Who is God?

[RandyPNW]

Joshua, I've been exceptionally patient

Patience is always a good attribute to display.

No one likes their faith to be questioned, to be called a heretic, a branding with an obvious violent history.
No one likes to be told they are not a Christian.
No one likes to be told they are ungodly.
No one likes to be told they have no salvation.

Let me be clear, friend. I don't dislike you, except for your claiming I "hide behind my keyboard." Those kinds of comments I view as childish.

But you have a nice demeanor and likely speak with your own personal conviction--all good. You're certainly bright, so I don't want to match wits with you.

But I want to be clear--my calling you a heretic is not meant to insult you, but to clarify to others what you are and where you're coming from. They likely are smarter than me and already know.

But there is no intermediate position--you're either espousing heretical positions in Christianity or you are not. I'm just giving you the facts.

The historic councils have established Trinitarianism as a cardinal doctrine for the Church. Belief in the *eternal* Deity of Jesus is also a cardinal doctrine. How can Christians on a Christian forum argue doctrines that are what comprise the Church?

Should I sit here and argue whether I exist? Obviously, I'm  breathing, and it's an exercise in futility to argue whether I do or don't!

It's just as ridiculous to argue whether a Christian can accept non-Trinitarianism. I know it's more complex than this. There are modalists, and there are those who hate the church councils, high churches, and the like. But some things are non-negotiable.

What is acceptable to me personally is what you were initially trying to do, to discuss from a neutral point of view, how logical Trinitarian doctrine is. It's never wrong to try to understand things for one's self. Otherwise, we're just parroting the beliefs of others. And I personally dislike that.

But we have to begin by admitting what doctrine constitutes orthodoxy in Christianity. Then we can have all of the discussion in the world, and see if we can personally get a full grasp of it, and whether we like it ourselves--whether we want to be called a "heretic" or not?

So let me just correct a few things that result from your emotional reaction. What you're saying to others about me is not true--at least you're inferring it has something to do with what I've said.

I never said you're going to Hell, or won't be saved.  God can save even heretics, because I believe people are saved in their ignorance. They are saved by their heart, even if they've been misled in life.

2nd, I've never said you're not a "Christian." Nor have I called you "ungodly." You obviously have some kind of connection with God, and you have displayed good behavior most of the time, as I've said before.

What I've said is that you're not a doctrinally-orthodox Christian, which places you outside of the "salvation experience." This doesn't mean you're damned, but that you're not experiencing spiritual life in the new nature Christ died to give you. I want you to experience this. You deserve to experience it.

This is the "evangelist" speaking  from me now. You may well experience spirituality and God in your life. But it is different to have this spiritual experience installed in your life as a *new nature."

This is called being "born again." You don't have to work at "being  spiritual" all the time. You simply receive it into your life as your determined goal, and it stays. That's the "salvation experience" to me. It's a life choice.

[Athanasius]

I just spent the last hour writing a reply and then decided 'you know what? Never mind'. I'm going to go ahead and lock this thread because it's not a discussion on "Who is God?" but a discussion mainly on how far heretical doctrinal beliefs should be tolerated. Frankly, at this juncture, I don't think that's a discussion that's edifying to anyone.

I take further issue with the rhetorical method employed. The placing of oneself in the position of heretic, soon to be burned at the stake, is inappropriate. Challenges, even out of frustration, like "I guess if your faith isn't strong enough to read a counterargument" are uncalled for. The appeal to persecution is unfortunate. The false brotherhood is old hat.

What I am particularly wary of is the playing of games. Affirming that 'Jesus is God' while not stating that 'God' is to be taken as a title is sneaky. Glossing over and downplaying the significant differences between God-by-nature and God-by-title is sloppy. Saying things like, "let me present to you what our Lord has given me" and then arguing that no, no, what was meant is that everything is from God, is either dishonesty or covering up for incredibly poor phrasing. Personally attacking while accusing others of personal attacks is hypocritical.

In short, I'm not convinced the OP isn't disingenuous. And yes, I did write out a full reply to post #27. The question of punctuation in John 1 is worth a discussion, but in this thread, any such discussion is ruined.

It's all very unfortunate, but perhaps we can try again later. In controversial. Let's like, maybe talk about something other than Trinitarianism or Christology for the next 5 minutes.

[Athanasius]

Account deleted upon request.