toldailytopic: The Holy Trinity.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The Trinity is perhaps the singularly unique aspect of Christianity, and we find that the rivals of Christianity deny or ignore the Trinity. And even within Christianity, when we examine the heresies, the doctrine of the Trinity is usually the first thing denied. Denying the Trinity causes the definition of God to be diluted and His marks of personality to be erased. The Gnostics, Arians, Neoplatonists all worshipped a non-Trinitarian God—a god of “pure oneness”, without plurality of any kind. Of course, we ask, “A oneness of what?” “A unity of what?” Nothing could be said to answer these questions. To say anything in this “oneness” view suggests division, plurality, certainly at least between subject and predicate. Indeed, to say “God is x” creates a plurality between God and x. Hence, speaking of God at all is meaningless to these non-Trinitarian views, and God’s nature becomes “wholly other”—indescribable in human language since the human mind could not even grasp this blank oneness.

That said, the Unitarians of old would try to speak of God as the perfect unity of those things separated in creation. Yet, if God is defined simply in terms of creation, then God is relative to creation. These forms of anti-Trinitarianism lead to these effects—a “wholly other” God, rather than the Biblical sense of a transcendent God. It also leads to a God who is relative to His creation, rather than the Sovereign Lord. We end up with this blank “One”, versus the absolute personality of the Scriptures. The Creator-creation distinction becomes a matter of degree rather than a difference of being. One need only look at Islam’s predestination doctrines to see the impersonal determinism versus the wise and good planning of the Scriptural God Almighty. Furthermore, within Islam, we find a god who can arbitrarily change his very nature, versus the character of the ever-abiding, dependably personal God of Scripture.

Unlike these non-Christian or Christian heresies, the Scripture has a very clear answer to the “A unity of what?” question—one unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When we examine Scripture we cannot help but find that when Scripture is touting the unity of God, it cannot resist the naming of more than one person of the Trinity (see, 1 Cor. 8:4ff; Ephesians 4:4-6; John 17:3; Matthew 28:19ff). Now if you were a “oneness” proponent you would think that the authors of such passages would have been more careful to avoid confusing matters alluding to the Trinity in these contexts, no? Yet the penman of Scripture clearly thought otherwise. Why? Because the Trinity confirmed, rather than compromised, the unity of God. Indeed, God’s “oneness”, God’s unity, is precisely is a unity of three persons.

So what, then? Only with the Trinitarian worldview, where God is three and one, can God be described in personal terms without God being made relative to the world. Consider, 1 John 4:8, “…God is love.” What does that mean? Well, the non-Trinitarians will answer “love of the world”. An immediate problem arises. Apparently the divine attribute of Love depends on the existence of the world. Since the attributes of God and the essence of God are co-inherent, such a response is claiming that God Himself depends upon the world. Here we see the slippery slope to a “wholly revealed” God. All right, then should we not say that “love” is metaphorically related to something mysterious? Then here we see the slippery slope to a “wholly other” God. Thus we encounter the heresies of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and Arianism. For if God is simply “One”, He is either “wholly other” or God is relative to the world—or somehow is both.

AMR

 

[kmoney]

I'm curious, kmo, did you actually read, or at least skim the linked post?

I did not.

 

[Selaphiel]

Jesus is the Son of God, he was sent by God, he is the first born of all creation, he is the Wisdom of God, he is the IMAGE of God, he is God's representative, he is the sole mediator BETWEEN God and men - and in all this he is shown to not be God.

Have to disagree with you here, at least if we are going to consider John. He is not the firstborn of creation, He was with God in the beginning (en arche), which is not the beginning of creation, but THE beginning (en arche is the exact same start as the Septuagint Genesis 1:1). Then the creation occurs, a creation that is through the Word (dia), not after it.
But the key verse is John 1:14 and its use of the word often translated as "glory" (doxa). Doxa is a very special word, it is the word used to translate the Hebrew word kabod in the Septuagint. Kabod is used to describe YWHW's glory or presence in the world (ex. Isaiah 6:3). John 1:14 is therefore saying that in Jesus Christ is the Gods ultimate presence on earth.

The logic of the prologue of John is therefore (using paraphrase):

In en arche was the Word, and the Word was with (pros indicating not only a static with but a dynamic relationship) God, and what God was, the Word was also. The Word was (imperfect tense indicating the Words preexistence before the any creation) with God. (1:1-2)

All things were made through the Word. (1:3)

The Word (as the light) have always been present, but not comprehended by the darkness (1:5)

The Word was made flesh (ho logos sarx egeneto) and we have seen his glory (doxa) (1:14)

The revelation of God in his entirety is through the incarnation (sarx egeneto) of the Word, who revealed the fullness of his glory.

That being said. The doctrine of the trinity is a derivative and a conceptualization of the Biblical texts. But I think it is safe to say that there are ways to draw the conclusions they did. The trinity is not only important in soteriology, it is also important when describing God as love. God was love even before the creation, because his very substance was one of dynamic loving relationship, the triune majesty.

 

[kmoney]

Christ is God.

Salvation hangs on that fact.

This thread is about the Trinity, not only Jesus' divinity. That seems to be the main discussion though.

 

[kmoney]

For those who support the Trinity doctrine, do you believe that each person in the Trinity has an individual will and can act against the other 2?

 

[Stripe]

For those who support the Trinity doctrine, do you believe that each person in the Trinity has an individual will and can act against the other 2?

Can Jesus act against the Father? Kinda a non-entity of a question. It's like technically one might feel forced to answer, "Yes", but it'd be a pretty hollow sorta answer ... not to mention irrelevant seeing we know the fact is He hasn't and our faith is resident in the idea that He never will.

Does that answer your question?

 

[elohiym]

Scripture doesn't support the idea that we have to accept Jesus as God to be saved :hammer:

If you don't accept that Christ is God, then by denying his deity you are claiming that a man is your savior. Only God is the savior.

Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Ho 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

God is the only savior; therefore, Christ is God because Christ is our savior.

Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

 

[elohiym]

This thread is about the Trinity, not only Jesus' divinity. That seems to be the main discussion though.

The crux is whether Jesus is God or not. Salvation hangs on Christ being God.

 

[csuguy]

Have to disagree with you here, at least if we are going to consider John. He is not the firstborn of creation, He was with God in the beginning (en arche), which is not the beginning of creation, but THE beginning (en arche is the exact same start as the Septuagint Genesis 1:1). Then the creation occurs, a creation that is through the Word (dia), not after it.
But the key verse is John 1:14 and its use of the word often translated as "glory" (doxa). Doxa is a very special word, it is the word used to translate the Hebrew word kabod in the Septuagint. Kabod is used to describe YWHW's glory or presence in the world (ex. Isaiah 6:3). John 1:14 is therefore saying that in Jesus Christ is the Gods ultimate presence on earth.

The logic of the prologue of John is therefore (using paraphrase):

In en arche was the Word, and the Word was with (pros indicating not only a static with but a dynamic relationship) God, and what God was, the Word was also. The Word was (imperfect tense indicating the Words preexistence before the any creation) with God. (1:1-2)

All things were made through the Word. (1:3)

The Word (as the light) have always been present, but not comprehended by the darkness (1:5)

The Word was made flesh (ho logos sarx egeneto) and we have seen his glory (doxa) (1:14)

The revelation of God in his entirety is through the incarnation (sarx egeneto) of the Word, who revealed the fullness of his glory.

That being said. The doctrine of the trinity is a derivative and a conceptualization of the Biblical texts. But I think it is safe to say that there are ways to draw the conclusions they did. The trinity is not only important in soteriology, it is also important when describing God as love. God was love even before the creation, because his very substance was one of dynamic loving relationship, the triune majesty.

I am merely quoting scripture. Colossians 1:15 (NASB) "He is the (A)image of the (B)invisible God, the (C)firstborn of all creation."

Also - "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" 1 Corinthians 1:23-25. Of God's Wisdom Proverbs 8:22 says "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, , [c] before his deeds of old."

1 John 5:5 "Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God."

John 3:16 "For God so (A)loved the world, that He (B)gave His (C)only begotten Son, that whoever (D)believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "

And the light of the world has not always been! Genesis 1:3. (note that this is not the sun or other physical light source - which are created in Genesis 1:14).

 

[csuguy]

If you don't accept that Christ is God, then by denying his deity you are claiming that a man is your savior. Only God is the savior.

Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Ho 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

God is the only savior; therefore, Christ is God because Christ is our savior.

Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

:yawn: No one is saying that Christ is a Savior APART from God. He is the one through whom God saved us.

 

[Selaphiel]

I do not see how the Son of God title disproves anything. He was the son of God as well. It is the Christ "part" that is the Word of God, Word in the flesh.
The Paul quotes are understood as God the father. Christ is an image of God the Father which is the invisible God, Christ is the revelation of Gods glory in the flesh.

 

[csuguy]

I do not see how the Son of God title disproves anything. He was the son of God as well. It is the Christ "part" that is the Word of God, Word in the flesh.
The Paul quotes are understood as God the father. Christ is an image of God the Father which is the invisible God, Christ is the revelation of Gods glory in the flesh.

Suppose X is the son of Y. That logically means that X cannot be Y, for Y precedes and begets X. Quite simple.

Also...

John 8:41 "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."

We see here that "Father" is merely a title for God. The Father, scripturally, is not considered to be some 'personage' of God.

1 Cor 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

This verse does two important things. First, it again identifies the one God as "Father." Jesus is not the Father, but the Son. The Son is not the Father, who is God. Therefore, the Son is not God.

Second, it lists Jesus after it talks about God, distinguishing him from God.

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

Again, Jesus is distinguished from God - and even more to the point, he is identified as a man.

God "alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen." 1 Tim 6:16.

God did not come himself - he sent his Son! John 17:3 "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

 

[keypurr]

I sincerely wish you would find faith in Jesus Christ as truly God, have faith in Him who died for your sins. It would comfort me to know you have found salvation. Forget about the logos.

Dear friend, I have found God, he has a son named Jesus.

 

[keypurr]

Christ is God.

Salvation hangs on that fact.

I value your friendship El, but I must disagree.

 

[keypurr]

I sincerely wish you would find faith in Jesus Christ as truly God, have faith in Him who died for your sins. It would comfort me to know you have found salvation. Forget about the logos.

Friend, it is extreamly important to find out what the "logos" is.

The translators errered when they translated it is "Word"

That is a very important key to the truth.

 

[keypurr]

Words have a semantical range of meaning. Jesus is called the Word in I Jn. and Revelation. In other contexts, logos does mean different things (such as a generic spoken word, not the personal Word/Logos/Christ).

How convenient. So, that means we can pick and chose the meaning we want?

 

[keypurr]

You have already demonstrated your willingness to be blown about by every wind of doctrine, so anything you have to say on the matter is suspect at the outset. Your youth betrays your ignorance.

AMR

On the contray, as an old man, I see a very smart and caring young man promoting truth as he sees it. He knows more than most already at his young age. We need more like him.

 

[keypurr]

This is really quite good, I would have worded it differently; however, you may be saying it with more clarity. I will have to give this some thought.

The point is God is equal only to Himself.

God is equal ONLY to himself. I agree

Jesus said "My Father is greater than all"
What does that tell you?
It should tell you that Jesus is not God.

 

[Selaphiel]

That logic is answered by the Christology. Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God. Son of God as man, The Word of God as God.

We have to deal with these scriptures within their own context. John 8:41 is of course in John. Why did the Jews try to stone Jesus for his statement in John 10:30? John answers that question himself in John 10:33.
Why did Jesus not rebuke Thomas after his confession in John 20:28 "My Lord AND My GOD" if this confession was wrong?
John 17:3 does not deny the trinity. God came, but in through the Word, not in his entirety. Did not the one substance of God send Jesus Christ by incarnating the Word into the flesh?

1 Tim 6:16 talks about Jesus Christ, so I'm not quite sure what you want to accomplish with that. 1 Tim 6:14-16. 6:14 talks about the Lord Jesus Christ, then in 6:15 he is referred to as "he", the word "God" is not in the text. It is Christ who is immortal and who lives in an unapproachable light.

1 Cor 8:6 is interesting I admit, especially when put against Romans 9:5 who in the youngest manuscripts (Nestle-Aaland) says:

"Their are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, whom is God over all, forever praised. Amen!"

ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα: ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

As I already said. The doctrine of the trinity is a derivative of scripture, not directly scripture itself. I will admit that there are many voices in the NT (and the Bible in general), but one of those voices are of a fully divine Christ/Word of God who is one with the Father.

 

[csuguy]

That logic is answered by the Christology. Jesus was both 100% man and 100% God. Son of God as man, The Word of God as God.

Eisegesis VS Exegeses. I prefer to derive my beliefs from scripture rather than try to make scripture fit with some pre-concieved man made doctrine.

We have to deal with these scriptures within their own context. John 8:41 is of course in John.

Of course.

Why did the Jews try to stone Jesus for his statement in John 10:30? John answers that question himself in John 10:33.

If you read it in context (meaning looking at Jesus' reply as well in the proceeding verses) the answer becomes clear. You are correct to think that the Jews took Christ's words to mean that he was claiming to be God - but you are incorrect to think that that is what he meant.

John 10:34-36 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[a]? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

Jesus was not claiming to be God, but his Son! Also, John 10:30 doesn't fit with the trinity if taken in a literal A=B sense - for the trinity requires that the two be seperate 'personages.' To remove the distinction between the Father and Son is to fall into the 'heresy' of modalism.

Why did Jesus not rebuke Thomas after his confession in John 20:28 "My Lord AND My GOD" if this confession was wrong?

Thomas was merely letting out an exclamation of surprise and realization. If we look down a little farther in the same chapter the author of John says "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:30-31. Tell me - was the author of John bilnd to what he himself wrote in John 20:28? The author wrote the things he did to support the fact that Christ is the SON of God (not God and not God the Son) - and we must interpret the book of John in light of this fact.

John 17:3 does not deny the trinity. God came, but in through the Word, not in his entirety. Did not the one substance of God send Jesus Christ by incarnating the Word into the flesh?

It does - it was not God who came but his Son. You are trying to read your pre-existing beliefs into scripture to make it work - you won't arrive at truth through Eisegeses.

1 Tim 6:16 talks about Jesus Christ, so I'm not quite sure what you want to accomplish with that. 1 Tim 6:14-16. 6:14 talks about the Lord Jesus Christ, then in 6:15 he is referred to as "he", the word "God" is not in the text. It is Christ who is immortal and who lives in an unapproachable light.

Wrong. I inserted God in front of the quote because that is who it is talking about, as is made clear when read in context.

"Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses. 13In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

1 Cor 8:6 is interesting I admit, especially when put against Romans 9:5 who in the youngest manuscripts (Nestle-Aaland) says:

"Their are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, whom is God over all, forever praised. Amen!"

ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα: ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

It is interesting to note that an alternate translation of this passage (provided in the footnotes of some bibles) is "..Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised!" Quite a different meaning. Just goes to show how much interpretation goes into translating. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 9:5&version=NIV)

As I already said. The doctrine of the trinity is a derivative of scripture, not directly scripture itself. I will admit that there are many voices in the NT (and the Bible in general), but one of those voices are of a fully divine Christ/Word of God who is one with the Father.

I'll agree to that - after all our bible was put together by the RCC, and also modified by them for many centuries - so it is not surprising that there is some support for the trinity and the idea that Christ is God. Despite their efforts, however, the majority view presented in scripture is that Christ is the Son of God, the mediator BETWEEN God and men, that God is the head of Christ, etc. In otherwords, the majority view presented by scripture is that Christ is not God.