Featured Let’s review some basic Christian understanding

This is how the Trinity has always been viewed by Christianity.

 

A strawman argument at best becaused didn't I specifically say

It is clear That I specified that there was some consept of the Trinity spoken of In the scriptures. And that these were referred to when docmatically defining Trinity which wasn't dogmatically defined until centuries later when I also said

To an extent but it wasn't completly defined as to its specifics until many years later.

Shows your lack of historical learning. The Trinity was first dogmatically formulated at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

,
NO it is not. It is a presentation of that same sacrifice at the time and place of Calvary. Not a new Sacrafice. It presenting that one sacrifice again. Not making a brand new sacrifice any more than Jews are leaving egypt everytime they have passover.

 

Yea well the Orthodox Presbys told me my dead infant cant be saved because both me & his mother were not members of their Covenant family & were not baptized so they were not washed free of their sins, thus never being able to hear the gospel. Same story by the Wisconsin Lutheran group.....both parties follow the infant christening beliefs.....& both big spin offs of the RCC. That embittered me for a long time. Thankfully Baptists do not subscribe to that mentality otherwise infants, the feeble-minded, and the heathen would have no hope. Christ will save His own regardless of their circumstances in life (Rom. 8 :34-39; Rom. 11 :28; 2 Tim. 2 :13, 16-19) .

 

the trinity was well known in the Apostolic era, did not the early church fathers who were orthodox teach of the truine God soon after the Apostle John passed away!

ALL of the cardinal Christian truths were in place among the saints WAY before any council...

Those truths might mot have been 'formulized", but well taught among the bethren early on, anytime scriptures were being read and taught upon!

And the mass is indeed a fresh "killing" of jesus as atonement for our sins, as the RCC holds to it being his actual blood/body being resacrificed again!

 

You can only say that in a vague sense. that a trinitarian conspet was taught but at that point it was not known as the trinity nor was it specifically defined to the extent that we understand it today until the council of Nicea. Tell me where in the NT you find the word Trinity? Or where do you find in scripture that it says Jesus is Homoosious with the Father or of the same substance? You may find verses that infer it but its never clearly defined and only vaguely referrenced.

Yes, I would agree to a point but the question is to what extent? Let me give you an example Jesus says he and the Father are one. Christians have always believed Jesus is God. Christians have always believed Jesus is equally man. But the Apostles didn't forsee from this teaching the arguments that would play out several hundred years latter or even today. They wouldn't have thought it necissary to say Jesus is of the same substance of the Father nor would they have considered spending time on the hypostatic union of the second person of the Trinity a word they didn't even know existed. They wouldn't have counted on fighting Modalist or Nestorianism and so they never spoke to such issues which is why you won't find these things expressed in the NT. Maybe inferred not not expressely pointed out.

They weren't thus they were vague to some extent because of all the suposition that arose later out of their teaching

A follower of the way from the NT scriptures would have been confused had you said Trinity to them. A follower of the way would have been confused saying that there was a hypostatic union in the person of Jesus Christ. Once you explained the principles they would agree with you on a basic level and after considering it for some time may come to agree with you entirely. But only after they had considered it fully studying it by reading scripture and speaking with their elders. And since they lived at the time of the apostles speaking to one of them about it.

No it is not! Where do you get this ridiculous idea.? What Catholic document says that? If no Catholic Documents or teaching says that then your are just making up stuff and making up accussations that are untrue. Really is that a Christian behavior?

How about if I said you believe angels are aliens from another planet? And you keep saying it isn't true. But I keep insisting that no you really believe aliens are the same as angels. Isn't that nothing more than a false accusation? Which is what you are providing with your argument. A false accusation.

 

Yes some things in scripture are not obvious and can be known spiritually but some things needed to be specified that scriptures didn't make obvious. Which is why Nicea was needed. Also why the Council in Jerusalem was needed in Acts with regard to how to deal with gentile christians.
It's cool you've been to Turkey. I would like to go.

 

Then go and tell them.

 

For the most part I would agree however you use the word Manifestations which would seem to lead towards a modalistic view. And I know there are a group of Pentecostals who hold that the Trinity is wrong. The Oneness Pentecostals. So I want to be sure I understand where you are coming from with regard to the Trinity. God cannot be fully understood by us though He has revealed to us that he is one God in Three Persons. Not three gods in unified council. And not one God who then is revealed as the Son when he is in the Son mode but then is revealed as the Spirit when in the Spirit mode or the Father when in the Father mode kind of like a man changing Hats indicating his different roles. What is your view?

 

Well, Evangelist, I have to disagree with you here. I believe Christianity has faithfully taught the gospel since Jesus Christ. I believe Christians have been spirit filled and have changed the world from the begining. And just because a person doesn't speak in tongues, you cannot assume they are not spirit filled. What you would call "being baptized in the Spirit." Or the second baptism.

FYI I went to Lee University (COG-Cleveland; to distinguish it from COG-Anderson and to distinguish it from AG) for undergraduate studies and minored in bible and theology for the specific reason of learning what Pentecostals believed. And a lot of what passed for "being filled with the Spirit" was moronic. I could tell you stories!
Just an interesting side note about Lee. When I was there several of the bible and theology professors had the reformed view. It was their School of Theology where the professors showed their leanings towards Wesleyanism

 

God in the Incarnation of jesus expiernced a self limiting of himself, kenosis, humbled himself to accepting becoming just as we are, as a Human being, One without an inherit sin nature!

So was FULLY equal to God the father, as BOTH are God, but also was in his physical form which limited him while on earth...

jesus was subordinate to the father, but NOT inferior, fully equal!

Like male/females, females to submit to hte man, wife to husband, but BOTH fully and equally human!

 

How do you define what "cessationists " believe and hold as doctrines?

 

So Jesus lost control/headship over His church for 1900 years, and the Holy Spirit had to wait until Azusa to bring true'revelation" back to the "fake church?"

Again, your views sound VERY Mormon/Cultic in this!

 

I think you misunderstand me. Let me be clear I believe that the RCC and the EOC were spirit filled and continue to be spirit filled. I believe that modern Pentecostals are a historical regurgitation (sorry but I couldn't think of a better word...Maybe a repeating historical attitude in the Christian Community) of the Montanist movement. Certainly there are a few differences but on the whole pretty much the same.

As far as an unbiased history of the Church having spent time as an undergrad at a Pentecostal University, and grad school at an American Baptist University I don't think either was particularily unbaised though certain professors at each place may have been more unbaised than others. In order to get an unbiased view you must accumilate research from multiple sources which in the end I did.