Is Christianity monotheistic, polytheistic or both?

[Rival]

That is not the position of the Anglican church. You can read a useful summary of Anglican positions on the nature of salvation here.

It was obviously the position of my ex-vicar, lol.

 

[LuisDantas]

My problem was that your post was empty and did not offer anything substantial one way or another.

Really?

I stand surprised. I think it went all the way to the core of the matter.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

No, that’s modalism. Modalism is considered heretical by Trinitarian Christians:

Sabellianism - Wikipedia

Whoops, it appears I made a mistake. One my good friend @Vouthon will set me straight on, I'm sure.

The modalist standpoint suggested by our friend @Buddha Dharma is a common misinterpretation people make when trying to understand the Trinity doctrine within a monotheistic context.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I was raised in the Roman Church and studied for the priesthood, and the Roman Church, and the traditional Christian Trinitarian churches cannot be considered monotheistic.

It appears I did make a mistake about the Trinity, and only have an outsider's perspective, so my bad. I'm not a Christian, and have only ever seen the religion from the outside. I came up in a secular family.

What makes you say the Trinity isn't monotheism? Curious

In part of above you are proposing modalism, which is a heresy in traditional Christianity.

Yes, I'm seeing that now.

Beat me to it.

I'm human. I might have fast spoken and made a mistake. Geez

 

[Buddha Dharma]

many took on the Socratic/Platonic views of Christianity.

Do you mean Aristotlean? Sorry, today seems to be my day for getting schooled on some stuff about Christianity

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Do you mean Aristotlean? Sorry, today seems to be my day for getting schooled on some stuff about Christianity

you may be right...Been out of undergrad for almost 10 years

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I know Aquinas liked Aristotle. Augustine seems to have liked Plato, so you're right.

 

[1213]

What do you guys think? I mean it does look like a monotheistic religion, but ....

If Christians are disciples of Jesus, as it were originally, they would follow the teachings of Jesus. And Jesus says there is only one true God.


How can you believe, who receive glory from one another, and you don't seek the glory that comes from the only God?
John 5:44

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

Same is said by Paul also:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

Sadly modern “Christians” don’t seem to be really disciples of Jesus.

 

[Grandliseur]

Actually, Jesus is also Almighty.

Rev. 1:7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,”and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”So shall it be! Amen.
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

There are some things that depending on a harmonious interpretation of the whole body of scripture, simply have to be said to be in disagreement, other times, fuzzy undefined, and yet again, other times, agree upon.

It is fairly simple to read your quotation and say, yes, Jesus is the Almighty. But, if I did that I would disregard what my knowledge and logic demands. Since, I stand without having to agree with any church at all, and simply can read the text and try to make sense of the entire body, I have to do what my logic dictates.

I think we can agree that Jesus is mentioned in verse 7. But, since my belief system from scripture shows Jesus to be a created being, not the Almighty, but second to God, I can only think that this verse 8 must be a phase shift from Jesus to God, Yahweh or Jehovah. If I am wrong, I am sure if I survive and make it to meet my Lord, that he shall tell me where I am wrong in my interpretations. Without the rest of the body of scripture, I would have to agree with you but find myself forced to disagree. Of course, who and exactly what Jesus is - is also where I may disagree with everybody else.

This is not the only place where someone has shown me an area where I could be wrong, but don't think I am. There are a few curve balls out there, though I don't remember them all. Some of these were clearly designed to make it hard for us to understand exactly what is what.

 

[shunyadragon]

It appears I did make a mistake about the Trinity, and only have an outsider's perspective, so my bad. I'm not a Christian, and have only ever seen the religion from the outside. I came up in a secular family.

What makes you say the Trinity isn't monotheism? Curious.

I consider Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith as strict monotheistic religions, and no multiple Divine beings making up God. Christianity became Hellenist/Roman religion under the influence of Paul and Greek/Roman Church Fathers. the Trinity represents three beings each called God in their own right, and making them one God does not change that. In the Roman Church Mary is the 'Mother of God,' Queen of Heaven, and like Jesus born without sin. She has a greater station than any of the saints, and amy be considered a Goddess, despite the objections of the Roman Church. The Moron (LDS) Church specifically considers Mary the wife of God the Father, Queen of Heaven, and therefore without question a Goddess.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Yes I certainly understand how that all appears polytheistic @shunyadragon. Believe me, I get it. I suppose Unitarian Christians fit into your view of monotheism?

 

[shunyadragon]

I consider Judaism, Islam and the Baha'i Faith as strict monotheistic religions, and no multiple Divine beings making up God. Christianity became Hellenist/Roman religion under the influence of Paul and Greek/Roman Church Fathers. the Trinity represents three beings each called God in their own right, and making them one God does not change that. In the Roman Church Mary is the 'Mother of God,' Queen of Heaven, and like Jesus born without sin. She has a greater station than any of the saints, and amy be considered a Goddess, despite the objections of the Roman Church. The Moron (LDS) Church specifically considers Mary the wife of God the Father, Queen of Heaven, and therefore without question a Goddess.

To add: The Moron (LDS) Church is polytheistic and henotheistic.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

To add: The Moron (LDS) Church is openly Henotheistic.

Yes, as I had Mormon elders tell me one time that the children of 'Heavenly Father' are gods and goddesses in their own rite, and that the gods of the nations are the fallen angels implementing Satan's 'plan of salvation'

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes I certainly understand how that all appears polytheistic @shunyadragon. Believe me, I get it. I suppose Unitarian Christians fit into your view of monotheism?

Several Christian churches are monotheist, such as, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, Dawn Bible Students, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, The Way International, The Church of God International and the United Church of God. Some list the Mormons (LDS) as monotheistic, but I do not. Also some describe Unitarian Universalist as nonotheistic, but the Unitarian Universalist have evolved into a more humanist church with many diverse beliefs from atheists to pagans. Defore the merger of the Unitarians and the Christian Universalists the Christian Universalists were monotheistic. Some UU congregations maintain a more liberal Christian monotheistic belief.

See: Nontrinitarianism - Wikipedia

 

[Sleeppy]

I think you'll find that most monotheisms include Free Will, or is this going to descend into a 'No True Monotheism' tirade?

Not sure what 'most' is worth here.

It isn't?

Far as I know, it was monotheism that demanded the creation of that idea. Nor am I aware of any use for it outside monotheistic theology.

Is there any justice system you're aware of, that doesn't entertain the implication of free will, i.e. personal culpability?

The Origin of Free Will – Think Atheist

 

[Kenny]

There are some things that depending on a harmonious interpretation of the whole body of scripture, simply have to be said to be in disagreement, other times, fuzzy undefined, and yet again, other times, agree upon.

It is fairly simple to read your quotation and say, yes, Jesus is the Almighty. But, if I did that I would disregard what my knowledge and logic demands. Since, I stand without having to agree with any church at all, and simply can read the text and try to make sense of the entire body, I have to do what my logic dictates.

I think we can agree that Jesus is mentioned in verse 7. But, since my belief system from scripture shows Jesus to be a created being, not the Almighty, but second to God, I can only think that this verse 8 must be a phase shift from Jesus to God, Yahweh or Jehovah. If I am wrong, I am sure if I survive and make it to meet my Lord, that he shall tell me where I am wrong in my interpretations. Without the rest of the body of scripture, I would have to agree with you but find myself forced to disagree. Of course, who and exactly what Jesus is - is also where I may disagree with everybody else.

This is not the only place where someone has shown me an area where I could be wrong, but don't think I am. There are a few curve balls out there, though I don't remember them all. Some of these were clearly designed to make it hard for us to understand exactly what is what.

Yes, I am aware of this application.

One thing I know for sure, My knowledge is not as high as God's knowledge and I have experienced where logic doesn't factor in the application of faith.

You may be right when you say "If I am wrong, I am sure if I survive and make it to meet my Lord, that he shall tell me where I am wrong in my interpretations.". As I say, when we get to Heaven ALL of us will sit down to a class called "What I really meant!" and we will all be adjusted in our thinking. IMO.

IMV, with the rest of the body of scripture, I find myself forced to disagree with you.

 

[Grandliseur]

with the rest of the body of scripture, I find myself forced to disagree with you.

I thought of answering your post once more, but decided to wait and see if you answered.

In Revelation, the same one that said what you quoted before, also said this:

Revelation 21:
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God the Almighty, and the Lamb, are the temple thereof. 23 And the city hath no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb. 24 And the nations shall walk amidst the light thereof: and the kings of the earth bring their glory into it.​

If John in the scripture you quoted me, meant to say that Jesus is the Almighty, don't you think this would be reflected in the rest of Revelation. Instead, we see that God is compared to the sun, and the Lamb, Jesus Christ, our Lord, is compared to the moon. That makes Jesus not the Almighty but less than the Almighty.

Thus, we have to assume logically that when John wrote what he did previously, that indeed, as I mentioned a phase shift took place.
Otherwise, please explain the above.

​

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, as I had Mormon elders tell me one time that the children of 'Heavenly Father' are gods and goddesses in their own rite, and that the gods of the nations are the fallen angels implementing Satan's 'plan of salvation'

Mormons believe that all of God's children have the potential to become gods and goddesses in the next life, but no one is anything of the sort right now. And I can't imagine what the elders meant by their other comment about "gods of the nations." In 69 years as a Mormon, I've never heard anything remotely similar to that.

 

[Katzpur]

To add: The Moron (LDS) Church is polytheistic and henotheistic.

Yeah, according to you. According to most Muslims, all of Christianity would be considered polytheistic. And they could make every bit as good an argument for their position as you could for yours. It's all a matter of how you define your terms. Why not let each religion speak for itself?

 

[Kenny]

I thought of answering your post once more, but decided to wait and see if you answered.

In Revelation, the same one that said what you quoted before, also said this:

Revelation 21:
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God the Almighty, and the Lamb, are the temple thereof. 23 And the city hath no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb. 24 And the nations shall walk amidst the light thereof: and the kings of the earth bring their glory into it.​

If John in the scripture you quoted me, meant to say that Jesus is the Almighty, don't you think this would be reflected in the rest of Revelation. Instead, we see that God is compared to the sun, and the Lamb, Jesus Christ, our Lord, is compared to the moon. That makes Jesus not the Almighty but less than the Almighty.

Thus, we have to assume logically that when John wrote what he did previously, that indeed, as I mentioned a phase shift took place.
Otherwise, please explain the above.

​

I took a course one the God being one and yet three. Just when we saw that they were three distict we hit a road block that said it was but one. And just when we were convinced it is just one we hit a road block that it was three.

As we share, let us share within the agreed foundation that regardless of our position, when we meet our Lord, He can set us straight and still follow His commandment that we love one another to which I think you are in agreement with.

Certainly Revelation, in and of itself, is a difficult book since it spoke of the future within his natural framework of 2000 years ago.

If God's glory is His glory and no one else's why would God's glory (the Lamb) not be the same person?

Or, if we look at this through the book of Revelation:

We have 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord,which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Let's take another journey:

We have it also saying in vs 1:11 I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the ending.
22:13 Alpha and Omega, the first and the last
1:17 First and the last, the one who livest but was dead.

Is the Alpha and Omega, first and last, beginning and the ending designation for the Almighty? or for the Lamb?