The Trinity

[RandyK]

So, this is back to Modalism/Oneness again, since all three persons are in time only. The doctrine of the Trinity is that all three divine persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--have always existed; there never was a "time" in eternity past, prior to creation, when all three persons did not exist.

I don't think that's what I'm saying at all! I'm saying we don't know them *as Father, Son, and Spirit* until it is revealed to us in time. And so, the Person we don't yet know, the Infinite God, reveals these Persons, who are eternal, to us in time.

They are not known yet as Father, Son, and Spirit, but yes, they are Persons in Eternity that we cannot know as Father, Son, and Spirit. If you see them described as such in the Bible, I'd like to know about it?

The Father in eternity? The Son in eternity? The Spirit in eternity? They are *from eternity* but revealed to us by God's Word in time.

They are generated from eternity in time. That means they existed previously in eternity, but are now revealed to us in time. If you knew them before time existed, you're God! But of course, nobody knows anything about the relationship of Father to Son before the Son was actually incarnated.

The only thing we know is that they previously existed as Persons, because God is a plurality. We know that only because He has not revealed Himself as a plurality in time. But we don't at all know what any of the Persons of the Trinity looked like in Eternity!

Yes, of course God is transcendent, that is rather the point. We can speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as being prior to all creation because that is what God reveals of himself in the Bible.

No, the Bible does not reveal Father, Son, and Spirit prior to Creation. That is the source that these originate from and come to be revealed to us by God's Word. In Genesis we have "in the beginning God." We do not have "before the beginning God."

We simply anticipate that since God made the world He preceded it. We do not have Father, Son, and Spirit before the world. We have the Word of God revealing God's Person in a Trinity of Persons.

If you don't think God is a "person," then you defy the very meaning of "God." He is a person! The Creeds simply bypass that fact in order to establish Trinitarian Persons that are part of God's Being.

Every time we read "God" in the Scriptures we think of Him as a "person." When you pray to Him, you pray to Him as a person--not as a triad of Persons. But we know that God is in fact a triad of Persons, and probably beyond that.

Again, this is Modalism/Oneness.

Suit yourself. If Father, Son, and Spirit are being generated from Eternity, they were a distinct plurality from eternity as well as how we know and recognize them in time. We just didn't know what that plurality existed like before the Word revealed them to us as Father, Son, and Spirit in time.

Be very careful, as it seems you're actually teaching things even beyond Modalism. You're saying the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "facets of God in time," yet, that they "can only be understood as generated from God's eternal Word."

That is what they are. You have not shown me God existing as Father, Son, and Spirit before time. You can only show that they've been generated and are being generated from the Eternal Realm of Deity and into our own time.

The fact they are distinct Persons, or that God is an eternal plurality, in my explanation indicates it isn't close to Modalism. The fact I describe them as known only in time is simply true. You don't know them outside of time--you only know them conceptually as having been generated in our time from God's eternal realm by His Word.

When things are true they are *not* heretical.

Given what John says in John 1:1--"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."--where the Word is a distinct person from God, yet God in nature, that means you're teaching that there is God and the Word, who generates the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in time.

No, I said the Word generates our understanding of them as Father, Son, and Spirit in time, and not before. Obviously! We do not know them in the Eternal Realm of Deity before they've been revealed to us!

That means you have a transcendent "binity," that then generates the immanent Trinity. This is why we must be very careful to stick to what the Bible says and to the language used by those who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity.

The biblical teaching is that God is both a transcendent and immanent Trinity; he has always existed as three divine persons.

We have *not* known the Trinity as Father, Son, and Spirit in eternity. We only know those Persons in time and that they've emerged from God's Eternal Realm as distinct Persons.

You say that Christ is the 2nd Person of the Trinity as the "Word" in Eternity, right? And that's fine, because that's how we come to know him.

But then you say that the Son of God, somehow separate from the Man Jesus, was an eternal Person as the Son of God in eternity? Does that even make sense? If this is what you're saying, you've separated the man Jesus into two separate persons! Of course you can go back and state the Chalcedonian formula of two natures, but you won't be explaining away this confusion.

All you're really saying is that the "Word" is some kind of Person distinct from other Persons of the Trinity, but do not know what the Word looks like or even how he resembles the Son of God. You can only say he came to us in the appearance of Christ.

Of course we're "moving beyond the range of the human intellect;" we're talking about the infinite God. It isn't a matter of "protecting orthodoxy," but remaining true to what God reveals of himself in the Bible.

Oh no, all you've given me is the orthodox formula. You've given me no understanding that God is even a "person" in the conventional sense of t he term.

You don't want to talk about how people get confused praying to a "Trinity?" You don't want to talk about what the Son of God in eternity looks like? No, you're just protecting a formula--not trying to see how "One Person equals Three Persons," which is what I've been trying to do.

No, we cannot do that. We must stick with the definitions as has already been determined, otherwise meaningful and effective communication ceases.

Then you don't seem to understand the doctrine of the Trinity, although it has been given many times in this thread. Monotheism is foundation to the Trinity, being one of the main reasons for the doctrine.

I understand the Trinity well enough to know what is *not* being discussed in the formulas.

That's the irony--your explanation is the irrational one for saying that One Person is three Persons. This is what the historic, orthodox position seeks to avoid by keeping being (substance) distinct from persons.

It's rational to me because of the explanation I've given myself and recommend to others. It's not rational to you because it isn't part of the orthodox formula. That was given to combat heresy. My explanation is to combat loyalty to ritual, with no personal understanding.

But, just because he reveals himself to us in time as Father, Son, and Spirit, does not mean that he hasn't always existed as Father, Son, and Spirit.

I see, you understand the infinite Deity! Well, that's as far as I care to go. You know Father, Son, and Spirit, and their distinctions in eternity. Really?

 

[RandyK]

In my previous post, post #901, I meant to say...
"The only thing we know is that they previously existed as Persons, because God is a plurality. We know that only because He has now revealed Himself as a plurality in time. But we don't at all know what any of the Persons of the Trinity looked like in Eternity!"

 

[Randy]

Everything I stated absolutely means that the Son (the Word) is coeternal; it cannot mean anything else.


If "first begotten" means there was a time when he did not exist, then it follows that he came into being, and John's words are false (also Paul's--1 Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:6-8; Col. 1:16-17--and the writer of Hebrew's--1:2, 10-12). It would mean the Son would have been the beginning and could not have existed when the beginning began. It is a logical impossibility for all things to come into existence through the Word if the Word was one of those things that came into existence. This is very basic logic that you have repeatedly failed to address.

You are making all the passages I have given to be contradictory and therefore false.


Again, you're ignoring the logic which I have posted more times than I care to count.

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)

Basic logic tells us that if "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternality of the Father, then "through whom are all things" speaks of the eternality of the Son. It is absolutely illogical to argue that the former is true but the latter is false.

Basic logic also tells us that if "one God, the Father" precludes the Son from being God, then "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord. Again, it is illogical to argue that the former is true but the latter is false.

Nothing I have stated goes against the idea that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, nor that the fullness of God dwells in Jesus.


For how what is so? We shouldn't be going beyond Scripture. The Bible clearly tells us these things:

1. That there is one God
2. The Father is fully and truly God, the Son is fully and truly God, the Holy Spirit is fully and truly God
3. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit

From those things, we can conclude that there are three distinct, divine persons within the one Being that is God. We can also conclude that the Son is just as eternal as the Father is, as is the Holy Spirit. It simply cannot be otherwise.


I asked this, but you didn't answer: When you say that I "seem to believe in a created Son of Man in Mary's womb," what is it you mean, exactly? It depends on how you define "Son of Man."

I also already stated: It is incorrect to ask "what part of the Son" descended. The Son, the Word, became flesh. That is what Scripture teaches. Don't try and break it down further than what Scripture clearly states, as that could lead to heresy.

Why quote me if you're not going to address what I have asked or stated and then simply repeat what I was seeking clarification on?

Nothing you stated states the begotten Son is coeternal. Eternally begotten is a created word to state something is so without any reasonable explanation. He is the only begotten. A coeternal being cannot be from any other person nor would be a Son with a Father and a God.

So, you're arguing that Jesus was created, that he was made, despite you arguing to the contrary.

Your belief is the Son of Man was created, or His spirit was formed in Mary's womb. What part of the Son who was descended from above and was in that body prepared for Him if NOT His own Spirit? Your belief states None of Him. My belief states all of Him. The Son who was, His spirit, was in that body.

Jesus has always been the Son, His spirit. He was begotten His spirit was formed by God His Father as the First of Gods works. He is the Firstborn. In Him then, the Son of Man, and forever dwells the Deity without limit of the First and Last. God His Father who He calls the only true God.

Jesus is the same, yesterday and forever.

About the Son.
Hebrews 1

One God our Father One Lord Jesus Christ

You quote 1Cor 8:6 to state coeternal. Not so that weakens your case. God our Father brought the world into existence by His Son. There is only one Deity of the First and Last. It can't be from that Deity and through that Deity at the same time. Its from the Deity. That Deity in the Son created. Just as that Deity in the Son of Man spoke to us in these last days by HIS Son.

The Deity of the First and last created.
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”

Jesus cannot be the First and last apart from that Deity. He and the Father are one but He, His spirit, is begotten and the Deity in Him as in His God and Father is unbegotten. He and the Father are one as He stated not as you believe.

Hebrews 1
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

Needless to state. It is the Fathers Deity always. He alone is unbegotten. He is the only true God.

It's always been the church of the Firstborn.

I don't know what your point is here.


With what? You certainly disagree with some critical points.


The way you're using "born/begotten," it means he was made, created; it cannot mean anything else.

You don't need to believe me but believe in Him.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

If He stated this, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

This is eternal life that they know us the only true God.

 

[JLB]

So, this is back to Modalism/Oneness again, since all three persons are in time only. The doctrine of the Trinity is that all three divine persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--have always existed; there never was a "time" in eternity past, prior to creation, when all three persons did not exist.

It seems like you are “stuck” on labeling everyone who doesn’t use the exact language you use, such as “divine persons” as being “oneness”.

Please understand that “divine persons” doesn’t exist in scripture.

Trinity doesn’t exist in scripture.

So why not stop with the labeling of people, especially those of us who have chosen to believe and receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit as “oneness”.

Oneness teaches there is only one member of the Godhead.

We do not promote this.

If a person who just like you is trying to find language to express “the part we see” and we plainly believe the Godhead consists of three not one, why do you continually label us with ungodly labels of heresy?


Stop with the labels of oneness with people who plainly don’t believe in that doctrine.

 

[Free]

It seems like you are “stuck” on labeling everyone who doesn’t use the exact language you use, such as “divine persons” as being “oneness”.

Please understand that “divine persons” doesn’t exist in scripture.

Trinity doesn’t exist in scripture.

So why not stop with the labeling of people, especially those of us who have chosen to believe and receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit as “oneness”.

Oneness teaches there is only one member of the Godhead.

We do not promote this.

If a person who just like you is trying to find language to express “the part we see” and we plainly believe the Godhead consists of three not one, why do you continually label us with ungodly labels of heresy?

You're clearly not reading my posts well enough. First, I have not labelled anyone as Modalist or Oneness. I have said the statements they make are those belonging to Modalism/Oneness. Learn the difference. Second, the only reason I have said so is when they have stated or implied that God has eternally existed as one person, but manifests himself in time as three persons.

It makes me wonder why it is that "those of [you] who have chosen to believe and receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit" cannot get your beliefs straight on this issue. This is a foundational belief of Christianity, one that separates it from all other religious beliefs, so what is it about your particular denominational affiliations that leads to error and confusion?

Stop with the labels of oneness with people who plainly don’t believe in that doctrine.

Every time someone makes statements, even if they think they are describing the Trinity, that actually are promoting Modalism/Oneness, I'm going to call it out. We must be as precise as possible in these things, lest we believe and promote false doctrine about God.

 

[RandyK]

You're clearly not reading my posts well enough. First, I have not labelled anyone as Modalist or Oneness. I have said the statements they make are those belonging to Modalism/Oneness. Learn the difference. Second, the only reason I have said so is when they have stated or implied that God has eternally existed as one person, but manifests himself in time as three persons.

There are nuanced arguments here that I won't perpetuate because they are not being understood or recognized, or simply not considered relevant. So before I bow out of this discussion, which I just entered into for interest and to help others like myself, let me defend myself against the charge of "Modalism."

I have admitted that I'm dealing with the formula "One Person equals Three Distinct Persons." But I've said that I'm using unique language not to combat Heresy, such as the Creeds did, but only to try to understand for myself how such an equation is possible, recognizing that many see the formula this way.

I've said that "One Person," as I'm using the term, refers to "One Being," which is very much orthodox and in accord with the Creeds. It is *not* Modalism, because I've said that this "One Being" has in Eternity a distinct plurality of Persons. We know them now as Father, Son, and Spirit but in the Realm of Eternity we only know them as having originated from this Divine "Being."

God is in fact a "person," and a single person that we direct our prayers to. We do not direct our prayers to a "plurality," even though that plurality is real and true.

And I still believe that despite the fact we address God as a single person we still understand that He has revealed Himself *from Eternity* as "Three Persons."

So my formula was as many of the Church Fathers said--the Word of God is the source of the revelation of these 3 Persons. All 3 are distinctly being generated from eternity and thus rerpresent God's Being as an eternal plurality of Persons.

I don't believe this is Modalism, but I can understand how some may feel it sounds like it. I think holding to orthodox formulas may not address my specific issue, but they are very good for keeping Christianity grounded on a proper understanding of the Faith.

The subject matter may get too confusing for most. So in the interest of being more "edifying," I'm bowing out, at least for now. If, however, I'm told I'm a "Modalist" just because I address the questionable formula "One Person equals Three Persons," then I may have to continue to defend myself. I don't want to have to do this.

 

[Free]

Nothing you stated states the begotten Son is coeternal.

Incorrect. Is that why you keep avoiding addressing the logic of the verses I have given? You done so numerous times.

Eternally begotten is a created word to state something is so without any reasonable explanation.

On the contrary, it is the only logical conclusion of what we're told about the Son: 1) that he is begotten (the one and only Son), and 2) that he has always existed.

He is the only begotten.

Which speaks to his uniqueness, of being the one and only Son of the Father. It does not refer to coming into being, which would mean he was created or made.

A coeternal being cannot be from any other person nor would be a Son with a Father and a God.

The Son is of the same nature as the Father, as all sons are of their fathers. The only logical conclusion is that the Son is as eternal as the Father, otherwise they don't have the same nature.

Your belief is the Son of Man was created, or His spirit was formed in Mary's womb.

Only the humanity of Jesus, not his deity.

What part of the Son who was descended from above and was in that body prepared for Him if NOT His own Spirit? Your belief states None of Him.

Again, false. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Please stop misrepresenting my position and read what I am actually writing. The Son descended.

My belief states all of Him. The Son who was, His spirit, was in that body.

If your belief is "all of Him," which is exactly what I have stated, then stop there. Don't go on to say "His spirit."

Jesus has always been the Son

Jesus has always been the Son, but the Son hasn't always been Jesus.

His spirit. He was begotten His spirit was formed by God His Father as the First of Gods works. He is the Firstborn.

There you go. As I have pointed out to you numerous times, you believe the Son was created, in contradiction to the Bible. All those verses I provided and the logic based on them that you continually ignore, prove that the Son cannot have been created.

In Him then, the Son of Man, and forever dwells the Deity without limit of the First and Last. God His Father who He calls the only true God.

Which, again, does not preclude the Son from also being truly and fully God. To say otherwise is to ignore a lot of context.

About the Son.
Hebrews 1

One God our Father One Lord Jesus Christ

You quote 1Cor 8:6 to state coeternal. Not so that weakens your case. God our Father brought the world into existence by His Son. There is only one Deity of the First and Last. It can't be from that Deity and through that Deity at the same time. Its from the Deity. That Deity in the Son created. Just as that Deity in the Son of Man spoke to us in these last days by HIS Son.

Please address the two logical arguments I gave concerning 1 Cor. 8:6.

The Deity of the First and last created.
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”

Jesus cannot be the First and last apart from that Deity. He and the Father are one but He, His spirit, is begotten and the Deity in Him as in His God and Father is unbegotten.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

He and the Father are one as He stated not as you believe.

Again, please stop misrepresenting my position. I fully believe that he and the Father are one.

Hebrews 1
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

Needless to state. It is the Fathers Deity always. He alone is unbegotten. He is the only true God.

"Through whom he also made the universe." That is in agreement with John 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Col. 1:16-17. Not one thing has come into being that came into being apart from the Son. The only logical conclusion is that the Son could not have come into existence, but must have always existed.

Notice how the author of Hebrews further supports this claim, in Heb. 1:10-12, where we very clearly have the Father implying that the Son is also YHWH, through application of Ps. 102:25-27 to the Son.

It's always been the church of the Firstborn.

Of course, but, as I have pointed out before, "firstborn" doesn't always mean one who is born first. It does mean one who has the position and rights of one who is the firstborn, without that one actually being the firstborn.

In Col. 1:15, it is a reference to Christ being sovereign and preeminent over creation. Paul then supports that claim by showing why: because "all things were created through him and for him." Once again, if "all things were created through" the Son, then it is logically impossible that the Son was created; he must necessarily have always existed.

You don't need to believe me but believe in Him.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

If He stated this, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

This is eternal life that they know us the only true God.

I don't understand what your point is here.

 

[RandyK]

In deference to Free's claim that the Son existed as a Person in Eternity, I'm reading from Heb 1 this morning, that *the Son* is the Person through whom God made the universe. That means He existed *as a Person* in eternity. I think therefore we need to identify him as the Son who preexisted his human form in eternity. Enough said!

 

[Free]

There are nuanced arguments here that I won't perpetuate because they are not being understood or recognized, or simply not considered relevant. So before I bow out of this discussion, which I just entered into for interest and to help others like myself, let me defend myself against the charge of "Modalism."

I have admitted that I'm dealing with the formula "One Person equals Three Distinct Persons." But I've said that I'm using unique language not to combat Heresy, such as the Creeds did, but only to try to understand for myself how such an equation is possible, recognizing that many see the formula this way.

The issue is that anyone reading that is going to be very confused. In the least, you're teaching a contradiction. At worst, you're teaching Modalism. That is what people are going to read and the very real danger is that you will cause others to be confused and think that Modalism is biblical or that it is just another way of stating the Trinity.

If, for some reason, it personally helps you to understand the Trinity, then I would strongly suggest never trying to teach someone the doctrine of the Trinity that way. It makes things even more confusing and the chance of them falling into heresy would be much greater.

Logically, one person cannot equal three distinct persons. One being can, but not one person.

I've said that "One Person," as I'm using the term, refers to "One Being," which is very much orthodox and in accord with the Creeds.

Except that it isn't. They never equate "person" and "being;" they purposely avoid doing so because it leads to contradiction and heresy. That's the problem with using your own definitions in topic that is extremely difficult and uses some very technical language to avoid errors.

It is *not* Modalism, because I've said that this "One Being" has in Eternity a distinct plurality of Persons.

That is the correct terminology because being does not equate to person, not even with humans. Being refers to the nature or substance; person to "personhood." We are all human beings, but distinct persons. We just happen to be a being that is also one person.

We know them now as Father, Son, and Spirit but in the Realm of Eternity we only know them as having originated from this Divine "Being."

Again, you have to be careful here. It would be better to say they are the divine being. To say they 'originated from this Divine "Being",' is to suggest that they are not the divine being, leading to Modalism or even polytheism.

God is in fact a "person," and a single person that we direct our prayers to.

So, straight back to Modalism again. God is a being that consists of three persons. We must not say that he is a single person. That is to support not only Modalism, but Islam and Arianism, and all the false religions that follow from that, such as JWs and Christadelphians. It could also support polytheism, like which we had one member teaching in the past--it was only the Father in existence for all eternity and in the OT, who then created the Son as fully God, and then the Holy Spirit; three Gods, two of which were somehow created.

We do not direct our prayers to a "plurality," even though that plurality is real and true.

And I still believe that despite the fact we address God as a single person we still understand that He has revealed Himself *from Eternity* as "Three Persons."

So my formula was as many of the Church Fathers said--the Word of God is the source of the revelation of these 3 Persons. All 3 are distinctly being generated from eternity and thus rerpresent God's Being as an eternal plurality of Persons.

Do you have any sources for any of this? The issue is that to say "All 3 are distinctly being generated from eternity," is to say that there is another being, a higher being, that is generating all three. Again, in sticking to the use of terminology as it is in the Creeds, "generating" is the same as "begetting." But, that is something

"The Son is generated by the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (depending on which Christian tradition, of course).

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made."

https://ccel.org/creeds/nicene.creed.html

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

I don't believe this is Modalism, but I can understand how some may feel it sounds like it. I think holding to orthodox formulas may not address my specific issue, but they are very good for keeping Christianity grounded on a proper understanding of the Faith.

The subject matter may get too confusing for most. So in the interest of being more "edifying," I'm bowing out, at least for now. If, however, I'm told I'm a "Modalist" just because I address the questionable formula "One Person equals Three Persons," then I may have to continue to defend myself. I don't want to have to do this.

Then I suggest you simply change your formula to the orthodox one--one Being, three Persons--so as to remove the ambiguity of your position.

 

[RandyK]

The issue is that anyone reading that is going to be very confused. In the least, you're teaching a contradiction. At worst, you're teaching Modalism. That is what people are going to read and the very real danger is that you will cause others to be confused and think that Modalism is biblical or that it is just another way of stating the Trinity.

If, for some reason, it personally helps you to understand the Trinity, then I would strongly suggest never trying to teach someone the doctrine of the Trinity that way. It makes things even more confusing and the chance of them falling into heresy would be much greater.

Logically, one person cannot equal three distinct persons. One being can, but not one person.


Except that it isn't. They never equate "person" and "being;" they purposely avoid doing so because it leads to contradiction and heresy. That's the problem with using your own definitions in topic that is extremely difficult and uses some very technical language to avoid errors.


That is the correct terminology because being does not equate to person, not even with humans. Being refers to the nature or substance; person to "personhood." We are all human beings, but distinct persons. We just happen to be a being that is also one person.


Again, you have to be careful here. It would be better to say they are the divine being. To say they 'originated from this Divine "Being",' is to suggest that they are not the divine being, leading to Modalism or even polytheism.


So, straight back to Modalism again. God is a being that consists of three persons. We must not say that he is a single person. That is to support not only Modalism, but Islam and Arianism, and all the false religions that follow from that, such as JWs and Christadelphians. It could also support polytheism, like which we had one member teaching in the past--it was only the Father in existence for all eternity and in the OT, who then created the Son as fully God, and then the Holy Spirit; three Gods, two of which were somehow created.


Do you have any sources for any of this? The issue is that to say "All 3 are distinctly being generated from eternity," is to say that there is another being, a higher being, that is generating all three. Again, in sticking to the use of terminology as it is in the Creeds, "generating" is the same as "begetting." But, that is something

"The Son is generated by the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (depending on which Christian tradition, of course).

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made."

https://ccel.org/creeds/nicene.creed.html

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html


Then I suggest you simply change your formula to the orthodox one--one Being, three Persons--so as to remove the ambiguity of your position.

We'll just have to let it go. For the record, I do hold to the Orthodox Formula. Have a nice day!

 

[Free]

We'll just have to let it go. For the record, I do hold to the Orthodox Formula. Have a nice day!

Yes, I know you do. All I am suggesting is that, although your restatement works for you, it adds confusion and difficulty to an already confusing and exceedingly difficult topic, and greatly increases the chances of others being led into serious error.

 

[JLB]

You're clearly not reading my posts well enough. First, I have not labelled anyone as Modalist or Oneness. I have said the statements they make are those belonging to Modalism/Oneness. Learn the difference. Second, the only reason I have said so is when they have stated or implied that God has eternally existed as one person, but manifests himself in time as three persons.

It makes me wonder why it is that "those of [you] who have chosen to believe and receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit" cannot get your beliefs straight on this issue. This is a foundational belief of Christianity, one that separates it from all other religious beliefs, so what is it about your particular denominational affiliations that leads to error and confusion?


Every time someone makes statements, even if they think they are describing the Trinity, that actually are promoting Modalism/Oneness, I'm going to call it out. We must be as precise as possible in these things, lest we believe and promote false doctrine about God.

So, this is back to Modalism/Oneness again

I’m reading you and your posts loud and clear, insinuating that a person is promoting oneness because they don’t use the exact (man made) phrases you use.

You have repeatedly done it with me even after I have asked you to stop, and explaining to you repeatedly that I don’t believe there is one member of the Godhead, but three.

Now you are trying to hide your deep prejudice against Spirit baptized Christians in this community with your phoney excuses.

You can’t explain the reality of the Godhead any better than anyone else.

You using manmade words and terms to try and do so is the ultimate hypocrisy.


The Father is God
The Word is God
The Spirit is God.

These three are one.


For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7


There is no scripture in the Bible that says anything about three divine persons.

This is just as man made as oneness.

 

[Free]

I’m reading you and your posts loud and clear,

Actually, you're not.

insinuating that a person is promoting oneness because they don’t use the exact (man made) phrases you use.

Because they don't use the language that has historically been used in these very discussions on the nature of God. It has nothing to do with the language I use, as I do my best to stick to language and meanings that were establish well over a thousand years ago. That is what makes clear communication possible and helps to avoid falling into error, even heresy.

The language used in originally formulating and discussing the doctrine of the Trinity was very specific so that it would keep one from falling into any number of heresies regarding the nature of God and Christ. We should do our best to not deviate from that, lest we fall into serious error or cause someone else to.

You have repeatedly done it with me even after I have asked you to stop, and explaining to you repeatedly that I don’t believe there is one member of the Godhead, but three.

Yes, you keep saying that but some of your language states otherwise, as it is borrowed straight from Oneness. That is the problem which I have repeatedly pointed out. When you start mixing language from Modalism or Oneness into Trinitarianism, it needlessly confuses things and makes it all much more difficult than it already is.

If you really want to defend the doctrine of the Trinity and oppose Modalism/Oneness, then you must use the language, the words and terms, that have historically been used to both define and so delineate those positions. Confusing the language confuses the doctrines and can cause them to cease to be opposing views.

Now you are trying to hide your deep prejudice against Spirit baptized Christians in this community with your phoney excuses.

So, you're able to judge men's hearts? That is one of the ways of judging that the Bible condemns as sinful, right? Even if that was the case, which it isn't, that would have nothing to do with it. I don't even know what you are referring to by "phoney excuses."

You don't try and hide your hate for Reformed theology, but do you think that that is maybe why you don't want to accept correction from me?

You can’t explain the reality of the Godhead any better than anyone else.

I'm not claiming to. I'm merely pointing out the need to keep to the language used by those who developed the doctrine of the Trinity so that we avoid error and heresy, and promote clarity.

You using manmade words and terms to try and do so is the ultimate hypocrisy.

How, exactly, is that hypocrisy? I'm using man-made human language, the same language we have in every English translation, to try and best describe what we read in those translations. Your continual argument to "manmade words and terms" may sound good, but it's actually just self-righteous, false piety and sheer ignorance unbecoming of a believer.

The Father is God
The Word is God
The Spirit is God.

These three are one.


For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7


There is no scripture in the Bible that says anything about three divine persons.

There are plenty of verses that show it is the case, such as Matt. 38:19, but 1 John 5:7 isn't one of them--that's a man-made, not God-inspired, verse in the KJV.

This is just as man made as oneness.

Just as man-made as the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and English languages.

 

[RandyK]

Yes, I know you do. All I am suggesting is that, although your restatement works for you, it adds confusion and difficulty to an already confusing and exceedingly difficult topic, and greatly increases the chances of others being led into serious error.

Yea, I think the Lord was speaking to me today. I'm sticking with the Orthodox Formula, and not let others use my shortcomings to insert their own ideas, which may or may not be okay. Your job...thankfully! ;)

 

[JLB]

There are plenty of verses that show it is the case, such as Matt. 38:19, but 1 John 5:7 isn't one of them--that's a man-made, not God-inspired, verse in the KJV.

Thank you at least exposing yourself, in that you prefer man made doctrine over the scriptures.

This is inspired scripture.

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

What is not scripture is the phrase “divine persons”.

 

[Randy]

Incorrect. Is that why you keep avoiding addressing the logic of the verses I have given? You done so numerous times.

Wrong I am the one who has shown you the fallacy of the doctrine of the trinity on several points.

On the contrary, it is the only logical conclusion of what we're told about the Son: 1) that he is begotten (the one and only Son), and 2) that he has always existed.

He is begotten not eternally begotten and has a beginning at some point in history before the world began.

Which speaks to his uniqueness, of being the one and only Son of the Father. It does not refer to coming into being, which would mean he was created or made.

The only like to like begotten Son of the Father or the only begotten God. Yet He is not coeternal.

The Son is of the same nature as the Father, as all sons are of their fathers. The only logical conclusion is that the Son is as eternal as the Father, otherwise they don't have the same nature.

The Son does have that nature in Him as the fullness of the Deity of God our Father lives in Him and they are one. That Deity is the First and Last.

Only the humanity of Jesus, not his deity.


Again, false. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Please stop misrepresenting my position and read what I am actually writing. The Son descended.

Not false in regard to your belief. True, the Son descended that is His spirit. The Spirit of a man did not descend. Your Jesus was created in Mary's womb.

If your belief is "all of Him," which is exactly what I have stated, then stop there. Don't go on to say "His spirit."

All of Him ascended as well. "Father into your hands I commit "My" spirit"

Jesus has always been the Son, but the Son hasn't always been Jesus.

Wrong -His spirit was in that body.
Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

There you go. As I have pointed out to you numerous times, you believe the Son was created, in contradiction to the Bible. All those verses I provided and the logic based on them that you continually ignore, prove that the Son cannot have been created.

The First born of all creation. The beginning of the creation of God. He is begotten-His spirit

Which, again, does not preclude the Son from also being truly and fully God. To say otherwise is to ignore a lot of context.

Jesus calls the person of the Father the only true God. So again your mistaken in your belief.

Please address the two logical arguments I gave concerning 1 Cor. 8:6.

How could Paul made it any clearer? One God identified as the Father and One Lord identified as Jesus. From God through the Son. Your seeking a logical away around what is clear is caused by the doctrine of the trinity not by truth. There is only one true Deity and it won't be from that deity and through that deity as stated from God through the Lord.

I don't understand what you're saying here.


Again, please stop misrepresenting my position. I fully believe that he and the Father are one.


"Through whom he also made the universe." That is in agreement with John 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Col. 1:16-17. Not one thing has come into being that came into being apart from the Son. The only logical conclusion is that the Son could not have come into existence, but must have always existed.

HE MADE -GOD's Deity through HIS Son. Just as God's Deity Spoke to us by His Son. The Father in the Son is how they are one NOT as you stating they are the only true God. I didn't misrepresent anything.

Notice how the author of Hebrews further supports this claim, in Heb. 1:10-12, where we very clearly have the Father implying that the Son is also YHWH, through application of Ps. 102:25-27 to the Son.

It's always been the church of the Firstborn. Clearly the writer understood who the Son was. The Deity in the Son created. God created by His Son. If Jesus wasn't the Fathers Son then whose Son was He? How is a coeternal person a begotten Son of another and from another person? I have repeatedly shown you the fallacy of such statements to deaf ears.

Of course, but, as I have pointed out before, "firstborn" doesn't always mean one who is born first. It does mean one who has the position and rights of one who is the firstborn, without that one actually being the firstborn.

I have pointed out Firstborn can mean first.
He's the Firstborn from the dead.

In Col. 1:15, it is a reference to Christ being sovereign and preeminent over creation. Paul then supports that claim by showing why: because "all things were created through him and for him." Once again, if "all things were created through" the Son, then it is logically impossible that the Son was created; he must necessarily have always existed.

It's the throne of God and the Lamb forever. I know Jesus has been given Sovereign Authority and I know He is one in Deity with the Father who is the First and the Last. But His spirit is begotten. He has His own spirit which is why the person of the Son is not the person of the Father.

I don't understand what your point is here.

My point is He calls the person of the Father the only true God. You don't need to believe my testimony just believe His.

 

[JLB]

I do my best to stick to language and meanings that were establish well over a thousand years ago.

Language and meanings of what?

The Roman Catholic councils?

Let’s all teach what the scriptures say; the doctrine of Christ.

If you were wise with the wisdom from above you would promote what the scriptures say and not the traditions of men.

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
2 John 9

 

[JLB]

Wrong I am the one who has shown you the fallacy of the doctrine of the trinity on several points.

He is begotten not eternally begotten and has a beginning at some point in history before the world began.

The only like to like begotten Son of the Father or the only begotten God. Yet He is not coeternal.

The Son does have that nature in Him as the fullness of the Deity of God our Father lives in Him and they are one. That Deity is the First and Last.

Not false in regard to your belief. True, the Son descended that is His spirit. The Spirit of a man did not descend. Your Jesus was created in Mary's womb.

All of Him ascended as well. "Father into your hands I commit "My" spirit"


Wrong -His spirit was in that body.
Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

The First born of all creation. The beginning of the creation of God. He is begotten-His spirit

Jesus calls the person of the Father the only true God. So again your mistaken in your belief.

How could Paul made it any clearer? One God identified as the Father and One Lord identified as Jesus. From God through the Son. Your seeking a logical away around what is clear is caused by the doctrine of the trinity not by truth. There is only one true Deity and it won't be from that deity and through that deity as stated from God through the Lord.

HE MADE -GOD's Deity through HIS Son. Just as God's Deity Spoke to us by His Son. The Father in the Son is how they are one NOT as you stating they are the only true God. I didn't misrepresent anything.

It's always been the church of the Firstborn. Clearly the writer understood who the Son was. The Deity in the Son created. God created by His Son. If Jesus wasn't the Fathers Son then whose Son was He? How is a coeternal person a begotten Son of another and from another person? I have repeatedly shown you the fallacy of such statements to deaf ears.

I have pointed out Firstborn can mean first.
He's the Firstborn from the dead.

It's the throne of God and the Lamb forever. I know Jesus has been given Sovereign Authority and I know He is one in Deity with the Father who is the First and the Last. But His spirit is begotten. He has His own spirit which is why the person of the Son is not the person of the Father.

My point is He calls the person of the Father the only true God. You don't need to believe my testimony just believe His.

Randy,

You are mixing together scriptures that teach us about Jesus in the state of a Man; whereby He was made a little lower than the angels.

I think we agree that Jesus, the Word became flesh; He became a little lower than the angels as a flesh and blood Man, who was born of a virgin.

Please look at the Son of God from the Old Testament to see Him as God;
God the Son, not God the Father.


Keep this simple truth in mind when you read the passage from the Old Testament.


No one in the Old Testament saw God the Father.

No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. John 1:18

Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. John 6:46


Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”
And he said, “Here I am.”
Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:1-6

And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.’ ” Exodus 3:14


In this encounter with the Angel of the LORD, Moses plainly said he was afraid to look upon God. The God who declared Himself as I AM.


Jesus plainly declared this to the Jews and as soon as He said it they immediately picked up stones to stone Him to death.


Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Then they took up stones to throw at Him; John 8:58-59


Can you please study and meditate on these scriptures and ask the Father to reveal the truth to you about who the Son truly is.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JLB,

This is inspired scripture.
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

I am surprised at your claim and that you need this passage to support your position.

The following is Barne's Notes on this verse:
There is no passage of the New Testament which has given rise to so much discussion in regard to its genuineness as this. The supposed importance of the verse in its bearing on the doctrine of the Trinity has contributed to this, and has given to the discussion a degree of consequence which has pertained to the examination of the genuineness of no other passage of the New Testament. On the one hand, the clear testimony which it seems to bear to the doctrine of the Trinity, has made that portion of the Christian church which holds the doctrine reluctant in the highest degree to abandon it; and on the other hand, the same clearness of the testimony to that doctrine, has made those who deny it not less reluctant to admit the genuineness of the passage. ....

The reasons which seem to me to prove that the passage included in brackets is spurious, and should not be regarded as a part of the inspired writings, are briefly the following:

I. It is missing in all the earlier Greek manuscripts, for it is found in no Greek manuscript written before the 16th century. Indeed, it is found in only two Greek manuscripts of any age - one the Codex Montfortianus, or Britannicus, written in the beginning of the sixteenth century, and the other the Codex Ravianus, which is a mere transcript of the text, taken partly from the third edition of Stephen's New Testament, and partly from the Complutensian Polyglott. But it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in all the early Greek manuscripts.

II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times. It is wanting in both the Syriac versions - one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.

III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity - a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine; and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5th century. If the passage were believed to be genuine - nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor - it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiassed mind, that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place, and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it. IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Randy]

Randy,

You are mixing together scriptures that teach us about Jesus in the state of a Man; whereby He was made a little lower than the angels.

I know your belief. It has introduced error not found in the NT. I'm only showing you that you believe in a created Son of Man in Mary's womb. Body and spirit despite stating the Son descended . A body was prepared for Him and the Son who was and His spirit descended from above and was in that body. This is not a issue as His spirit is not Deity. God His Father is the only Deity. The Deity that was pleased to dwell in Him is His God and Father who alone is unbegotten. And they are one as Jesus stated. The Fathers works Jesus performed testify to this oneness. And the Father in Him spoke to us in these last days by His Son. The Father is the source of all truth Jesus testified to.

I think we agree that Jesus, the Word became flesh; He became a little lower than the angels as a flesh and blood Man, who was born of a virgin.

We also believe He descended from above. What part of Him descended from above if not His own spirit as you believe in a crated Son of Man? You guys keep stating things are so without any reasonable explanation.

Please look at the Son of God from the Old Testament to see Him as God;
God the Son, not God the Father.

I see Him and the Father as ONE. He is all that the Father is. God He has a place on His Fathers throne. Sovereign Authority. Heaven and earth move at the command of the Son even so He abides within the framework of His Fathers will. The Father does whatever He is pleased to do. A difference shown.

Keep this simple truth in mind when you read the passage from the Old Testament.

No one in the Old Testament saw God the Father.

No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. John 1:18

The other variant found in Greek manuscripts is the only begotten God. Thats begotten as opposed to the made up and introduced error of "eternally begotten". A like to like begotten Son of the Father would be God. In order to maintain one God the Deity that lives in the Son would be the Fathers as from Him all things come. He is the source stated of all things. God created by His Son. God spoke to us by His Son, God reconciled all things to Himself through Christ blood on the cross. God exalted His Son above all others except Himself.

Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. John 6:46

I believe the Son who was descended from above and was in that body. You are the one who believes in a post creation created Son. A spirit of a Man. A spirit of a Man did not descend from above. Nor did a spirit of a man see the Father and appear in flesh. Hello?

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”
And he said, “Here I am.”
Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:1-6

And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.’ ” Exodus 3:14

Moses asked for a name.

In this encounter with the Angel of the LORD, Moses plainly said he was afraid to look upon God. The God who declared Himself as I AM.


Jesus plainly declared this to the Jews and as soon as He said it they immediately picked up stones to stone Him to death.


Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Then they took up stones to throw at Him; John 8:58-59

Jesus was not giving a name but addressing, "you are not 50 years old, and you have seen Abraham."
God's firstborn would be Before Abraham unlike the post creation spirit of a man you believe in.

Can you please study and meditate on these scriptures and ask the Father to reveal the truth to you about who the Son truly is.

I asked Jesus about the trinity. He is Gods firstborn and has always been the Son. I have given you the understanding I received from above but you don't like His answers. All I can give is sound reasoning and scripture.
Perhaps you should ask Jesus is this truth.
Is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.