|
Post by mattmisk on Aug 19, 2008 12:25:06 GMT -5
There's been some talk about the Trinity, and I'd thought I'd make a thread for it. I am no expert on the nature of God, many things being mysterious and confusing to me, but I am certain that the Trinity doctrine is not correct. By Trinity I am not referring to the deity of Christ or the Holy Spirit, but am referring to the belief of, "One God in three persons." William Penn, prominent early Quaker, best summarizes the problems with the Trinity doctrine in his book titled, THE Sandy Foundation Shaken: OR; Those so Generally Believed and applauded DOCTRINES, Of One God, Subsisting in Three Distinct and Separate Persons, The Impossibility of God's pardoning Sinners, without a Plenary Satisfaction, The Justification of impure Persons, by an imputative Righteousness, Refuted. Found here: mikeblume.com/sandyfoundation.htmI'll let him do the talking: A short Confutation by Way of Recapitulation, of what was objected against us at Thomas Vincent's Meeting.The Question was this, Whether we own'd one God-head, Subsisting in Three Distinct and Separate Persons, as the Result of various Revises and Amendments; which being denied by us, as a Doctrine no where Scriptural, T. V. frames this Syllogism from the beloved Disciple's Words. 1 John 5. 7. There are three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these Three are one. These are either three Manifestations, three Operations, three Substances, or three somethings else beside Subsistences. But they are not three Manifestations, three Operations, three Substances, nor three any thing else beside Subsistences: Ergo, Three Subsistences. G. W. [George Whitehead] Utterly rejected his Terms, as not to be found in Scripture, nor deduceable from the Place he instanced: Wherefore he desires their Explanation of their Terms, inasmuch as God did not use to wrap his Truths up in Heathenish Metaphysicks, but in plain Language: Notwithstanding we could not obtain a better Explication, than Person, or of Person, than the Mode of a Substance; To all which G. W. and my self urged several Scriptures, proving God's compleat Unity: And when we queried how God was to be understood, if in an abstractive Sense from his Substance: They concluded it a point more fit for Admiration than Disputation. But a little to review his Syllogism; the Manner of it shews him as little a Scholar, as it's Matter does a Christian; but I shall over-look the first, and so much of the second, as might deserve my Objection to his Major, and give in short my Reason, why I flatly deny his Minor Proposition. No one Substance can have three distinct Subsistences, and preserve its own Unity: For granting them the most favourable Definition, every subsistence, will have its own Substance; so that three distinct Subsistences, or Manners of Being, will require three distinct Substances or Beings; consequently three Gods. For if the infinite God-head subsists in three separate Manners or Forms, then is not any one of them a perfect and compleat Subsistence without the other two; so parts, and something finite is in God: Or if infinite, then three distinct infinite Subsistence; and what's this but to assert three Gods, since none is infinite but God? And on the contrary, there being an inseparability betwixt the Substance and its Subsistence, the Unity of Substance will not admit a Trinity of incommunicable or distinct Subsistences. T. D. Being ask'd of whom was Christ the express Image, from his alledging that Scripture in the Hebrews; answered, of God's Subsistence, or Manner of Being: From whence two Things in short follow as my Reply, It makes God a Father only by Subsistence, and Christ a Son without a Substance. Besides it's falsly rendred in the Hebrews, since the Greek does not Heb. 1. 3. say but the Character of Substance. And if he will peruse a farther Discovery of his Error, and explanation of the Matter, let him read Col. 1. 15. Who is the Image of the Invisible God. And because G. W. willing to bring this strange Doctrine to the Capacity of the People, compar'd their three Persons to three Apostles, saying, he did not understand how Paul, Peter, and John could be three Persons, and one Apostle, (a most apt Comparison to detect their Doctrine) one— Maddocks, whose Zeal out-stript his Knowledge, bustling hard, as one that had some necessary Matter for the Decision of our Controversie, instead thereof (perhaps to save his Brethren, or show himself) silences our farther controverting of the Principle, by a Syllogistical, but impertinent Reflection upon G. W's. Person. It runs thus, He that Scornfully and reproachfully compares our Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit, one in Essence, but three in Persons, to three finite Men, as Paul, Peter, and John, is a Blasphemer. But you G. W. have so done. Ergo A strange Way of Argumentation, to beg what can't be granted him, and take for granted what still remains a Question, viz. That there are three distinct and separate Persons in one Essence: Let them first prove their Trinity, and then charge their Blasphemy: But I must not forget this Person's self-confutation, who to be plainer, called them three He's, and if he can find an He without a Substance, or prove that a Subsistence is any other than the Form of an He, he would do well to justifie himself from the Imputation of Ignorance. The Trinity of Distinct and Separate Persons, in the unity of Essence, refuted from Scripture.1 Kings 8.23. And he said, Lord God, there is no God like unto THEE, To whom then will ye liken ME? Or shall I be equal, saith the Holy ONE? —I am the Lord, and there is NONE else, there is no God besides ME. Thus saith the Lord thy Redeemer, the Holy ONE of Israel. I will also praise THEE, O my God; unto THEE will I sing, O Holy ONE of Israel. Jehovah shall be ONE, and his Name ONE. Isa. 40. 25. c. 45. 5, 6. c. 48. 17. Psal. 71. 22. Zac. 14. 9. Mat. 19. 17. John 17. 3. Rom. 3. 30. 1 Cor. 8. 6. Eph. 4. 6. 1 Tim. 2. 5. Jude ver. 25. Which with a Cloud of other Testimonies that might be urg'd, evidently demonstrate, that in the Days of the first Covenant, and Prophets, but ONE was the Holy God, and God but that Holy ONE.—Again, And Jesus said unto Him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but ONE, and that is God. And this is Life Eternal, that they might know THEE (Father) the ONLY True God. Seeing it is ONE God that shall justifie. There be Gods many,—but nnto us there is but ONE God, the Father, of whom are all Things. ONE God and Father who is above all Things. For there is ONE God. To the ONLY Wise God be Glory now and ever. From all which I shall lay down this one Assertion, that the Testimonies of Scripture, both under the Law, and since the Gospel Dispensation, declare ONE to be God, and God to be ONE, on which I shall raise this Argument: If God, as the Scriptures testifie, hath never been declar'd or believ'd, but as the Holy ONE, then will it follow, that God is not an Holy THREE, nor doth subsist in THREE distinct and separate Holy ONES: but the before-cited Scriptures undeniably prove that ONE is God, and God only is that Holy ONE; therefore he can't be divided into, or subsist in an Holy THREE, or THREE distinct and separate Holy ONES—Neither can this receive the least Prejudice from that frequent but impertinent Distinction, that he is ONE in Substance, but THREE in Persons or Subsistences; since God was not declared or believed incompleatly, or without his Subsistence: Nor did he require Homage from his Creatures, as an incompleat or abstracted Being, but as God the Holy ONE: For so he should be manifested and Worshipped without that which was absolutely Necessary to Himself:——So that either the Testimonies of the aforementioned Scriptures are to be believ'd concerning God, that he is intirely and compleatly, not abstractly and distinctly, the Holy ONE, or else their Authority to be denied by these Trinitarians: And on the contrary, if they pretend to credit those Holy Testimonies, they must necessarily conclude their Kind of Trinity a Fiction. Refuted from Right Reason.1. If there be three distinct and separate Persons, then three distinct and separate Substances, because every Person is inseparable from its own Substance; and as there is no Person that's not a Substance in common Acceptation among Men, so do the Scriptures plentifully agree herein: And since the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God (which their Opinion necessitates them to confess) then unless the Father, Son, and Spirit, are three distinct Nothings, they must be three distinct Substances, and consequently three distinct Gods. 2. It's farther prov'd, if it be consider'd, that either the Divine Persons are finite or infinite; if the first, then something finite is inseparable to the infinite Substance, whereby something finite is in God; if the last, then Three distinct Infinites, Three Omnipotents, Three Eternals, and so Three GODS. 3. If each Person be God, and that God Subsists in three Persons, then in each Person are three Persons or Gods, and from three, they will encrease to nine, and so ad infinitum. 4. But if they shall deny the three Persons, or Subsistences to be infinite, (for so there would unavoidably be three Gods) it will follow that they must be finite, and so the Absurdity is not abated from what it was; for that of one Substance having three Subsistences, is not greater, than that an infinite Being should have three finite Modes of Subsisting. But though that Mode which is finite can't answer to a Substance that's infinite; yet to try if we can make their Principle to consist, let us conceive that three Persons, which may be finite Separately, make up an infinite conjunctly; however this will follow, that they are no more incommunicable or separate, nor properly Subsistences, but a Subsistence; for the infinite Substance can't find a Bottom or Subsistence in any one or two, therefore joyntly. And here I am also willing to over look finiteness in the Father, Son, and Spirit, which this Doctrine must Suppose. 5. Again, if these three distinct Persons are one, with some one Thing, as they say they are with the God-head, then are not they incommunicable among themselves; but so much the contrary, as to be one in the Place of another: For if that the only God is the Father, and Christ be that only God, then is Christ the Father. So if that one God be the Son, and the Spirit that one God, then is the Spirit the Son, and so round. Nor is it possible to stop, or that it should be otherwise, since if the Divine Nature be inseparable from the three Persons, or communicated to each, and each Person have the whole Divine Nature, then is the Son in the Father, and the Spirit in the Son, unless that the God-head be as incommunicable to the Persons, as they are reported to be amongst themselves; or that the three Persons have distinctly allotted them such a Proportion of the Divine Nature, as it not communicable to each other, which is alike absurd. Much more might be said to manifest the gross Contradiction of this Trinitarian Doctrine, as vulgarly receiv'd; but I must be brief. [The rest of pamphlet is amazing as well: he goes on to refute the doctrines of divine satisfaction (of God's wrath poured upon Jesus) and imputed righteousness.] -------------------------- I feel his sentiments exactly and think his arguments precise. I'm not sure how this will be received, but I suspect that many will say, "If not the Trinity, then what?" or "The Bible seems to teach the Trinity." To the first, we should, if need be, prefer ignorance to plainly false doctrines. To the second, the Bible does not use Trinity language or describe God as three persons, or as three anythings. While there are truths taught in the Bible, such as Christ's divinity, which are necessary for the Trinity doctrine, the doctrine itself cannot be derived from these truths, but is inferred as the best explanation of them. I reject it as the best explanation for the reasons given above, and rather say it is an unsatisfactory and unbiblical explanation. Peace, Matt
|
|
|
Post by logic on Aug 19, 2008 17:03:33 GMT -5
1. If there be three distinct and separate Persons, then three distinct and separate Substances, because every Person is inseparable from its own Substance; and as there is no Person that's not a Substance in common Acceptation among Men, so do the Scriptures plentifully agree herein: And since the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God (which their Opinion necessitates them to confess) then unless the Father, Son, and Spirit, are three distinct Nothings, they must be three distinct Substances, and consequently three distinct Gods. Theses three distinct "Gods" have one purpose & one mind. They are perfectly unified as one. It is as if Jesus was here, you mght as well have all three also. Jesus is the mirror image(with out the mirror effect as in making things look reversed) of the other Two. So is the same for Each. They will never contradict nor will they ever disagree. They are perfect in unity, and in equlity of authority. I don't know here this reasoning comes from. Your only playing with semantics here. You shoukd give this part of your argument up. Jesus as God, on Earth had the Holy Spirit dwelling within Him. While the Father who is toataly other than spirit & flesh dwells in heaven. I don't mind you saying three God's, just kerep in mind that they will never contradic, never over-rule one another, never have difering minds & opinions, never be less in anything than the other...ect... You get the idea. We do not deny the three Persons, or Subsistences to be infinite. Not one "thing", but one Entity. Only if the term "God" is to be thought of a singular. Entity God of Israel is not a singular concept. Duet 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God(s) is a unified LORD: shema Yisrael, Yehovah Eloheinu, Yehovah achad. Hear, Isra'el! ADONAI our great God in emensity, ADONAI is one.
|
|
|
Post by mattmisk on Aug 20, 2008 8:15:19 GMT -5
logic,
It sounds like you are saying that there are three distinct gods who all agree and have one purpose. There is only one God, Yahweh. Can you find any place in the Bible where a numeric adjective other than "one" is applied to Yahweh?
1. God is triune. 2. The Father is God. 3. The Father is triune.
No, Yahweh is singular! One God, not two, three, or four! You will never find anything different in the Bible, never any language to imply that Yahweh is more than one. You can infer it from other things if you like, but then you would be contradicting the plain and simple passages which say otherwise.
This translation is simply wrong. See the articles yadanni posted in the other thread about the word Echad.
God is complex, yes, and beyond us, yes - but he has revealed himself to us, in explicitly clear terms, as One God.
Matt
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Aug 20, 2008 8:26:01 GMT -5
Matt,
If you reject the Trinity then what is it you believe about Jesus Christ? Do you reject monotheism?
|
|
|
Post by yadanni on Aug 20, 2008 9:29:01 GMT -5
This either true or false ? you decide.
ex from article titled: mathematics gone mad: When one is supposed to mean three.
The Brown, Driver and Briggs Lexicon of the OT says nothing about “one” meaning “compound one.” What in fact is “compound one”? “Compound one” is not to my knowledge found in any lexicon as a definition of echad. The numerical adjective “one” can of course, in English and Hebrew, modify a collective noun. A collective noun is a word like “family” or “cluster” or “team.” We sense at once that these words suggest one and many at the same time. But note carefully “one cluster of grapes” is still one cluster and not two or more clusters. If someone tells you that the word “one” contains in itself a notion of plurality, point out to them that it is the noun cluster and not the word “one” which signals plurality. The word “one” continues to describe a single object — one single cluster. Should that noun contain the notion of plurality (cluster, family, etc.) it is the noun in question which conveys the plural idea. Thus when Adam and Eve became “one flesh,” you know from the context that the two of them were combined in “one flesh.” But this was precisely “one flesh,” and not “two fleshes.” “One couple” means a single couple and not more than one. One just means one.
There is nothing in the word “one” which speaks of plurality. It still means “a single…” never “more than one.” Evening and morning formed “a single day” (yom echad). It is therefore completely misleading to say that “one” means more than one, that it is “compound”! There is as little logic in the claim that God being “one” means that He is really more than one as in saying that “one pentagon” proves that one really means five!
Echad appears about 960 times in the OT. Listing a handful of examples in which “one” modifies a collective noun proves absolutely nothing in favor of the Trinity. It invites readers into a sort of smoke screen, leaving the actual meaning of “one” in multiple biblical examples unexamined. Morey does not include in his analysis the fact that there are hundreds of occurrences of echad modifying a noun which have no suggestion at all of plurality. “Abraham was one (echad)” hardly suggests that there was plurality in Abraham (Isa. 51:2; Ezek. 33:24). In the second example the NIV translates: “Abraham was only one man, yet he possessed the land.” The Hebrew says that Abraham was echad, “one.” The proper English for echad in this case is “only one,” “only one man.” Thus when Deuteronomy 6:4 says that “God is one Yahweh,” it means exactly that: “only one Yahweh.” That is the biblical view of God throughout both Testaments. It is the heart of the greatest of all commandments and any deviation from that strict monotheism threatens the core of biblical revelation — which amounts to a theological disaster. Jesus expressly confirmed the central tenet of Judaism that “God is one Lord” (see his discussion with a Jewish scholar in Mark 12:28ff). Jesus was not a Trinitarian and nor was the Jewish scribe who engaged him in the discussion. Jews do not believe in the Trinity and are offended that anyone could try to force the Hebrew Bible into a Trinitarian mold.
|
|
|
Post by yadanni on Aug 20, 2008 10:21:57 GMT -5
1. The Hebrew plural Elohim is derived from the singular form Eloah (used 226 times both of the one true God as well as false deities). Although it is a plural noun, it does not always denote more than one. The Hebrew plural can mean more than one, but it is also used to indicate intensity, or a multiplicity of attributes. The word for "face" and "water" are always in the plural form because the face shows so many aspects of a person, and water because it flows. In like manner, our English, "God," is from the plural Hebrew form of El because of God's majestic plurality of attributes. When the context is talking about the true God the Hebrew always uses a singular verb with Elohim, whereas when it is speaking of false gods it uses a plural verb with Elohim. Whenever a verse from the Old Testament, which uses Elohim in reference to the one true God, is translated by the authors of the New Testament, it is translated as the singular theos instead of the plural theoi. This shows that the Elohim whose name was "Yahweh" in the Old Testament was one, not many. <back> 2. Barnes, Albert ed. by Robert Frew. Barnes' Notes. Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, n.d., "The Gospels," p. 294. <back>
|
|
|
Post by mattmisk on Aug 20, 2008 12:19:37 GMT -5
Matt, If you reject the Trinity then what is it you believe about Jesus Christ? Do you reject monotheism? No, I am definitely monotheistic. Jesus is the Word/Wisdom/Manifestation/Revelation/Power/Light/Grace/Truth/Life of Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh himself, but it is correct to say that in Jesus, Yahweh became flesh. I do not know all of the details, and am still learning. But I am not willing to own a doctrine that I know is wrong, even if it does help explain some things, which I do not deny. I would prefer a confession of ignorance and mystery than a confession of contradictions and falsehood. What do you think about the arguments made by William Penn? Is God one substance or three? If one substance, how can three persons be only one substance? This defies the definition of person, and we might as well say that God is one substance and three jarbs. It means about the same thing. Saying that God has three centers of consciousness, three personalities, or similar things are all possible with one substance. But three "persons" is not possible. And if God is three substances, then how not three gods? Matt
|
|
|
Post by logic on Aug 20, 2008 15:24:13 GMT -5
It sounds like you are saying that there are three distinct gods who all agree and have one purpose. Sorry, I meant to say, "I don't mind you saying three God's in the Godhead. They arethree distinct person's in the "Godhead". All that enters into the idea of God belongs to Them. The term "Godhead" is the Saxon equivalent of the Latin word "Divinity" however, it is more usual to say "Deity." When we say "the Divinity," "Deity," "Godhead," we are saying "God" & all pertain to the three divine Persons as one. They are all three, "God". That is becaue He is A triune God. Tri = 3 Une = 1 1: The Godhead is triune. 2: The Father God is not the Godhead, He is of the Godhead. 3: The Father God is not triune. I think your getting stuck on semantics The word "Yahweh" is singular, the concept is not. How do you explain these? Whosoever speaks a word against ME, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaks against ME, it shall not be forgiven him, Matthew 12:32 And whosoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.About the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, something in Aramaic, "Me oh My, why have I forsaken myself!" Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?Jesus went out into a mountain to talk to Himself, and continued all night talking to Himself. Luke 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.All things are delivered to me by myself: and no man knows who the Son is, but me... Luk 10:22 All things are delivered to me by my Father: and no man knows who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.As I knows me, even so know I the Myself: Joh 10:15 As the Father knows me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.Me & Myself are one. John 10:30 I and my Father are one. All things that I have are mine: John 16:15 All things that the Father has are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you. There are many more, but you get the picture showing youi that Jesus is God.
|
|
|
Post by mattmisk on Aug 20, 2008 16:13:49 GMT -5
How the following are different: 1. There are three gods in the godhead. 2. There are three equal gods that agree.
You said, "The Godhead is triune." According to the Trinity theory, each person, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are fully God in every way. What then is this Godhead? For it is only "the Godhead" that is God - the other three are only parts of God, and cannot be said to be fully God. Or, as the argument says, they must each be triune as well.
"The Godhead" is the term that has been created to represent these three gods. I don't serve a Godhead of three gods, I serve one God.
This statement has no foundation in scripture - it is pure theory and "Heathenish Metaphysicks." There is no scriptural phrase that says anything other than "One God." Let's stick to scriptural, Holy Spirit inspired phrases. They were adequate for the early church and they are adequate for us.
First, none of these passages contradict what I have said: "You will never find anything different in the Bible, never any language to imply that Yahweh is more than one." and " Can you find any place in the Bible where a numeric adjective other than "one" is applied to Yahweh?"
I'm not sure what your point in quoting these passages is and substituting Jesus for God. Maybe you missed what I said to Steve: "Jesus is the Word/Wisdom/Manifestation/Revelation/Power/Light/Grace/Truth/Life of Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh himself, but it is correct to say that in Jesus, Yahweh became flesh."
The Trinity has some explanatory power, therefore until it is recognized that is also has doctrinal and biblical problems, there is no reason to give it up. It is a complex model and paradigm that all of scripture is filtered through - much like Calvinism actually! Think about it: you show a Calvinist a crystal clear passage that says men can fall away, that Christians do not live in sin, that Christ died for all men, etc. What do they do? They interpret the passages through pre-conceived ideas and force the text to fit their ideas, instead of saying, "Yes, the scripture says that and not this" or "I see that the Bible teaches x, and also y. Calvinism is totally against x, but Calvinism also affirms y. Although it is partly right, I must reject it, because it is partly wrong."
A "three person God", while a lofty, complicated idea with some explanatory power, falls short on numerous counts, as stated in the original post. We must pursue those ideas and doctrines which first and foremost acknowledge the plain language of scripture, and then secondly account for the harder passages as well. As the adage goes, "Interpret difficult passages in light of easy passages."
Matt
|
|
|
Post by yadanni on Aug 20, 2008 17:43:38 GMT -5
Quote by matt. The Trinity has some explanatory power, therefore until it is recognized that is also has doctrinal and biblical problems, there is no reason to give it up. It is a complex model and paradigm that all of scripture is filtered through - much like Calvinism actually! Think about it: you show a Calvinist a crystal clear passage that says men can fall away, that Christians do not live in sin, that Christ died for all men, etc. What do they do? They interpret the passages through pre-conceived ideas and force the text to fit their ideas, instead of saying, "Yes, the scripture says that and not this" or "I see that the Bible teaches x, and also y. Calvinism is totally against x, but Calvinism also affirms y. Although it is partly right, I must reject it, because it is partly wrong."
SUCH A TRUE POINT MATT, WE STUDY THE SCRIPTURES IN OTHER AREAS AND USE STRICT HERMENUETICAL PRINCIPALS YET WHEN IT COMES TO THE VERY PERSON AND NATURE OF GOD PEOPLE COME WITH PRECONCIEVED, PRESSUPPOSITION, TRADITIONAL BIAS THAT HAS BEEN INGRAINED INTO THE MIND BY FALSE TEACHING. THATS NOT HONEST. JUST BECAUSE MAJORITY BELIEVE IN THIS ONE GOD WHO IS THREE BEINGS BY NO MEANS MAKES IT SCRIPTURAL. ALSO JUST BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN EXTREME BEHAVIOR AND FANATCISM AND FALSE DOCTRINE BY OTHER GROUPS THAT DEBUNK THE TRINITY, I STILL MUST SEARCH TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY TRUTH IN THE SCRIPTURES OF WHAT THEY CLAIM. IT GOES WITH OUT SAYING THERE HAS ALSO BEEN SOME CRAZY FORMS OF TEACHING ON THE TRIN AND UNGODLY BEHAVIOR EVEN MURDER BY TRINS AGAINST THOSE WHO DO NOT HOLD TO ITS TEACHING. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS PEOPLE DO NOT TAKE AN HONEST LOOK AT SCRIPTURES IN THIS AREA IS BECAUSE OF FEAR AND LAZINESS. BACK TO THE BIBLE TAKE OF YOUR TRIN GLASSES AND YOU WILL SEE THE TRUTH IS GLORIOUSLY FRIGHTENING AND OPOSED TO THE TRADITIONS OF MEN YET SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Aug 20, 2008 19:48:31 GMT -5
How are the following are different: 1. There are three gods in the godhead. 2. There are three equal gods that agree. Not this conversation is clesrly revieling my mistakes, I do apologize. Would you mind if I recant what I said about the term "gods"? There is three persons which are God The Godhead is the whole of the three persons in it. How can Jesus or the father or the Holy Spirit be partly God if they all have the same authority, power, wisdom, mind, purpose, goal...ect... And that one may pray to each. How could one be partly God? Serve a Godhead of three persons, each fully God. There can not be anyone partly God, what would that be?
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 20, 2008 19:59:16 GMT -5
Something that must be established in this discussion is that Christians do not believe in three god's rather they believe in one God, one being (monotheism) one essence that is three persons distinct NOT SEPERATE, that are coequal and coeternal. As one person put it God is one what and three whos. The Bible says there is one God (Det 6:4, Mark 12:29) the Father is called God (in 1 peter) the son is called God (John 8:58-59 ego eimi, Isaiah 9,) and the Holy Spirit is called God (Acts cpt 5). The three mentioned have a will, speaks, loves, uses personal pronouns such as me, my, I, which by definition is a person. Therefore from scripture we deduce that there is one God in three persons.
|
|
rc
Junior Member
May God be glorified 1 Cor 10:31
Posts: 63
|
Post by rc on Aug 20, 2008 20:03:48 GMT -5
Also, it should be pointed out in the incarnation of the logos (John 1:1) there was no seperation of essence, God is omnipresent. I recommend www.carm.org for information conerning the Trinity.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 20, 2008 20:18:10 GMT -5
THE TRINITY A Plurality of Personality A Oneness of Purpose
"And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness" Gen. 1:26
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7
There is a plurality of persons (three distinct persons) but a oneness of essence and purpose. Three united persons make up the One true God.
The doctrine of the Trinity is something God has been revealing ever since the beginning of when He started writing the bible. For example, scriptures like, "And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness" (Gen. 1:26) and also, "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of US, to know good and evil." (Gen. 3:22) This all reveals the internal plurality of the one God!
In the book "The Nature & Character of God" Winkie Pratney dedicated a large portion of his book to the Trinity, (pages 255-429)
Here is a section from his book that I thoroughly enjoyed:
"The Word 'Trinity' or 'Triunity' is not a biblical term but a theological one, describing the idea of three distinct centers of consciousness in the one God.
God is dinstictly called 'one Lord' (Deut. 6:4, Mark 12:29), but we must examine closely as to how the word one is being used. There are two kinds of unity or 'oneness' in both English and Hebrew; an absolute unity and compound unity. Absolute unity is that of singularity; I give you one apple, and you get a single apple. But if you ask for 'one' bunch of grapes, you don't simply get one grape! 'One' in this case is a word of compound unity, the many in the one.
One (Hebrew)
Yachead is the OT word for absolute unity; a mathematical or numerical one. It is used about 12 times in the OT, but never to describe the unity of God (Gen. 22:2, 12; Zech. 12:10)
Echad however speaks of a compound or collective unity. In marriage "the two shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24); a crowd can gather together 'as one' (Ezek. 3:1); or be of one mind or heart: "All the rest of Israel were of one heart to make David king" (1Chron 12:38). This is the compound plural always used of God when He is called "one" Lord.
.... El is a word used of God... The Father is El (Gen 14:18-22); The Son is El (Isa/ 7:14 [Immanuel]; Isa. 9:6-9); The Holy Spirit is El (Job 33:4; 37:10).
Elohim is the plural of El and is used about 2,500 times in the OT. It suggests a plurality of persons in the divine Godhead...
Adon (singular) or Adonai (plural) - Master, Owner, Ruler of All (Ps. 147:5; 86:12)"
End Quote.
So "Yachead" is the Hebrew word of absolute unity and it is NEVER used for God. But "Echad" is the Hebrew word of collective or compound unity and is ABUNDANTLY used for God.
"Elohim" is the plural term for the singular "El". "El" = God but "Elohim" God's. (not that there are many Gods, but that there is a plurality of personalities which make up one God).
"Adonai" is the plural version for the singular "Adon". "Adon" = Master while "Adonai" = Master's. (Again, not to suggest any polytheism, but rather to teach a plurality of personalities in God."
This was another part I thought was very good from the book:
"Q. Jesus prayed, 'that they may be one, even as we are one' (John 17:22). When we say that God is 'one' aren't we talking about His singleness of purpose of harmony of personal unity?
A. The Godhead indeed enjoy perfect unity or harmony of purpose in personal relationship that is to be a model for the Church. But the substantial unity of the Godhead is based on another consideration that are metaphysical, not merely moral - that since each member is uncreated, they are thus essential one in "substance, nature, and essence"
End quote.
So the Godhead are in fact one in purpose (moral) and they are also one in substance or nature (metaphysical) though there are three separate or distinction persons (personalities) all contained in the one (echad) collective God!!
Here is the way I see it:
Many doctrines = One Faith
Many parts = One Body
Many members = One Family
Three persons = One God
One God is made up of three distinct personalities, namely, the Father - The Son - and The Holy Spirit. Or you could say God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
Oneness Pentecostals, as opposed to traditional Trinitarianism, wrongly interprets the word "one".
WHAT DOES "ONE" REALLY MEAN??
"One", which Oneness Pentecostals try to use against the doctrine of the Trinity, is "echad", pronounced as "ekh-awd", and it means "united".
Gen 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be ONE (echad, united) flesh.
Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is ONE (echad, united) Lord."
Just as a man and his wife are united (one) so also is God united (one). The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are in perfect unity and harmony, they are one in purpose.
But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not the same person (though they are the same God).
ONENESS IS PERFECT UNITY AMONGST PERSONS
Just as a married couple are "one" (two persons that are united), Jesus also said this about the Church: "that they may be ONE, even as we are ONE." John 17:22
If Jesus and the Father were one person, instead of two persons in unity, then Jesus prayed that all Christians would be one person, instead of many persons in unity.
- Did Jesus want Christians to be one person or to be united persons??
The same way Jesus was one with the Father, Jesus wanted the Church to be one with each other. Jesus and the Father are two persons that are one in purpose, they are united or in unity. And so Jesus wants Christians, who are different persons, to be one in purpose, to be united or in unity.
-----------------
So very clearly:
- A married couple is "one" (Gen 2:24): two persons that are in unity
- The Christian Church is "one" (John 17:22): many persons that are in unity
- God is "one" (Deut 6:4) : Three Divine Persons that are in unity
|
|
|
Post by yadanni on Aug 20, 2008 20:24:54 GMT -5
EXPLAINED WELL BY A BRO OF MINE!
Think about the Burning Bush. In Exodus 3:2 it says "The angel of the Lord appeared". In Exodus 3:4 it says, "God called to him from the midst of the bush".
Acts 7:31 says that "an angel appeared to him...in the flame of a burning thorn bush".
Acts 7:as he approached to look more closely, there came the voice of the Lord: Ac 7:32 ‘I AM THE GOD OF YOUR FATHERS, THE GOD OF ABRAHAM AND ISAAC AND JACOB.’ Act 7:33THE LORD SAID TO HIM, ‘TAKE OFF THE SANDALS FROM YOUR FEET, FOR THE PLACE ON WHICH YOU ARE STANDING IS HOLY GROUND.
Jesus said in Mark 12:36 "...in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, and the God of Jacob’?"
Here is my point. God is infinite. He cannot appear to men as He is in reality, but must express Himself in limited and perceivable forms. These expressions are God in a qualitative sense, and are identified as God. The logos was God (John 1:1)
In the case of the burning bush the expression (logos) is said to be an angel, but is also said to be YHWH and God.
Even as it is right for Moses to remove his sandals before this manifestation of God, the very ground being made holy by His presence, and speak of the voice as the voice of the LORD, so it is right for Thomas to address Christ, in whom the fullness, presence, and authority of God dwells, as God.
This One far outstrips the manifestation of God in the burning bush. He is "the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature" (Heb 1:2). Those who have seen Christ have seen the Father, as he said to Phillip. Joh 14:9 Jesus *said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father‘? Joh 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? (john 14 9-10).
I do not believe Jesus is God in a Trinitarian pre-existent sense, but is God manifest to us in and through a perfect man. Jesus has been given the name of, and all authority of God. He is not just a man with God in him, he is "God with us". He has the title and role of God. He does the works of his Father.
The Logos was (and is) God. (John 1:1). An expression of God is God in a qualitative and functional sense. And the logos of God is indentified as "God". So too Christ the perfect expression of God, the logos made flesh, is God in a qualitative and functional sense, and is correctly identified as "God".
In short if an angel speaking from a burning bush can identify itself as "The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" I don't think it at all strange at all to identify the Son of God, who now has authority over all angels, as God.
|
|
|
Post by mattmisk on Aug 20, 2008 20:49:26 GMT -5
rc,
Right, what you've described is the Trinity doctrine, which is what I am arguing against. I am aware of what it teaches.
How can multiple whos be one what? Each who is one what by definition. See original post.
There are quite a few leaps of logic taken to arrive at the conclusion. The possibilities explanations for the facts stated are much more than "one God in three persons."
Matt
|
|
|
Post by mattmisk on Aug 20, 2008 20:58:54 GMT -5
logic,
Absolutely!
Right, standard Trinity.
I understand what you mean by the phrase I think. I simply cannot accept this from a Biblical standpoint as a true doctrine or a true phrase.
It proves to be a difficult point to make, that which I was attempting to make. I'll leave it for now, better to look at other things.
I'll put this question to you: what definition of person allows for multiple persons within one being? (For the common definition of person does not allow for this.)
Good discussing with you, Matt
|
|
|
Post by mattmisk on Aug 20, 2008 21:01:02 GMT -5
yadanni, your post is excellent!!!!
|
|
|
Post by mattmisk on Aug 20, 2008 21:10:54 GMT -5
Jesse, did you read the articles posted by yadanni on the word "echad"?
I'll throw in one more bit of information, a quote by Michael Brown, leading apologist to the Jews, from his book Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus:
"Messianic Jews often claim that the Hebrew word that is used for "one" here, 'echad, actually means a compound unity, while traditional Jews often argue their case as if the word meant an absolute unity. Actually, 'echad simply means "one," exactly like our English word "one." While it can refer to compound unity, [...] it does not specifically refer to a compound unity." [Italics in original.]
Also, did you read the original post?
Matt
|
|
|
Post by yadanni on Aug 20, 2008 21:15:11 GMT -5
ONCE AGAIN THIS IS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE YOU DECIDE. BE HONEST, TAKE A CLOSE LOOK ITS REASONABLE, LOGICAL AND SCRIPTURAL. IT REFUTES THE FALSE THEORIES OF ECHAD THAT MANY SUPPOSE TO BE TRUE.
Echad (one) It is customary for some Binitarians and most evangelical Trinitarians (especially Messianics) to propose that the Hebrew word for one, the numeral one (echad), is really “compound one.” This is a clever device which confuses logical thought. Echad occurs some 960 times in the Hebrew Bible, and it is the numeral “one.” It is a numeral adjective when it modifies a noun. “One day,” “one person,” etc. Echad is the ordinary cardinal number, “one.” Eleven in Hebrew is ten and one. Abraham “was only one,” said Ezekiel 33:24 (NASU), “only one man” (NIV).
Just as the famous Armstrongian phrase “uniplural” does not appear in the Webster’s (thus it represents the DIY grammatical venture on which Worldwide theology was done in respect to defining God), “compound one” as a definition of echad is also not recognized in standard texts describing the grammar of the Hebrew language. It is an invented grammatical category which confuses and divides.
The Hebrew word for one operates as does the word “one” in English. You can have one thing, one person. And of course the noun modified by echad may be collective, one family, one people, one flesh, as a single unit composed of two — Adam and Eve, in that case. But to say that “one” carries the meaning of “compound one” is misleading in the extreme. The basic meaning of echad given by the lexicons is “one single,” even the indefinite article “a.” Sometimes “the only one,” or even “unique” is the proper translation of echad.
Suppose now we say that “one” implies more than one. We could prove our point like this: In the phrase “one tripod,” is it not obvious that one really implies three? Does not one dozen mean that one is really 12? Or one million? Is one equivalent to a million? Does this not suggest the plurality of “one”? What about “one quartet” or “one duplex”? To carry this madness to an extreme, we could argue that in the phrase “one zebra,” the word one really means “black and white.”
What is happening here? We are being asked to believe that in the phrase “the Lord our God is one Lord,” that “one” is “compound.” That “Lord” is more than one Lord, perhaps two or perhaps three. We are being lured into a complete falsehood that “one” implies plurality. We are asked to believe this on the basis of a tiny fraction of the appearances of echad when it modifies a compound noun (the vast majority of the occurrences of echad when it does not modify a compound noun are left unmentioned). Even when “one” modifies a compound noun — one family, one cluster — the word “one” retains its meaning as “one single…” There is no such thing as “compound one” as a definition of echad.
This procedure is to confuse the numeral adjective “one” with the noun it modifies. It is to “bleed” the meaning of a compound noun back into the numeral. This will take the unwary by surprise. Thus “one flesh” is supposed to mean that one can mean more than one. The point, obviously, is that “flesh” as a combination of Adam and Eve does have a collective, family sense. But one is still one: “one flesh and not two fleshes.” “One cluster (singular) of grapes” does not in any way illustrate a plural meaning for the word “one.” “Cluster” has indeed a collective, plural sense. But one is still one: “one cluster” and not “two clusters.” Just imagine if at the check-out the clerk announces that your one dollar purchase is really “compound one.” You could become bankrupt.
So then, Yahweh, the personal name of the One God, occurs some 6,800 times. In no case does it have a plural verb, or adjective. And never is a plural pronoun put in its place. Pronouns are most useful grammatical markers, since they tell us about the nouns they stand for. The very fact that the God who is Yahweh speaks of Himself as “I” and “Me” and is referred to as “You” (singular) and “He” and “Him” thousands upon thousands of times should convince all Bible readers of the singularity of God. The fact that God further speaks of Himself in every exclusive fashion known to language —“by myself,” “all alone” etc., — only adds to this proof. “There is none besides Me,” “none before Me” and “none after Me.” “I alone am Elohim, and Yahweh.” “I created the heavens and the earth by Myself; none was with Me.”
A Sample of the Use of echad (one)
Genesis 42:13: “Joseph’s brothers said, ‘We are 12 brothers, sons of one (echad) man, in the land of Canaan. The youngest is this day with our father and one (echad) is not.’” Verse 16: “Send one (echad) of you.” Verse 19: “Let one (echad) of your brothers…” Verse 27: “One (echad) of them opened his sack.” Verse 32: “One (echad) is not.” Verse 33: “One (echad) of your brothers.” There are well over 900 other examples in the OT.
|
|
|
Post by yadanni on Aug 20, 2008 21:17:26 GMT -5
MORE ON ECHAD! IT IS VERY CLEAR!
The numerical adjective “one” can of course, in English and Hebrew, modify a collective noun. A collective noun is a word like “family” or “cluster” or “team.” We sense at once that these words suggest one and many at the same time. But note carefully “one cluster of grapes” is still one cluster and not two or more clusters. If someone tells you that the word “one” contains in itself a notion of plurality, point out to them that it is the noun cluster and not the word “one” which signals plurality. The word “one” continues to describe a single object — one single cluster. Should that noun contain the notion of plurality (cluster, family, etc.) it is the noun in question which conveys the plural idea. Thus when Adam and Eve became “one flesh,” you know from the context that the two of them were combined in “one flesh.” But this was precisely “one flesh,” and not “two fleshes.” “One couple” means a single couple and not more than one. One just means one.
There is nothing in the word “one” which speaks of plurality. It still means “a single…” never “more than one.” Evening and morning formed “a single day” (yom echad). It is therefore completely misleading to say that “one” means more than one, that it is “compound”! There is as little logic in the claim that God being “one” means that He is really more than one as in saying that “one pentagon” proves that one really means five!
Echad appears about 960 times in the OT. Listing a handful of examples in which “one” modifies a collective noun proves absolutely nothing in favor of the Trinity. It invites readers into a sort of smoke screen, leaving the actual meaning of “one” in multiple biblical examples unexamined. Morey does not include in his analysis the fact that there are hundreds of occurrences of echad modifying a noun which have no suggestion at all of plurality. “Abraham was one (echad)” hardly suggests that there was plurality in Abraham (Isa. 51:2; Ezek. 33:24). In the second example the NIV translates: “Abraham was only one man, yet he possessed the land.” The Hebrew says that Abraham was echad, “one.” The proper English for echad in this case is “only one,” “only one man.” Thus when Deuteronomy 6:4 says that “God is one Yahweh,” it means exactly that: “only one Yahweh.”
|
|
|
Post by William the Sinner on Aug 21, 2008 8:04:09 GMT -5
"Jesus is the Word/Wisdom/Manifestation/Revelation/Power/Light/Grace/Truth/Life of Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh himself, but it is correct to say that in Jesus, Yahweh became flesh."
You have reduced Jesus to an external object, a separate thing, not God, not worthy of worship, but a concept, almost abstract in nature. Your arguments are more like hair spliting. Of course one only means one, but context determines plurality, not a words definition.
And Again, if Jesus is not a distinct something, he sure spends a lot of time talking to himself.
|
|
|
Post by mattmisk on Aug 21, 2008 10:40:26 GMT -5
William, "Jesus is the Word/Wisdom/Manifestation/Revelation/Power/Light/Grace/Truth/Life of Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh himself, but it is correct to say that in Jesus, Yahweh became flesh." You have reduced Jesus to an external object, a separate thing, not God, not worthy of worship, but a concept, almost abstract in nature. Your arguments are more like hair spliting. Of course one only means one, but context determines plurality, not a words definition. And Again, if Jesus is not a distinct something, he sure spends a lot of time talking to himself. What have I said that is not Biblical? Rather, it is others who are using unbiblical phrases. I don't think you understand what my position is, I do believe Jesus is distinct from God. Read yadanni's post above on who Jesus is. Right...that is what we have been arguing, since the claim is made that "one" actually means more than one. And aside from a very few interesting places, the context never implies that God is plural (btw, those few interesting places, like in Genesis, are not used by Christian scholars as support of the Trinity, because they are examples of a well known Hebrew literary device called "pluralis excellentice," the description of a singular important person in plural terms). Even if a text seemed to imply the plurality of God, we can outright reject that interpretation since there are hundreds of explicit passages that say he is one. Implication and inference can not override hundreds of clear passages. Matt
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Aug 21, 2008 15:06:26 GMT -5
I really want to jump into this, but don't have the time right now. Most modern explanations on the Trinity are nothing more than pantheistic principals under a Christian slant. The Trinitarianism we inherited from Barth places far to much emphasis on the 3 and way to little on the 1.
It is God=Jesus=Spirit not Spirit+Jesus+Father=God
|
|
|
Post by logic on Aug 21, 2008 17:17:06 GMT -5
It is God=Jesus=Spirit not Spirit+Jesus+Father=God Iv'e always figured it was: Father x Jesus x Spirit = God
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Aug 21, 2008 17:50:52 GMT -5
It is God=Jesus=Spirit not Spirit+Jesus+Father=God Iv'e always figured it was: Father x Jesus x Spirit = God If that was the case, Jesus would not be God, the Father would not be God, and the Spirit would not be God. They would all be 1/3 God. The concept of the "Logos" in Early Christianity was well known. The Logos was the action of God, the way He got things done. It was as if the Father was the mind of God, the Logos was the Word that revealed and spoke the will of Father, and the Spirit was the breath that came forth from the Word (Son) bringing His declarations to pass. In other words, the Father, Son and Spirit are distinct roles of the same deity, the Son proceeding from the Father and the Spirit proceeding from the Son and the Father. Make sense?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Aug 22, 2008 22:18:13 GMT -5
Iv'e always figured it was: Father x Jesus x Spirit = God If that was the case, Jesus would not be God, the Father would not be God, and the Spirit would not be God. They would all be 1/3 God. Hows that? 1/3 X 1/3 X 1/3 = .027 or 27/1000 1 whole times 1 whole times 1 whole = 1 whole Father x Jesus x Spirit = God But this don't prove anything.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Aug 22, 2008 22:35:36 GMT -5
If that was the case, Jesus would not be God, the Father would not be God, and the Spirit would not be God. They would all be 1/3 God. Hows that? 1/3 X 1/3 X 1/3 = .027 or 27/1000 1 whole times 1 whole times 1 whole = 1 whole Father x Jesus x Spirit = God But this don't prove anything. I assumed you were meaning + as it is impossible to multiply (x)persons or entities by another person or entity, and it really doesn't make any sense. Three eternally separate entities would mean three gods, not one God manifested in three different persons.
|
|
kenm
Full Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by kenm on Aug 22, 2008 23:00:05 GMT -5
The Old Testament constantly insists that there is only one God, the self-revealed Creator, who must be worshiped and loved exclusively (Deut. 6:4-5; Isa. 44:6– 45:25). The New Testament agrees (Mark 12:29-30; 1 Cor. 8:4; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5) but speaks of three personal agents, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, working together in the manner of a team to bring about salvation (Rom. 8; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 1 Pet. 1:2). The historic formulation of the Trinity (derived from the Latin word trinitas, meaning “threeness”) seeks to circumscribe and safeguard this mystery (not explain it; that is beyond us), and it confronts us with perhaps the most difficult thought that the human mind has ever been asked to handle. It is not easy
Jesus, who prayed to his Father and taught his disciples to do the same, convinced them that he was personally divine, and belief in his divinity and in the rightness of offering him worship and prayer is basic to New Testament faith (John 20:28-31; cf. 1:18; Acts 7:59; Rom. 9:5; 10:9-13; 2 Cor. 12:7-9; Phil. 2:5-6; Col. 1:15-17; 2:9; Heb. 1:1-12; 1 Pet. 3:15). Jesus promised to send another Paraclete (he himself having been the first one), and Paraclete signifies a many-sided personal ministry as counselor, advocate, helper, comforter, ally, supporter (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15). This other Paraclete, who came at Pentecost to fulfill this promised ministry, was the Holy Spirit, recognized from the start as a third divine person: to lie to him, said Peter not long after Pentecost, is to lie to God (Acts 5:3-4).
The basic assertion of this doctrine is that the unity of the one God is complex. The three personal “subsistences” (as they are called) are coequal and coeternal centers of self-awareness, each being “I” in relation to two who are “you” and each partaking of the full divine essence (the “stuff” of deity, if we may dare to call it that) along with the other two. They are not three roles played by one person (that is modalism), nor are they three gods in a cluster (that is tritheism); the one God (“he”) is also, and equally, “they,” and “they” are always together and always cooperating, with the Father initiating, the Son complying, and the Spirit executing the will of both, which is his will also.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Aug 23, 2008 10:14:52 GMT -5
The Old Testament constantly insists that there is only one God, the self-revealed Creator, who must be worshiped and loved exclusively (Deut. 6:4-5; Isa. 44:6– 45:25). The New Testament agrees (Mark 12:29-30; 1 Cor. 8:4; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5) but speaks of three personal agents, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, working together in the manner of a team to bring about salvation (Rom. 8; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 1 Pet. 1:2). The historic formulation of the Trinity (derived from the Latin word trinitas, meaning “threeness”) seeks to circumscribe and safeguard this mystery (not explain it; that is beyond us), and it confronts us with perhaps the most difficult thought that the human mind has ever been asked to handle. It is not easy Jesus, who prayed to his Father and taught his disciples to do the same, convinced them that he was personally divine, and belief in his divinity and in the rightness of offering him worship and prayer is basic to New Testament faith (John 20:28-31; cf. 1:18; Acts 7:59; Rom. 9:5; 10:9-13; 2 Cor. 12:7-9; Phil. 2:5-6; Col. 1:15-17; 2:9; Heb. 1:1-12; 1 Pet. 3:15). Jesus promised to send another Paraclete (he himself having been the first one), and Paraclete signifies a many-sided personal ministry as counselor, advocate, helper, comforter, ally, supporter (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15). This other Paraclete, who came at Pentecost to fulfill this promised ministry, was the Holy Spirit, recognized from the start as a third divine person: to lie to him, said Peter not long after Pentecost, is to lie to God (Acts 5:3-4). The basic assertion of this doctrine is that the unity of the one God is complex. The three personal “subsistences” (as they are called) are coequal and coeternal centers of self-awareness, each being “I” in relation to two who are “you” and each partaking of the full divine essence (the “stuff” of deity, if we may dare to call it that) along with the other two. They are not three roles played by one person (that is modalism), nor are they three gods in a cluster (that is tritheism); the one God (“he”) is also, and equally, “they,” and “they” are always together and always cooperating, with the Father initiating, the Son complying, and the Spirit executing the will of both, which is his will also. I've read this before on the KSU page, and it does little to answers the questions being discussed. Either they are eternally distinct gods, God is divided into 3 parts or God has manifested Himself in three distinct persons all existing eternally in Him.
|
|