a sense, I don’t either? Sheesh. Double Speak much? You either do or you don’t, there is no ‘in a sense’. The owner of this site cares, because this is the Evangelical Univesalist forum. There not many Arians, or Modelists, in Evangelical Christianity. If you want to have a forum where people believe as you do, you can make your own or go to places like Tentmaker or WiseFire communities and their forums and tell them that Trinitarians have a problem.
There is no confusion among Trinitarians why there are some who do not believe it. There is no problem a Trinitarian has by knowing that Jesus is God. We also have no problem knowing why those who don’t believe it, don’t believe it, especially in this forum where most of us who are Trinitarian don’t actually care if you are or not.
So in a sense, who has the problem? If you still think this is about who has problems and needs ‘correct’, then you are still way off. Taking us to your books, and your writings on another website won’t help you much. Either you know your reasons and post them here, or you just look like you are spamming this site.
OK here is what I mean by “in a sense” I don’t “care.”
I don’t “care” as long as the trinitarian doesn’t say that I’m going to spend eternity in hell unless I believe in the trinity.
On several occasions I have read, and heard of trinitarians who actually do believe and teach that.
I could name one very well known radio minister who very staunchly believes and teaches that.
You are in the wrong forum then. Did you catch the second label, ‘Universalist’, on this forum? None of us, especially the owner of this site, believes you will spend eternity in hell unless you believe in the trinity. So I think you put yourself in a little bind concerning your reasons for saying it is ‘Trinitarians’ who have a problem.
I’m a universalist, and I think I am in the right forum.
I am responding to the subject matter of this thread, and in my opinion, what I have said is appropriate to that subject.
I wouldn’t be responding if you said what is appropriate to that subject. You said, Triniatrians have a problem in responding to RanRan and quoting my agreement of his words. Your reasons for ‘problem’ still have been misplaced.
You can’t back out of this one, you made a mistake in your words and unless you retract or clarify why you said Trinitarians are the one’s with the problem (in responding the Univeralists), then you didn’t say anything appropriate because the reasons so far is because you think we believe you will spend eternity in hell because you don’t believe it?
Which of us Trinitarian Universalists, believe you will spend eternity in Hell, to tell us we are the one with the problem? How does the owner of this site, in their statement of faith concerning Trinity, have a problem? Saying it is because on occasion any one of us thinks you will spend eternity in hell for not believing that, is not a reason. You don’t have one.
To the extent that trinitarians misunderstand the non-trinitarian position, to that extent I think they have a “problem.”
That is why I posted the link that clears up much of their misunderstandings about the subject.
We don’t have a problem believing why you don’t. There is no ‘extent’ having a problem. You either believe we do or do not. If you think we do, then have actually REAL reasons why not made up one’s because your ‘reason’ also belongs to a conditionalist Arian Christianity who believe that we are going to hell for eternity if we don’t believe that Jesus is not God. So as it stands, it appears there is only person in this discussion who has a problem and you don’t see us posting articles on why Arian’s have a problem understanding the Trinity or that Arians have a problem.
Craig.
I think Rodger is more interested in spamming Tentmaker and his books than to engage in a one-on-one discussion that would require him to use his own thoughts and research. If you have not noticed most if not all of his responses have links to other peoples commmentaries. I’m not against using commentaries, but to use them( when they are not your own) everytime you respond is ridiculous.
I don’t think Rodger remembers me from Lesley Arkansas a few years ago, as we were the only two Canadians in the conference and I was with Tentmaker Ministry at the time. That conference spawned a few great ministries one being very organized, christian-universalism.com/. Though I hope we don’t forget our humility we all had in that conference and think we are any better now years later.
In any case, it sadly appears Rodger is spamming this forum simply because we believe in the Trinity, taking his problem with conditionalist Christianity and directing it towards the wrong group. (Except maybe yourself, maybe you are the Trinitarian with the problem Aaron37, lol) 
Craig.
If being saved , sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost is a problem…it’s a wonderful problem to have, lol…
Aaron37, have you learned not to just post articles and refer people to those for your position as well? Look through new eyes my brother.
Ran was actually the one who brought up things that way, Craig; not Rodger.
Be fair. Rodger is replying to a thread started as a counter-trinitarian challenge by another poster. (Who by the way was asked to leave for being impolite about what he was doing. Incidentally, Ran was banned for a week for his own impoliteness in this thread recently. Rodger is being far more polite so far in this thread, not counting aggravations from RanRan.)
We (among the admins) don’t have problems with such threads in principle; not least because some of the people who created this site, and some of the guest authors they invited for this site (most notably myself in this case), believe and argue that trinitarianism is not only the truth but a truth important for universalism, too. We allow modalist universalists to post in favor of modalism, per se, so far as they can see to do so, for the same reason.
But we also engage in positive apologetics for trinitarian theism on this site, not only for universalism (of various kinds), as well as opening up discussion for pros and cons on various ortho-trin positions. Our site policy is to allow other members to do the same thing for positions other than ortho-trin, or for agnosticism on the topic (if they prefer). And one of several reasons for that, is because there are in fact trinitarians who do not in fact always correctly know (or understand, even if they know) the reasons for why non-trinitarians are not trinitarians.
Heck, if it comes to that, not all trinitarians are always theologically consistent in keeping to the precepts of that doctrinal set, even when as scholars they might be expected to do so–which isn’t surprising, considering its complexity and number of details. But ortho-trin teachers are usually well aware that especially at the popular level very few people who claim to believe ortho-trin really do know the details, or believe what the doctrinal set involves, or even know much about the rationales for the doctrinal set (other than what amounts, implicitly or explicitly, to “my teacher told me it’s true”.)
So actually yes, it’s fine for someone to post comments and create threads, trying to present non-trinitarianism on this forum, and trying to clear up “misunderstandings” on the topic. Thus sayeth the site owners, the guest authors (like me), the admins (including me) and the mods (ditto). 
Indeed! 
I’d actually like to see a critique of the paper Rodger posted a link to. I’ve read it, and I think it’s actually a very good description of many of the biblical issues. It is argued that neither Trinitarianism or Unitarianism is biblically correct, which I think is an interesting position.
Craig,
Mel,
I emailed myself a reminder, which I hope will sit around bugging me in RED MARK until I get around to it. 
willieH: Hi Jason… 
This post below was made by YOU, on January 10, 2009… and here it is August 7th 2010, almost a YEAR and SEVEN MONTHS LATER… and you have YET to address the Scriptures in the OP of this TOPIC. “Trinity”… is there such an entity?
In this post below (no offense), …you make excuses instead of answer the OP, …and in making those excuses, have the audacity to ASSIGN “HOMEWORK” to me! …Recommending I read a long drawn out distraction that you have composed in the mean time? …please bro! 
I may be a tad uneducated, but I am no NIM-NOD!
Come on brother… get with it… that is, if you are able to do so… If not… I can understand, …which is why I do not believe in the “trinity”…
Btw… we are fast approaching the SECOND ANNIVERSARY of this topic and these “replies” of yours are still ABSENT… 
Is THAT MUCH STALLING… really necessary bro JP? 
This YEAR and a HALF long procrastination, only displays that your “trinitarian” belief is either pretty weak concerning actual SCRIPTURAL basis, or maybe as I have suggested, has no real Scriptural basis at all.
Knowing you and your (often intellectually distracted) responses (which beat around the bush, and rarely ever come to the point), …just find this TOPIC to be too difficult to be answered SIMPLY …because the belief in the “trinity” itself is a teaching, clouded amidst CONFUSION…
So here we are, …a YEAR and a HALF later, …and you are still found AVOIDING this TOPIC and its OP and the Scriptures listed, for the truth is that you really do not have a viable response to them… 
…willieH
Oh My… 
Seems Jason has written a great deal about this topic over this span!!!
Though it is true he has not placed it here in this particular thread.
This is a big site willieH; cast your nets a bit wider here!
TotalVictory
Bobx3
Jason has NOT responded to the OP in THIS THREAD… or the Scriptures LISTED in it… as HE SAID, that He WOULD:
Those are His words, which he has not followed up… I should not have to search this ENTIRE (to use your words “BIG”) SITE to get his response to the OP of THIS THREAD, …that MIGHT (or MIGHT NOT) be somewhere within it!
If he truly has a response to these Scriptures, it is a simple matter to do so (as HE, in his own words said he would) IN THIS THREAD. 
…willieH 