- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,943
- 8,335
Amen. I agree.
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
The Trinity
- Thread starter electedbyHim
- Start date
Amen. I agree.
- Aug 14, 2024
- 1,195
- 410
As others have tried to tell you, no matter how it sounds, the formula "One Substance and Three Persons" refused to use "Person" in place of "Substance" because it created a logical confusion over the language. I'm now speaking my own mind, and the others can represent their own thoughts--they may have different takes on this.
I believe you're right that the "Substance" or "Being" of God is, in fact, a "Person." This is where the problem lies, that in order to say this the language creates for many a logical contradiction--how can "One Person be "Three Persons?" The answer is that God's "One Person" is a "compound unity" and has trouble being expressed in connection with His multiple personal expressions in the Trinity.
And so, the brilliant early Church Fathers concocted a reasonable solution by using "Substance" in place of "Person." Personally, I don't have a problem with "Person" in place of "Substance" or "Being," as long as I explain the difference between the "One Person" and the "three Persons."
I do this, as noted earlier, by referring to the "One Person" as "the One Infinite Person" so as to be distinguished from "the Three Finite Representations of the Trinitarian Persons." This, however, is also subject to confusion, because the "Three Persons" are not just "Finite Representations of Persons," But they also represent the "Infinite God."
And so, we have a kind of "Escher staircase," where the formula can mean both something right and something wrong at the same time. The important thing, however, is to agree with orthodoxy, so that people can stick by a formula in united opposition to heretics, whose motive is to disunite or confuse the Trinity.
So, I hope you will stop being a maverick and heading out on your own, standing against what has worked for centuries? Use your own formula, if you will, as long as you show that it is aligned with the historic formula used by the Church Fathers and crystalized in the creeds.
- Aug 14, 2024
- 1,195
- 410
Yes, we agree on the Deity of Christ and on the cooperation of all three Eternal Persons of the Trinity. In my view they are all revelations of Persons associated with the composite unity of God as Source.
I personally distinguish them by 1st admitting that Jesus was not an eternal Person from eternity in the form of the man Jesus--this almost goes without saying. Some people claim to know what the Eternal Son looked like in eternity, but I don't think it's possible.
The Son was indeed a distinct Person from the Father in eternity, but we can only understand this in the sense that God was, from eternity, a composite unity with a potential for an infintie number of personal expressions--not just the Trinity.
But explaining the differences of the Persons of the Trinity is a bit of a headache. I see the Father as Source, the Son as a human revelation of God, and the Spirit as representative of God within the universe, as opposed to anywhere else. You decide how you're going to do that?
- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,943
- 8,335
Please consider this from Hebrews.
For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. Hebrews 4:8 NKJV
For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. Hebrews 4:8 KJV
Consider that the original book of Hebrews was written to Hebrews in Hebrew.
Consider that Joshua and Jesus mean the same thing. Greek and Hebrew
The LORD (YHWH) is salvation. Strongs #G2424 - Jesus
The LORD (YHWH) is salvation. Strongs #H3091 - Joshua
JOSHUA Yᵉhôwshûwaʻ
If we add some vowels to YHWH then add these.
- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,943
- 8,335
I’m listening to you.
I can certainly use Divine Person rather than Divine Being if that is a way to find agreement.
My goal is not so much trying to promote the “Trinity” but to show Jesus the Son of God as being a coequal member of the Godhead as well as His role in the Old Testament.
In the burning bush we see Him as The Angel of the LORD, as well as the LORD and God.
In His meeting with Abraham He revealed Himself as Almighty God.
Later in Genesis 18 as a Man with the two angels.
- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,943
- 8,335
This I try to avoid because easy to misunderstand each other.
- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,943
- 8,335
Brother it may have been”worked” for centuries in certain denominations but others it is rejected.
The same denominations that this has “worked” also rejects the baptism with the Spirit.
Something at right there.
I don’t do denominations.
I do scripture.
If that makes me a maverick then so be it.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,363
- 6,417
We are one being and one person, but God is uniquely three "Persons," where "persona" is just a human approximation for what God reveals of himself in the eternal distinctions of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We must be very careful to not equate the human idea of person with how it is applied to God; it is merely the closest human approximation we have.
We also have to consider the common saying that the Trinity is one what, three whos; one substance, three centers of self-consciousness. That brings in more clarification between being and person, where being is associated with substance--that nature which makes God who he is, or defines who he is. We are human beings, that is our nature--the stuff we're made of. We just happen to also each be one person in habiting each instance of being (leaving Dissociative Identity Disorder out of this). Interestingly, Jesus is two natures in one person.
And they are correct because that is essentially Modalism. To say that the three Persons are finite, is to suggest that they have not always existed. That actually implies that God is an infinite, fourth Person who then manifests as three finite Persons.
Remember, we still have what God has revealed to us in Scripture. First, he reveals that he created everything; therefore, he has absolute, or timeless, existence. Second, he repeatedly tells us he is the only true, living God. So far, so good. Although we cannot actually comprehend timeless existence, we can understand what he means.
Third, he reveals that all three Persons are truly God in nature, which means all three necessarily have always existed; there has never been a "time" when the three Persons did not coexist. So, again, although we cannot comprehend timeless existence, we can understand that all three Persons share in this timeless existence.
It isn't necessarily that God isn't a Person, he's three Persons.
You should have at least some issue with that because it is contradictory and gives others reasons to immediately dismiss the idea of a triune God as such. One person cannot be three persons and one God cannot be three Gods.But I do understand and accept the formula, even if it doesn't offer me understanding personally. I just don't have any problem with "One Infinite Person equals Three Finite Persons."
A problem with using your formula, is that there has to be at least one additional layer of clarification over the historic definition.
The Bible does not use the word TRINITY but the Trinity is revealed in many places in the Bible. Many Muslims use the argument that Jesus never says "I am God" therefore He isn't God. Have you ever walked up to a group of people and declared "I am human"? Of course not. You don't need to--you know who and what you are. So, Jesus also had no need to say "I am God" because he KNEW who and what He was. But as far as the Trinity goes here is a group of verses which refer to the Trinity:
"In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
"And one cried unto another, and said, HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory". (Isaiah 6: 1-3)
Why do the Seraphim say "holy" THREE times? Why not TWO or FOUR? And when the Lord visits Abraham in Genesis 18 there are (3) persons----Abraham feeds them ALL the same food (he shows no preference for one of them over the others), and when he falls down before the three of them he says "LORD".
God does not have to say "I am a Trinity". God reveals himself in His Word. Also see Matthew 3:16-18 where Jesus is Baptized (The Son). The Spirit (The Holy Spirit) descends in the form of a dove, and a VOICE FROM HEAVEN (The Father) states "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased". All (3) person appear at the same time. It is very clear that God is a Trinity- there is no need for Him to announce it.
"In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
"And one cried unto another, and said, HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory". (Isaiah 6: 1-3)
Why do the Seraphim say "holy" THREE times? Why not TWO or FOUR? And when the Lord visits Abraham in Genesis 18 there are (3) persons----Abraham feeds them ALL the same food (he shows no preference for one of them over the others), and when he falls down before the three of them he says "LORD".
God does not have to say "I am a Trinity". God reveals himself in His Word. Also see Matthew 3:16-18 where Jesus is Baptized (The Son). The Spirit (The Holy Spirit) descends in the form of a dove, and a VOICE FROM HEAVEN (The Father) states "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased". All (3) person appear at the same time. It is very clear that God is a Trinity- there is no need for Him to announce it.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,363
- 6,417
I know you didn't suggest that, but that is what Jesus would need to have said for some of your statements to be true. The claim that "before Abraham was, I am he," is, again, having Jesus speak nonsense and avoid answering the question he was asked immediately prior, which is what he was addressing.
But, this is fallaciously begging the question--you're assuming that Jesus didn't exist in some form and then using that to conclude that he didn't exist to see Abraham. What Scripture clearly shows us is that the Son did indeed exist (John alone refers to him as the Word). The Son has always existed and it is he who became incarnate in the flesh and was named Jesus. Numerous passages explicitly and implicitly point to this.
This is why Jesus did say and it is best understood as, "before Abraham was, I am." Again, he is answering the question he was asked by contrasting Abraham's temporary existence in time with his own timeless existence as the Son, not as Jesus in the flesh.
On what basis? That is to ignore the most immediate context without any basis whatsoever, other than it simply doesn't fit with what you believe. But that is reading into the text and not letting the text speak for itself.
You still have to take into account the immediate context of verse 23: "He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world" (ESV). As I pointed out, this is similar to what he does in verse 58, but here contrasting there earthly existence with his non-earthly one. Again, Jesus repeats this throughout John's gospel.
Prefer it all you want; there is no conception. I have pointed this out before. Monogenes is never used to refer to conception in the NT, but there are other words that do.
First, monogenes is used only nine times in the NT, five of those times it is used of Christ and even then, only by John (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). The other four times, the KJV translates it as “only” (Luke 7:12; 8:42), “only child” (Luke 9:38), and “only begotten” (Heb 11:17). It is never translated as “conceived” and does not refer to “begetting” in the sense of being created or coming into existence at a point in time. Monogenes really just means "unique," "only," "one and only."
Second, there are at least five words—gennao, sullambano, tithemi, koite, and katabole—that are translated (by the KJV) as “conceive” or “conceived,” but never monogenes.
Third, each instance of monogenes is speaking of the relationship of parents to their children, not their conception or their physical begetting. And, in fact, this is precisely what we see in John 1:18. We already know from John 1:1-3 that the preincarnate Son “was with God and was God,” which completely rules out the idea that there was ever a time when the Word, the pre-incarnate Son, did not exist. So, verse 18 can only be speaking of the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son. This is also supported by 1:18 itself: “which is in the bosom of the Father.” That being so, it simply cannot be speaking of conception; that does not at all fit the context nor the usage of monogenes.
Here is M. R. Vincent on John 1:14's use of monogenes:
"Μονογενής distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the many children (τέκνα) of God; and further, in that the only Son did not become (γενέσθαι) such by receiving power, by adoption, or by moral generation, but was (ἦν) such in the beginning with God. The fact set forth does not belong to the sphere of His incarnation, but of His eternal being. The statement is anthropomorphic, and therefore cannot fully express the metaphysical relation."
There are many passages the speak of the incarnation:
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (ESV)
This is the same Word that was in existence when the beginning began (John 1:1a), was in intimate, interpersonal relationship with God (John 1:1b), and who was in nature God (John 1:1c). The third clause is the logical conclusion of the first two. This is the same Word whom John directly equates with the Son--"He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him." (John 1:10, ESV)
2Co 8:9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich. (ESV)
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, (ESV)
Additionally, as I have repeatedly pointed out, Phil. 2:6-8 must also be considered, but there is much to say about it, so I'll post it separately.
"Word" in reference to the Son means far more than just "words." I've already shown that John equates "the Word" with the person of the Son in John 1:10. Additionally, the NT completely supports this in several instances:
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
...
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)
All of these unequivocally show that the Son has always existed; it cannot be otherwise or each of these passages is utterly false. Since the Son has always existed, it necessarily follows that he is also God in nature, since timeless, absolute existence belongs to God alone.
None of this shows that the Son did not pre-exist.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,363
- 6,417
TrevorL
Here is a key passage that scholars consider to be pre-Pauline:
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)
This passage supports the concept called the Economic Trinity--that is, how the Trinity relates to each other in bringing out the salvation and redemption of creation. The Economic Trinity shows the difference in function between the Persons of the Trinity in the plan of redemption. However, a difference in function does not mean a difference in equality or nature.
Some important points to note about this passage:
1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1c--" and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of or veiled in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3. He, being Jesus (the Son), emptied himself. It was he who did the emptying. In other words, he had to already exist in order to be able to be “emptied,” and he had to be sufficiently powerful to do it himself. That is, in contrast with his “taking the form of a servant,” he was something else. He had to be something or someone that was capable of emptying himself. (cf. 2 Cor 8:9)
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14 is speaking of. First, note that Paul is contrasting Jesus's "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God." Second, the emptying of himself was accomplished by taking on human form. It’s a paradoxical emptying by addition; a limiting or veiling of his glory and power by becoming human. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind and, as God Incarnate, still maintained his full deity (since God can never cease to be God) in becoming truly and fully human.
5. Being found in "appearance as a man" (NIV)--as opposed to his having been in "the form of God." We know that he was truly human, so why would Paul suddenly say that Jesus was "found in appearance as a man"? Would that not imply that he existed previously, supporting verse 6, and indicate he wasn't a man before?
6. He "humbled himself by becoming obedient." This is exactly why he prays to the Father, does the Father's will, and only speaks what he hears. He subjected himself to the law of God and obeyed it perfectly, fulfilling it and becoming the sacrificial "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29, ESV).
7. He is given “the name that is above every name so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. ... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” This is language used of God:
Isa 45:22 “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
Isa 45:23 By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’ (ESV)
This is why Christians rightly worship Christ as God.
The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.
Here is a key passage that scholars consider to be pre-Pauline:
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)
This passage supports the concept called the Economic Trinity--that is, how the Trinity relates to each other in bringing out the salvation and redemption of creation. The Economic Trinity shows the difference in function between the Persons of the Trinity in the plan of redemption. However, a difference in function does not mean a difference in equality or nature.
Some important points to note about this passage:
1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1c--" and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of or veiled in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3. He, being Jesus (the Son), emptied himself. It was he who did the emptying. In other words, he had to already exist in order to be able to be “emptied,” and he had to be sufficiently powerful to do it himself. That is, in contrast with his “taking the form of a servant,” he was something else. He had to be something or someone that was capable of emptying himself. (cf. 2 Cor 8:9)
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14 is speaking of. First, note that Paul is contrasting Jesus's "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God." Second, the emptying of himself was accomplished by taking on human form. It’s a paradoxical emptying by addition; a limiting or veiling of his glory and power by becoming human. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind and, as God Incarnate, still maintained his full deity (since God can never cease to be God) in becoming truly and fully human.
5. Being found in "appearance as a man" (NIV)--as opposed to his having been in "the form of God." We know that he was truly human, so why would Paul suddenly say that Jesus was "found in appearance as a man"? Would that not imply that he existed previously, supporting verse 6, and indicate he wasn't a man before?
6. He "humbled himself by becoming obedient." This is exactly why he prays to the Father, does the Father's will, and only speaks what he hears. He subjected himself to the law of God and obeyed it perfectly, fulfilling it and becoming the sacrificial "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29, ESV).
7. He is given “the name that is above every name so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. ... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” This is language used of God:
Isa 45:22 “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
Isa 45:23 By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’ (ESV)
This is why Christians rightly worship Christ as God.
The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,363
- 6,417
So, what does morphe mean?
Morphe, "form," has to do with the essence. He was in essence, in nature, God, just as in verse 7 he became a servant truly and inwardly. It is schēma, "fashion," in verse 8 that is the visual outward appearance. It means that his outward appearance to humans hid his essence, who he really was. However, we know that he wasn't a human in appearance only, that was an error John taught against (1 John 4:2; 2 John 1:7); he was truly and fully human. Therefore, how much more then is he truly and fully God. This is Paul's point with the use of homoiōmati, "likeness" in verse 8. It means that he was truly human, yet there was more to him than just human nature. Notice that he did not appear in the likeness of God. His full self was not fully expressed.
"Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from σχῆμα fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Μορφή form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Matt. 17:2.
As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.
This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being perfectly unfolds, as light from fire. To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (ver. 7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God's being. Whatever the mode of this expression, it marked the being of Christ in the eternity before creation. As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God." (M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, p. 878).
Also, as Kenneth Wuest's Word Studies in the Greek New Testaments states:
"Thus the Greek word for "form" refers to that outward expression which a person gives of his inmost nature. This expression is not assumed from the outside, but proceeds directly from within. To illustrate: "I went to a tennis match yesterday. The winning player's form was excellent." We mean by that, that the outward expression he gave of his inward ability to play tennis, was excellent. The expression in this case took the form of the rhythmic, graceful, swift, and coordinated movements of his body and its members.
Our Lord was in the form of God. The word "God" is without the definite article in the Greek text, and therefore refers to the divine essence. Thus, our Lord's outward expression of His inmost being was as to its nature the expression of the divine essence of Deity. Since that outward expression which this word "form" speaks of, comes from and is truly representative of the inward being, it follows that our Lord as to His nature is the possessor of the divine essence of Deity, and being that, it also necessarily follows that He is absolute Deity Himself, a co-participant with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in that divine essence which constitutes God, God.
The time at which the apostle says our Lord gave expression to His essential nature, that of Deity, was previous to His coming to earth to become incarnate as the man Christ Jesus. But Paul, by the use of the Greek word translated "being," informs his Greek readers that our Lord's possession of the divine essence did not cease to be a fact when He came to earth to assume human form. The Greek word is not the simple verb of being, but a word that speaks of an antecedent condition protracted into the present. That is, our Lord gave expression to the essence of Deity which He possesses, not only before He became Man, but also after becoming man, for He was doing so at the time this Philippian epistle was being written." (vol. 2, pp. 62-63)
Also, according to Eerdmans The Expositor's Greek Testament:
"He means, of course, in the strictest sense that the pre-existing Christ was Divine. For μ. [μορφή] always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it." (vol 3, p. 436)
He chose to not appear in his glorious state, so as not to exploit his divine nature for his own ends. And this fits the context:
Php 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)
Note what Paul has done here. First, Paul tells his readers to "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves," and "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." Then, he gives the supreme example, which is that of Christ, "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men," "And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."
In other words, Jesus did "nothing from selfish ambition or conceit" and looked "not only to his own interests." It would have been easy for him to use his equality with God to his own advantage, but that would have been selfish ambition and looking to his own interests. Instead, he empties "himself, by taking the form of a servant," and humbles "himself by becoming obedient to the point of death." In this way, he has "in humility count[ed] others more significant than [himself]," and looked "to the interests of others."
He humbled himself in his incarnate state, becoming dependent on and subject to the Father, for the purpose of the salvation of humans and redemption of creation.
Morphe, "form," has to do with the essence. He was in essence, in nature, God, just as in verse 7 he became a servant truly and inwardly. It is schēma, "fashion," in verse 8 that is the visual outward appearance. It means that his outward appearance to humans hid his essence, who he really was. However, we know that he wasn't a human in appearance only, that was an error John taught against (1 John 4:2; 2 John 1:7); he was truly and fully human. Therefore, how much more then is he truly and fully God. This is Paul's point with the use of homoiōmati, "likeness" in verse 8. It means that he was truly human, yet there was more to him than just human nature. Notice that he did not appear in the likeness of God. His full self was not fully expressed.
"Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from σχῆμα fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Μορφή form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Matt. 17:2.
As applied here to God, the word is intended to describe that mode in which the essential being of God expresses itself. We have no word which can convey this meaning, nor is it possible for us to formulate the reality. Form inevitably carries with it to us the idea of shape. It is conceivable that the essential personality of God may express itself in a mode apprehensible by the perception of pure spiritual intelligences; but the mode itself is neither apprehensible nor conceivable by human minds.
This mode of expression, this setting of the divine essence, is not identical with the essence itself, but is identified with it, as its natural and appropriate expression, answering to it in every particular. It is the perfect expression of a perfect essence. It is not something imposed from without, but something which proceeds from the very depth of the perfect being, and into which that being perfectly unfolds, as light from fire. To say, then, that Christ was in the form of God, is to say that He existed as essentially one with God. The expression of deity through human nature (ver. 7) thus has its background in the expression of deity as deity in the eternal ages of God's being. Whatever the mode of this expression, it marked the being of Christ in the eternity before creation. As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God." (M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, p. 878).
Also, as Kenneth Wuest's Word Studies in the Greek New Testaments states:
"Thus the Greek word for "form" refers to that outward expression which a person gives of his inmost nature. This expression is not assumed from the outside, but proceeds directly from within. To illustrate: "I went to a tennis match yesterday. The winning player's form was excellent." We mean by that, that the outward expression he gave of his inward ability to play tennis, was excellent. The expression in this case took the form of the rhythmic, graceful, swift, and coordinated movements of his body and its members.
Our Lord was in the form of God. The word "God" is without the definite article in the Greek text, and therefore refers to the divine essence. Thus, our Lord's outward expression of His inmost being was as to its nature the expression of the divine essence of Deity. Since that outward expression which this word "form" speaks of, comes from and is truly representative of the inward being, it follows that our Lord as to His nature is the possessor of the divine essence of Deity, and being that, it also necessarily follows that He is absolute Deity Himself, a co-participant with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in that divine essence which constitutes God, God.
The time at which the apostle says our Lord gave expression to His essential nature, that of Deity, was previous to His coming to earth to become incarnate as the man Christ Jesus. But Paul, by the use of the Greek word translated "being," informs his Greek readers that our Lord's possession of the divine essence did not cease to be a fact when He came to earth to assume human form. The Greek word is not the simple verb of being, but a word that speaks of an antecedent condition protracted into the present. That is, our Lord gave expression to the essence of Deity which He possesses, not only before He became Man, but also after becoming man, for He was doing so at the time this Philippian epistle was being written." (vol. 2, pp. 62-63)
Also, according to Eerdmans The Expositor's Greek Testament:
"He means, of course, in the strictest sense that the pre-existing Christ was Divine. For μ. [μορφή] always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it." (vol 3, p. 436)
He chose to not appear in his glorious state, so as not to exploit his divine nature for his own ends. And this fits the context:
Php 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)
Note what Paul has done here. First, Paul tells his readers to "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves," and "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." Then, he gives the supreme example, which is that of Christ, "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men," "And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."
In other words, Jesus did "nothing from selfish ambition or conceit" and looked "not only to his own interests." It would have been easy for him to use his equality with God to his own advantage, but that would have been selfish ambition and looking to his own interests. Instead, he empties "himself, by taking the form of a servant," and humbles "himself by becoming obedient to the point of death." In this way, he has "in humility count[ed] others more significant than [himself]," and looked "to the interests of others."
He humbled himself in his incarnate state, becoming dependent on and subject to the Father, for the purpose of the salvation of humans and redemption of creation.
Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 627
- 156
Since that outward expression which this word “form” speaks of, comes from and
is truly representative of the inward being, it follows that our Lord as to His nature is the
possessor of the divine essence of Deity, and being that, it also necessarily follows that He
is absolute Deity Himself, a co-participant with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in
that divine essence which constitutes God, God.
The time at which the apostle says our Lord gave expression to His essential nature,
that of Deity, was previous to His coming to earth to become incarnate as the Man Christ
Jesus.
But Paul, by the use of the Greek word translated “being,” informs his Greek
readers that our Lord’s possession of the divine essence did not cease to be a fact when
He came to earth to assume human form. The Greek word is not the simple verb of being,
but a word that speaks of an antecedent condition protracted into the present.
That is, our
Lord gave expression to the essence of Deity which He possesses, not only before He
became Man, but also after becoming Man, for He was doing so at the time this Philippian
epistle was being written. To give expression to the essence of Deity implies the
possession of Deity, for this expression, according to the definition of our word “form,”
comes from one’s inmost nature. This word alone is enough to refute the claim of
Modernism that our Lord emptied Himself of His Deity when He became Man.
Wuest.
J.
- Aug 14, 2024
- 1,195
- 410
No man is an island--just choosing to be out on a limb and on your own actually affects a lot of people--the people you may have helped and didn't, and the people you convince should also be on their own. Don't do it--be a light!
The creeds and their formulas for the Trinity have withstood the test of time. Those "denominations" who you say don't agree place themselves in possible "heretical" territory. Obviously, there are always going to be renegades who strike it out on their own and don't care to come to any meeting of the minds with their brothers and sisters. I find this to be unfortunate.
If you say, "so be it," then you're just placing yourself among the "renegades." Don't do it!
You've been given a lot by God--so, return your gifts to Him by working with others for their edification and correction. We all need to be refined. If we turn away from all correction, how can God correct us? We will have decided we don't need it, and won't recognize it as coming from God.
The Baptism of the Spirit discussion is different from the Trinity discussion. The Trinity establishes historic orthodoxy. Spirit Baptism has a nuanced view in our day with the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement. We can argue that, if you want?
The notion that Christian denominations automatically mean "division" is a half-truth. Denominations simply is a naming of different missionary and evangelistic movements in different nations and areas that eventually evolve into organized groups for purposes of working together for a common end.
Denominations, being from different territories or traditions, are going to have different perspectives on minor issues. When they disagree on major issues of orthodoxy then one group tends to remain conservative and with the orthodox position, while the other group moves away into a liberal perspective, opposing orthodox doctrine.
So, there are going to be these divisions. But they have little to do with creedal formulations. Most conservative denominations remain loyal to the Creeds.
- Aug 14, 2024
- 1,195
- 410
That's well said and show a comprehensive understanding of what I said. I find that to be relatively rare. I accept your mild disagreement. I certainly am not a modalist and understand that my formula suggests that to you. It doesn't suggest it to me, but if it suggests that to anybody I just fall back on the Creedal formulations.
When I say the Trinity is 3 Finite Persons I do not mean they are in their Divine essence "finite." They are not "solely" Finite Persons, but are revelations of Persons that issue from the Infinite God as Source.
I refer to them as "Finite Revelations" only because that is the part we comprehend as finite beings, and only understand that they come from and are identified with the Infinite God. We see Jesus as a man, and we see the Spirit within space and time. And it is therefore their Finite Stature that separates them from the Infinite composite unity of the Deity, who I describe as a Person, and you describe as "3 Persons." All 3 Persons are indeed from eternity and are to be eternally distinguished.
The revelation of the 3 Persons, including Father as Source, Jesus as a Man, and the Spirit as a local phenomenon, comes to us in finite terms, representing the eternal, infinite, omnipresent God. We only see the part that is finite, because we are finite. No man has ever seen God in His infinite Being. We can never comprehend Him in that way.
After all, Jesus as a man is a finite representation of God, right? As a finite representation of something infinite we can experience, as if by touch, the infinite reality without fully comprehending something that is transcendent.
And so, I refer to the 3 Persons as "Finite representations of the 3 Persons." Their Infinite Divine Source is the one Person I identify as God, who is indeed a "composite unity."
You say that He is "3 Persons," and not "1 Person," and I understand that. I just can't be satisfied knowing that when you say "He" is 3 Persons, the word "He" is itself singular, indicating a single Person. Then you go back to saying "He" represents a "composite unity," and we find ourselves on "Escher's Stairway."
It's all good because we agree on your understanding and on the Creeds. We'll leave my unorthodox formulation out of it, since it would just be me against the world! ;)
- Aug 14, 2024
- 1,195
- 410
Please forgive my naivety! I don't see anything but a distinction without a difference! How is conception and Incarnation different? Jesus was conceived by the virgin Mary and thus the Incarnation took place, God revealing, through His Word, the man Jesus as his divine Son.
The different versions also show little differentiation, just allowing readers to understand the original language the best they can in their own language.
- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,943
- 8,335
Bro, in my family giving heed to sound doctrine is normal.
That’s the way Christ followers learn and grow, reading and studying the scriptures in the Presence of God; with the anointing teaching you.
That’s the New Covenant way.
The Spirit of the LORD within, teaching us, instructing us, leading and guiding us.
I’m sorry if that seems offensive. I apologize if asking people to use scripture and not man’s commentary but let’s discuss what Jesus taught His disciples when He walked the earth.
Bro, I’m not trying to run with the crowds, I’m trying to be led by the Spirit.
- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,943
- 8,335
I’m always going to try to find common ground in these discussions, but rarely do, because everyone seems to have their cut and paste commentary that their denominations taught them and it’s full of man’s tradition and opinions that led them to be in that denomination.
If people want to discuss what the scriptures say, then let’s do it.
The scriptural truth and the traditions of men don’t ever mix.
I desire to find common ground in these discussions, but not at the expense of compromising the truth of the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ.
- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,943
- 8,335
If the “Trinity” doctrine aligns with scripture then it’s good.
I don’t use the word Trinity, but if someone is using in a discussion then that’s fine if they want to use that term.
Please understand there are variations of the doctrine of the Trinity, and there are variations of the Oneness doctrine, with overlapping areas of agreement.
When it comes down to it, people don’t understand the Godhead the way the Holy Spirit understands the doctrine of the Godhead; what is called the Trinity.
Can you and I agree on that one thing?
Similar threads
