The Trinity

[JLB]

I want to stay as close to the orthodox language as I can while still explaining things in my own words.

I want to use scripture to make my points.

Much of what some call Orthodoxy comes from Catholic Creeds.

 

[JLB]

Well yes, Jesus was God before he became a man. He was, technically, a distinct Person with God, as His Word, who would be revealed as a man. Since he became a man, we have to see him from eternity as a distinct Person in the Divine Being.

A distinct Person?

Ok. So each of us must try and find ways to express the unseen Divinity of God.

I have asked this before, with no answer.

Do you believe God the Father is God individually?
Do you believe the Son is God individually?
Do you believe the Holy Spirit is God individually?

What do the Creeds say about this?
What does Orthodoxy say about this?

 

[RandyK]

I want to use scripture to make my points.

Much of what some call Orthodoxy comes from Catholic Creeds.

Yes, but I personally love the Creeds. A lot of good work went into the work of maintaining a biblical attitude towards God and Christ. Without them we would've gone off the rails.

Clearly, you've done some thinking on the subject and should be able to appreciate how difficult it is to describe and explain these things? I try to do so with an attitude of learning without sacrificing sincere questions I have about how some of the language is perceived.

We are descended from Catholicism, in one form or another. As a Protestant, my heritage has been to opposed Modern Catholicism, where pripheral matters calcified into traditions and dogmas. But to write off the entire history of Catholicism is a big mistake in my feeling.

In effect, Modern Catholicism seemed to us Protestants to be claiming equal authority with the apostles and the Scriptures. I question not just that but also the claim of the RCC to be the predominant head over the Church--a role I think only Christ can fill.

 

[RandyK]

A distinct Person?

Yes, I have to fall back on orthodoxy here. The Bible indicates that Jesus was "with God." That indicates a distinct Person within the Divine plurality. I can't say I know what form this takes--I just say that Jesus was the Word who was "with God."

But I've tried to explain my thinking on this. I have to see Jesus as being both God and Man because we know he was a Man, and we are told he was God. So how was he "with God?"

I can only say that he is being distinguished as a Person from God as a Divine plurality because we now know him as a distinct person in his form as a man. And since his human revelation is being generated from the eternal God, we would see him as both the eternal God and the eternal Word of revelation who had been "with God." Very difficult!

Ok. So each of us must try and find ways to express the unseen Divinity of God.

Yes, but we have to use language that does not confuse Scriptural dogma.

I have asked this before, with no answer.

Do you believe God the Father is God individually?

Each Person--Father, Son, and Spirit are God yes. So, I've answered your question.

Do you believe the Son is God individually?
Do you believe the Holy Spirit is God individually?

What do the Creeds say about this?
What does Orthodoxy say about this?

The Creeds avoid the conflict of the formula "One Person = Three Persons." CRI had a problem with me on this, and our brother has a problem with me on this, and I fully understand this. "One Person," as I use the word "Person" here, is not in the same category as the "Three Persons."

We pray to God as a single God--we do not pray to Him as a plurality, even though that may be what we're doing in effect. We pray, "Our Father who art in heaven." We do not pray, "Our Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who are together in heaven." So, it can get confusing.

The language is given in the Creeds to avoid misunderstandings with calling God a single "Person." To call God a "single Person" could have, for some, the sense that the Son and the Spirit cannot be called God. But these are distinct Persons who are each Divine, and somehow all reflect the one God.

The Creeds describe the "One God" as a "Being" and a "Divine Substance," consisting of a plurality of Persons including the ones we now know as Father, Son, and Spirit. "Three Persons" and "One Substance."

 

[Free]

The driving force behind your belief is not the NT but the doctrine of the Trinity. (coeternal)

No, the driving force is the truth of Scripture regarding the nature of God and taking all of it into account and making the most sense of all of it, not just those parts that are easy to understand.

That because the Deity in the Son is in fact God,

There is no "Deity in the Son;" the Son is God, he is true deity in and of himself.

His Father who is the source of all things and is in fact unbegotten. A term not found in the NT of the Son who is the First begotten or only begotten Son of God His Father.

I agree, and none of that means that the Son isn't also truly God.

Let me ask you when you state that Jesus has always been the Son does that me to you God's offspring or a child of the Father as the word son implies?

Yes, but not in the same way as with humans, as I have pointed out.

I don't use coeternal it's not needed nor applicable.

It is absolutely needed, precisely because it is applicable. To leave that out is to make the Son less than he is; it is to leave out something that the Bible teaches.

God our Father is unbegotten and is the Deity of the First and Last. There is no other Deity no matter how many persons you assign to that Deity. His Deity created all things and by His will they were created and have their being. It's His Deity in the Son that created by His will and command. His Deity is the source of truth that Jesus testified to. God created by His Son just as God spoke to us on these last days by His Son. From God our Father all things come.

Yes, and all things came through the Son, meaning that the Son cannot have come into being.

Through Jesus our Lord all things come.

You cannot make that claim, because Jesus cannot come through himself. Such an idea is self-refuting and, therefore, should be discarded.

Jesus also states He's the beginning of the creation of God.

It doesn't mean that he was the first creature. It means he is the author of creation, the creator. A similar idea is seen here:

Act 3:15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. (ESV)

That He has a God and Father.

He has a God as the incarnate Son of God, the God-man, yes.

The First and Last does NOT have a God nor Father.

That depends. Yahweh refers to himself as the first and the last, but, as the three verses I provided show, Jesus also refers to himself with that title.

The Son is not our Father God is.

Of course not.

He is our Lord.

Of course he is and that doesn't mean he isn't also truly God.

He does state the person of the Father is the only true God and His God and our God, His Father and our Father.

He states a lot more than that. To ignore all those other things is to take things out of context.

The Son is Not our Father God is.

Nothing I have said would indicate otherwise.

Again, its the doctrine of the trinity that causes you to look elsewhere from what should be clear.

No, it is the doctrine of the Trinity that is clearly taught throughout; it is what makes the best sense of everything God reveals about himself in the Bible.

Is this the Shema?
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

No, that is not the Shema. The Shema is Deut. 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (ESV)

Now, note what Paul says:

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
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)

That is, Paul is taking "The LORD our God, the LORD is one," and expanding it to "there is one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ." And, very importantly, the context of that is over against polytheism and its false gods and false lords. In other words, Paul is refuting polytheism and its "so-called gods," by saying that the one God of Deut. 6:4 (and throughout the OT), is both the Father and the Son.

 

[Free]

Gods Deity would be stated as the source of all things. Its not from and through that Deity. Its from God our Father and through Jesus our Lord.

It's both from and through. This exactly what we're shown in John 1:1-3, where the Word was both "with God" and "was God." That is, distinct from God but also truly God in nature. There is simply no getting around that fact. Paul then repeats that in Pihl. 2:6-8.

Its God created through/by His Son just as God spoke to us by His Son. The Deity in the Son doing His work is the person of the Father the only true God.

No. It is the Son who created

God our Father. Jesus is not our Father.

Of course. There is no way to get that from anything I have stated.

From one through the other. Just because I dispute your logic which actually is not yours, but the doctrine of the trinity doesn't mean I haven't addressed the issue. We disagree.

It's true, the logic isn't mine--it just is, because it's logic. It clearly refutes your position and you haven't provided any adequate rebuttal, and in most cases, haven't even responded.

Even the Watchtower, of JW's, understands the implication of the logic I have used. Here is an example.

Col. 1:15-17: 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist, (NWT)

That is what the current edition of the NWT states. The previous edition stated it as:

Col. 1:15-17: 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things, and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, (NWT)

One of the main functions of square brackets is to show something that has been inserted that was not in the original text. First, it's not hard to see what they did. They first inserted "[other]" because that isn't in the Greek text. That can be confirmed by looking at their Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. Second, they have now very deceptively removed the square brackets to make it look as those "other" is actually in the Greek text.

My main point though, is: Why? Clearly to avoid the very logical conclusion that you simply dismiss altogether. They rightly recognized the impossibility of what Paul plainly states--"all things were created through him"--while holding to their actual belief, which is that Jesus is not also truly God in nature. That is, they correctly saw the contradiction of believing both that the Son was created and that all things were created through him. So, they tried to get around that contradiction by inserting "other," to (supposedly) show that the Son was created (begotten; firstborn) and that it was through him that everything else was created.

But that is to do violence to the text, which unequivocally states:

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)

John not only states the exact same thing, he repeats it in a negative sense just to make sure that the first claim--"All things were made through him"--is even more clear:

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

If the Son was made, if he came into being, then John is either lying or just plain wrong, because it would mean that there actually was one thing that was made without him. Of course, that would mean John wasn't inspired to write such a thing, and that would completely undermines the inspiration of Scripture.

Note that what the JW's teach, and twist their Bible to make fit, is exactly the same as what you believe. But, while they have acknowledged the irreconcilable difficulty by falsely and deceptively inserting "other," you just ignore the contradiction. Both responses are unfaithful to what the Bible teaches.

In this context.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.

This is an irreconcilable contradiction. Both of those claims cannot be true. Again, if the Son "is all that the Father is," then it necessarily follows that he is also true deity and therefore also eternal.

It violates the law of non-contradiction, one of the fundamental principles in logic. God's nature is such that either either a being is or isn't God. It cannot be the case that a being is both God and not God. There is God and then there is everything else, all of creation.

Thomas did state such and it is a truthful accounting of what took place, but it is not a doctrine defined. I believe Jesus is before all things except God His Father.

It's hard not to notice that Jesus never once rebuked his followers for worshipping him, which would have been blasphemy if he wasn't truly also God, nor did he rebuke Thomas for calling him both his Lord and his God. Now go back and look again at 1 Cor. 8:6.

One Deity. It's the Fathers always and by His will it lives in His Firstborn.

"Firstborn" meaning simply that the Son has the rights and privileges as one who is firstborn, a position of sovereignty, not that he came into existence. It is to prove the true deity of the Son as creator, while showing his relationship to the Father. Again, to make Col. 1:15 say that the Son came into being, is to be in direct contradiction with what follows in verses 16-17. Since verses 16-17 are very clear, they are to interpret what is meant by "firstborn" in verse 15, as that is more ambiguous, seen in its various uses throughout the Bible.

Your driven by the trinity.

Again, I'm driven by trying to make sense of all that God reveals of himself in Scripture, even those things that are difficult and which at first may appear contradictory.

 

[Free]

Please explain what you mean, YHWH isn’t the Son, but the Son is YHWH.

I did explain it. The problem is, you're ignoring the context: YHWH is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Free]

Here is a great video that explains the language of the Nicene Creed:

Chapter 6, which explains "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," is particularly interesting (links are in the description).

 

[Randy]

Here is a great video that explains the language of the Nicene Creed:

Chapter 6, which explains "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," is particularly interesting (links are in the description).

God, my father is not from any other in any context. He is unbegotten.
So you must be speaking of His Son?? The only begotten.

You did not read
This is eternal life that they know us the only true God.

 

[Randy]

You say you answered my question over and over but again I don’t see your answer here.

Please pick one of these answers so I understand what you mean:

Do you believe the only begotten Son is:

God
Angel
Human
Other

You left out one.
He is the Son.

About that Son, I did answer you.
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.

 

[Free]

God, my father is not from any other in any context. He is unbegotten.
So you must be speaking of His Son?? The only begotten.

God the Father is unbegotten, of course. I have never denied that. God the Son is begotten, but you must properly understand what "begotten" means with reference to the Son.

I highly recommend watching chapters 5-8 in the video, to learn what historic, orthodox Christianity teaches.

You did not read
This is eternal life that they know us the only true God.

Why should we expect to read that when Jesus was upholding monotheism? What should we expect God (the Son) in human flesh to say about the same God (the Father) who remains in heaven? What we do read is:

Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (ESV)

And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, there is additional context:

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

Again, that is the glory which God said he would not give to another. It is the glory that John says Isaiah saw of Jesus, or rather the Son. Yet, in Isa. 6:1-5, Isaiah clearly says he was seeing "the King, the LORD of hosts!"; he says he saw Yahweh. It can't be that Isaiah saw the glory of the Son when Isaiah says he saw the glory of Yahweh, unless the Son is also Yahweh. Which is rather John's point from the beginning to the end of his gospel, and that the Son isn't the Father.

Also, what does "before the world existed" mean? It can only mean what John stated already in 1:1a--that when the beginning began, when the very first thing was created, the Word (the preincarnate Son) was already in existence. That means he could not have been created, which is affirmed with 1:1c and verses 2-3.

 

[Randy]

God the Father is unbegotten, of course. I have never denied that. God the Son is begotten, but you must properly understand what "begotten" means with reference to the Son.

The Son is not coeternal He is begotten. There is no history of the usage of the only begotten child of a parent that means no beginning. The church just stated eternally begotten or begotten but not made.

I highly recommend watching chapters 5-8 in the video, to learn what historic, orthodox Christianity teaches.

I asked Jesus about the trinity.

Why should we expect to read that when Jesus was upholding monotheism? What should we expect God (the Son) in human flesh to say about the same God (the Father) who remains in heaven? What we do read is:

Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (ESV)

that they know "You" thats not Jesus. "and" does not state Jesus is the only true God and contradicts Him calling the person of the Father the only true God.

I understand your belief "this is eternal life that they know "us" the only true God. I just didn't read that.

And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, there is additional context:

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

I believe Jesus was before the world began.

Again, that is the glory which God said he would not give to another. It is the glory that John says Isaiah saw of Jesus, or rather the Son. Yet, in Isa. 6:1-5, Isaiah clearly says he was seeing "the King, the LORD of hosts!"; he says he saw Yahweh. It can't be that Isaiah saw the glory of the Son when Isaiah says he saw the glory of Yahweh, unless the Son is also Yahweh. Which is rather John's point from the beginning to the end of his gospel, and that the Son isn't the Father.

God the Father is shown on His throne in Heaven worshipped by the Host of Heaven. He did not give His glory away. He glorified His Son above all other except Himself. Jesus sat down with His Father on His Fathers throne.
Again, Jesus has a God and Father who He calls the only true God. God, my Father does not have a God or Father. Seems a very strong distinction shown between God, our Father and Jesus our Lord.

Also, what does "before the world existed" mean? It can only mean what John stated already in 1:1a--that when the beginning began, when the very first thing was created, the Word (the preincarnate Son) was already in existence. That means he could not have been created, which is affirmed with 1:1c and verses 2-3.

It doesn't mean coeternal. It does mean He was alive before the world began and that does not preclude God from creating through Him. There is only one Deity. It's not from that Deity and through the Deity at the same time. The Deity spoke to us in these last days by His Son. The Deity created by His Son. The Deity is the person of the Father the only true God.

The Deity is our Father and Jesus's Father. Jesus is not our Father. How is that so if Jesus is that Deity?

The Deity is shown IN Him as opposed to being Him.
Col 1:19 -From the will of another
Col 2:9

I believe this.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him

 

[JLB]

I did explain it. The problem is, you're ignoring the context: YHWH is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

What context are you referring to?

We are descended from Catholicism, in one form or another.

I totally disagree with this.

The Church is descended from Jesus and the Apostles and their disciples which many refer to the early church fathers.

Catholicism is a man made religion that comprises paganism and Christianity.

Catholicism is much like Judaism, another man made religion that comprises the traditions (teachings) of man and the law of Moses. Judaism deny’s Jesus as Messiah.

Catholicism is responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Christians, who were branded as heretics because they refused to recognize the Pope and the teachings of Catholicism.

Read Foxes book of Martyrs, or the Scottish Covenanters.

 

[JLB]

You left out one.
He is the Son.

About that Son, I did answer you.
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.

Here is my question again from post 967.
What do you believe the Father begot when He beget His Son?

What is the Son?

God
Human
Angel
Other

 

[RandyK]

The Church is descended from Jesus and the Apostles and their disciples which many refer to the early church fathers.

Catholicism is a man made religion that comprises paganism and Christianity.

He who confesses the Son confesses the Father also. Nobody can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit.

Catholics have done this from the start, where they were just one of five patriarchates. Were all five corrupt, in your view?

Who in Europe maintained apostolic Christianity such that in our time we can have it too? Did you know the Protestants originated from Catholicism? Luther only rebelled against an apostate form of Catholicism.

1 John 2.23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

1 Cor 12.3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Luther rejected the radical Anabaptists who refused to acknowledge any form of Christianity but themselves. They sometimes ended up in heresy, for lack of oversight. And they sometimes resorted to violence, having a mob mentality. I don't want to go there, even if the more mainline churches suffer spiritual decline and compromise.

Paul acknowledged that even he could not lay claim to the entire earth, and acknowledged that God appointed men to exercise their spiritual authority in certain regions.

2 Cor 10.15 Neither do we go beyond our limits by boasting of work done by others.

Luke 9.50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

God has used many Christian denominations in history. To reach every nation and every language there had to be many outreaches of various kinds. There is no one single movement that is over all, orchestrating them all under a particular organization. Christ is the head.

Some Christian movements have suffered serious spiritual decline and compromise. Others continue to be used by God. We can recognize these things without abandoning all historical works of God that we now look at with disdain.

The heart of God is to continue to reach out even to fallen religious people, just as He is doing with Israel. To create a complete divide between them and us is to slam the door shut on God's love, in my opinion.

 

[Randy]

Here is my question again from post 967.
What do you believe the Father begot when He beget His Son?

What is the Son?

God
Human
Angel
Other

It's not what is the Son it's whose Son is He. That should be clear to you God, His Father. He is God's offspring. The Firstborn of God.
What was formed? His spirit. The fullness was not formed but gifted. It is and always shall be the Deity of God, our Father who is the only true God that was pleased to dwell in the Son.
The Son who was, His spirit, was in the body prepared for Him and we read the Father was living in Him. We read the one from above speaks Gods words for God gives the Spirit without limit.
"Father into your hands I commit "MY" spirit" A spirit of a being is that being and never changes. To state Jesus had a human spirit newly formed in Mary's womb is mistaken introduced error. Whether you believe that or not the church states that is so.

Again, He is the Son and He is all that the Father is. (God in that context)
He is not coeternal. He is the only begotten as opposed to God, His Father who alone is unbegotten and the Father of all spirits which begin with the one we call Jesus, His firstborn. Col 1:19 is unique to the Firstborn among all God's children. The only begotten God.

 

[RandyK]

It's not what is the Son it's whose Son is He. That should be clear to you God, His Father. He is God's offspring. The Firstborn of God.

Randy, God's Son is a unique kind of "Son." I think you would agree? He is not just revealed as a man, but he preexisted his human revelation as God the Creator.

So when we talk about "God's Son" we are not just talking about his revelation as a man. Much more, we are talking about preexistent Deity assuming the form of a man by the eternal Word of God, by an eternal generation from God and appearing to us.

To humanize "God's Son" as a secondary "firstborn" does not properly credit him with Deity. And this is heresy, if this is not acknowledged.

Again, He is the Son and He is all that the Father is. (God in that context)

Jesus is "God" with a caveat? He is generated from God but not actually the God who generates his human revelation?

He is not coeternal.

If the Son is not coeternal with the Father then he is not God at all. An essential attribute of Deity is the attribute of eternal existence.

He is the only begotten as opposed to God, His Father who alone is unbegotten and the Father of all spirits which begin with the one we call Jesus, His firstborn. Col 1:19 is unique to the Firstborn among all God's children. The only begotten God.

The Son is described as "begotten" because he became a man. The Father reserves His space as a Person distinct from the Son. Otherwise, God would necessarily be associated with a human form for all eternity. And that obviously was not true before the Son became a man!

You are entirely heterodox in your teaching. The Father and Son are both Divine. They are co-eternal. And they are both Persons in the Deity who remain distinct as Persons. The Creeds worked all of this out. And your aim appears to side with the heretics?