How did the Godhead prove they were "love," before creation began?

[Goldwing]

The Bible claims, " God is love." Love is not proven by just claiming you love someone, there must be consistent actions to prove it. That said, and knowing that God is transparent, what combined information gathered within the Bible on the Godhead, reveal the choices each member of the Godhead made to prove they are, "Love," before creation began?

I will allow this thread to gather, say 25 or more post, before I share what I think is very enlightening.

 

[GodsGrace]

Mr. Wilson has authored many books, that have been translated in many languages and distributed in over forty countries. He considered that is best talent was that of a Bible teacher. His material has helped thousands the world over to better understand the Bible.

Perhaps your not a reader, not all are. His teaching can also be viewed on line. or cd's.

It is true that man's word may or may not reflect truth. But unless we have opened minds to consider what one has to offer, one will never know if it is truth or not.

Is it possible for anyone to expand ones knowledge, without hearing something new?

The the step progression toward truth:
1. First it is outright claimed as false.
2. It is thought to have some truth to it.
3. It is claimed to be absolute truth.

We don't k ow each other.
Could we concentrate on your thread?

What about the incarnation of Jesus and the question about a missing Person in heaven.

Did God lose His logos?

 

[Niblo]

Hi, wondering.

I trust you are well.

Professor Ludwig Ott, a Catholic priest and theologian, writes:

‘..it is objected that the Hypostatic Union contradicts the immutability of God. The rejoinder to this is that the act of becoming man, as an operation of God ad extra, has no more induced a change in the Divine Essence than did the creation of the world, as it is only the execution in time of an eternal unchangeable resolve of will. Neither did the event of the Incarnation result in a change of the Divine Essence; for, after the assumption of a body the Logos was no more perfect and no less perfect than before. No change for the worse took place, because the Logos remains what It was; and no change for the better, because It already possessed in sublime manner all perfections of the human nature from all eternity.’

Having made his first statement, Professor Ott goes on to say:

‘The change lay on the side of the human nature only, which was elevated to participation in the Personal Subsistence of the Logos.’ (‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Chapter 4 - Theological-Speculative Discussion on the Hypostatic Union’).

In short, at the moment of incarnation the Second Person of the Trinity remained (and remains) unchanged.

God bless; and have a great week. Very best regards.

 

[D-D-W]

What about the incarnation of Jesus and the question about a missing Person in heaven.
Did God lose His logos?

Of course not. Heaven is not in our time/space zone.

Remember, we are already seated in heaven, even though we are still here in this life.

Ephesians 2:6
and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Seated us - past tense. We are already there.

 

[Runmyramble]

The Bible claims, " God is love." Love is not proven by just claiming you love someone, there must be consistent actions to prove it. That said, and knowing that God is transparent, what combined information gathered within the Bible on the Godhead, reveal the choices each member of the Godhead made to prove they are, "Love," before creation began?

I will allow this thread to gather, say 25 or more post, before I share what I think is very enlightening.

 

[Runmyramble]

Because God had a plan....

In the plan before the world God wanted to impart His mere creations His Life.

 

[GodsGrace]

We don't k ow each other.
Could we concentrate on your thread?

What about the incarnation of Jesus and the question about a missing Person in heaven.

Did God lose His logos?

Goldwing

Are you ever going to answer the above?

 

[Runner]

We can only admire Larry Wilson's creativity (he is now dead), but that's all about as speculative as it gets. Every time I read a discussion of the Trinity - and I've read numerous scholarly books - it reinforces my conviction the doctrine is more confusing than helpful.

What does it add to my Christianity to say I "believe" in the Trinity? Anything? I have no problem with the Jehovah's Witnesses' position that Jesus is the Son of God as the firstborn of creation. That is, in fact, where I came out when I tried to read the NT with as unbiased an eye as I could.

The Trinity is at best a highly speculative doctrine with thin biblical support. There is a reason it had to be negotiated and fought over for hundreds of years.

As with Larry Wilson's piece, discussions of "what it means" and "how it works" are inevitably speculation upon speculation. I accept it as one of the doctrines of mainstream Christianity without "believing" or "disbelieving" it. My concern is that Jesus may be aghast that anyone thinks he's part of a Trinity.

The "love thing" is an apologetics argument for the Trinity. In order for God to be love, the argument goes, there had to be an object of love. Indeed, the argument posits there had to be a Trinity of love givers and love objects.

It seems to me this is getting an awful lot of mileage out of the verse "God is love." The nature of love - whether it can even be said to have a "nature" that can be described - is an epistemological question. Moreover, to say "God is love" is to apply human language and human concepts to a transcendent divinity.

The verse doesn't say God is "loving" or "gives love" or "receives love." It says he is love. I have no difficulty believing he is the definition and source of love without reference to a Trinity.

 

[Goldwing]

Are you ever going to answer the above?

We don't k ow each other.
Could we concentrate on your thread?

I gave the answer to my opening question in post 27, what are your thoughts?

 

[Goldwing]

Are you ever going to answer the above?

I have no idea what a Logos is.

 

[Goldwing]

God wanted to impart His mere creations His Life.

I do not understand your meaning. Could you explain in more detail how this would have played out in reality?

 

[Goldwing]

The verse doesn't say God is "loving" or "gives love" or "receives love." It says he is love. I have no difficulty believing he is the definition and source of love without reference to a Trinity.

In your mind, was God love before any creation?

 

[Runmyramble]

I do not understand your meaning. Could you explain in more detail how this would have played out in reality?

Well...first Let's take a look at love
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

.........
Jesus came that we may have "life"- zoe
and have it abundantly...

We are human creations......
Before we were created God had a plan to impart life to His creation...

Well Love seeks not it's own....nor holds no record of wrong...etc

So all the above was His plan- Because God is Love....

 

[Runner]

In your mind, was God love before any creation?

Absolutely, because God is love and his nature is unchanging. Creation may be an expression of God's love, but he didn't need to create to be love.

 

[Goldwing]

The Trinity is at best a highly speculative doctrine with thin biblical support. There is a reason it had to be negotiated and fought over for hundreds of years.

That christians have debated the Trinity over centuries does not diminish it's truthfulness. Can you name a doctrine in which Christianity has been in agreement since the death of Christ?

 

[Goldwing]

My concern is that Jesus may be aghast that anyone thinks he's part of a Trinity.

Absolutely, because God is love and his nature is unchanging. Creation may be an expression of God's love, but he didn't need to create to be love.

"but he didn't need to create to be love." I believe this is a true fact. But since love is a action toward another living being, how could a single God, (since your not sure of the Trinity) demonstrate that they are love, before they created anything?

 

[Runner]

Goldwing, you have stuck your reply inside my quote, so I can't quote you without looking as though I'm quoting myself.

What you asked was, "That christians have debated the Trinity over centuries does not diminish it's truthfulness. Can you name a doctrine in which Christianity has been in agreement since the death of Christ?"

Well, the Resurrection might be one such doctrine.

The fact is, the Trinity is not clearly set forth in the NT. The debates that raged for centuries were not, "What is the Trinity and how does it work?" The debates were, "How can Jesus have been both human and divine?"

The Council of Nicea was largely a response to Arianism, which is basically what the JW believe. Jesus is the Son of God, but as the firstborn of creation rather than the Second Person of a Trinity. Before the doctrine of the Trinity had been adopted, there had been intense negotiation, political intrigue, deaths and even a brief flip-flop back to Arianism as the official position.

So it's not as though it took centuries and all the brouhaha to reach agreement on something like the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection, which are clearly stated in the Bible.

You're correct - the Trinity is either true or not, and whether anyone agrees with it won't make it more true or less true. I can see the Trinitarian perspective as well as the non-Trinitarian perspective. Even for those who fully accept it, however, it's not clear to me that it adds much except confusion. If it's an article of your faith, I certainly wouldn't try to talk you out of it.

 

[Runner]

"but he didn't need to create to be love." I believe this is a true fact. But since love is a action toward another living being, how could a single God, (since your not sure of the Trinity) demonstrate that they are love, before they created anything?

Is love "an action toward another living being"? As I said, philosophers disagree as to whether love even has a nature that can be described.

If a single God is love, why would he need to "demonstrate" it in order to be love? "Being" love and "expressing" love seem to me to be two different things.

This argument as to why there has to be a Trinity is clever, and I'm not pooh-poohing it. I just don't find it too convincing.

 

[GodsGrace]

Is love "an action toward another living being"? As I said, philosophers disagree as to whether love even has a nature that can be described.

If a single God is love, why would he need to "demonstrate" it in order to be love? "Being" love and "expressing" love seem to me to be two different things.

This argument as to why there has to be a Trinity is clever, and I'm not pooh-poohing it. I just don't find it too convincing.

I'm on a phone and can't write too much, but afraid I'll forget tomorrow.

So, what about the idea that if Jesus is just a man sent by God, we're worshipping a Man and not God?

 

[GodsGrace]

Goldwing, you have stuck your reply inside my quote, so I can't quote you without looking as though I'm quoting myself.

What you asked was, "That christians have debated the Trinity over centuries does not diminish it's truthfulness. Can you name a doctrine in which Christianity has been in agreement since the death of Christ?"

Well, the Resurrection might be one such doctrine.

The fact is, the Trinity is not clearly set forth in the NT. The debates that raged for centuries were not, "What is the Trinity and how does it work?" The debates were, "How can Jesus have been both human and divine?"

The Council of Nicea was largely a response to Arianism, which is basically what the JW believe. Jesus is the Son of God, but as the firstborn of creation rather than the Second Person of a Trinity. Before the doctrine of the Trinity had been adopted, there had been intense negotiation, political intrigue, deaths and even a brief flip-flop back to Arianism as the official position.

So it's not as though it took centuries and all the brouhaha to reach agreement on something like the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection, which are clearly stated in the Bible.

You're correct - the Trinity is either true or not, and whether anyone agrees with it won't make it more true or less true. I can see the Trinitarian perspective as well as the non-Trinitarian perspective. Even for those who fully accept it, however, it's not clear to me that it adds much except confusion. If it's an article of your faith, I certainly wouldn't try to talk you out of it.

Correct...
I don't believe doctrine will save us, but God.

 

[Runner]

I'm on a phone and can't write too much, but afraid I'll forget tomorrow.

So, what about the idea that if Jesus is just a man sent by God, we're worshipping a Man and not God?

In my extremely pared-down, bare-bones list of Christian essentials, I basically have the notion that whoever and whatever Jesus was, his incarnation, life, crucifixion and resurrection were sufficient to accomplish God's plan, atone for mankind's sin, and allow fallen individuals to join God's eternal kingdom. That to me is the essential we must believe and avoids the fussing, feuding and confusion over exactly who he was and exactly how it works.

But I wouldn't say Jesus was just a man sent by God because that's clearly umbilical and does cause theological issues. I'm not JW and am not exactly sure how they view Jesus as the firstborn of creation, but it wouldn't trouble me if someone believed Jesus was the Son of God and divine in the same way the son of a king is royalty.

In other words, I think even the most bare-bones theology requires that Jesus was the unique Son of God, even if we can't be certain exactly what that means and how it works. The Trinity may well be the best understanding, but I don't think it's the only viable one. With something like the Resurrection - probably the one true Christian essential - it seems to me there is only one viable understanding.