Confusion re Statement of Faith

[Anth]

We believe that there is only one God, who is eternal and immutable, and manifests Himself in three distinct Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I happened upon the Statement of Faith thread and have copied a statement from the second and final post by Judy.

Admittedly, I am completely bewildered by the language. Most apparent is "who.... manifests HIMself in three distinct Persons...."

Much less grammatically incoherent, it simply doesn't make sense.

"Him" is a singular pronoun - it is NOT a plural pronoun. HIM (a single PERSON) manifesting as three PERSONS is well simply put a nonsensical statement. And, quite honestly begins to smack of Modalism.

What I am suggesting is a more articulate statement of the trinity. Perhaps something like -

"We believe in one divine being (vs. person) who, albeit a single essence, is tri-personal" Or, something along that line??

That at least makes sense at a basic communicative level (whether it is a valid article is a separate issue and not the subject of this thread).

The issue, albeit less troubling, is the statement, "...there is only one God..." when in fact trinitarian theology is noticeably more complex than this. Trinitarian theology - that which is being advocated - would seem better served by "...the one being of the Creator (= God) is composed on a single essence and three persons..." Thus on the level of essence, trinitarians are devout monotheists, whereas strictly on the level of persons, trinitarians are devout tri-theists (a form of polytheism); it simply depends on which aspect of the being of the Creator you are focused in any given context. One might say we are focused on the entire "being" of the Creator and therefore can maintain our devout monotheistic claim since indeed there is only one being - who just happens to have 3 personalities/persons/hypostases or whatever you will.

Anyway, please forgive me, but you can see how the common man finds "HIM" equalling "THEM" to cause a complete breakdown in reality. Perhaps a bit of re-writing to incorporate the more complex dynamic of the trinity along the lines of what I have suggested might help??

Sincerely,
In the man Christ Jesus,
Anth

 

[Solo]

13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. 14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. 15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. 16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. 17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. 18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace. James 3:13-18

 

[mondar]

We believe that there is only one God, who is eternal and immutable, and manifests Himself in three distinct Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I happened upon the Statement of Faith thread and have copied a statement from the second and final post by Judy.

Admittedly, I am completely bewildered by the language. Most apparent is "who.... manifests HIMself in three distinct Persons...."

Much less grammatically incoherent, it simply doesn't make sense.

"Him" is a singular pronoun - it is NOT a plural pronoun. HIM (a single PERSON) manifesting as three PERSONS is well simply put a nonsensical statement. And, quite honestly begins to smack of Modalism.

What I am suggesting is a more articulate statement of the trinity. Perhaps something like -

"We believe in one divine being (vs. person) who, albeit a single essence, is tri-personal" Or, something along that line??

That at least makes sense at a basic communicative level (whether it is a valid article is a separate issue and not the subject of this thread).

The issue, albeit less troubling, is the statement, "...there is only one God..." when in fact trinitarian theology is noticeably more complex than this. Trinitarian theology - that which is being advocated - would seem better served by "...the one being of the Creator (= God) is composed on a single essence and three persons..." Thus on the level of essence, trinitarians are devout monotheists, whereas strictly on the level of persons, trinitarians are devout tri-theists (a form of polytheism); it simply depends on which aspect of the being of the Creator you are focused in any given context. One might say we are focused on the entire "being" of the Creator and therefore can maintain our devout monotheistic claim since indeed there is only one being - who just happens to have 3 personalities/persons/hypostases or whatever you will.

Anyway, please forgive me, but you can see how the common man finds "HIM" equalling "THEM" to cause a complete breakdown in reality. Perhaps a bit of re-writing to incorporate the more complex dynamic of the trinity along the lines of what I have suggested might help??

Sincerely,
In the man Christ Jesus,
Anth

Anth,
I am glad you got the one essence = one God. To a degree I agree that the statement of faith could be worded better. It is a little fuzzy, but I dont see it as an issue. If you focus on the word "manifests" it sounds modalistic.
* On the other hand, when they say "and manifests Himself in three distinct Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." in the statement, please notice the word "distinct." Once "distinctions" are made within the Godhead, you do not have 3 modes, but three persons.

The part where I dont think you properly represent trinitarians is with your definition of a personality. You seem to equate personality with a being. Three personalities do not make three beings. Just because there are personality differences within the Godhead, does not make it three Gods.

You use the word "essence." The ancient trinitarians use some latin or greek form of our english word "essence" to define the one God. I have also seen the word "substance." However, the concept of a "substance" could imply a physical body, and of course trinitarians are not saying God has a Physical body (Except for Jesus after his incarnation).

It is obviously true that the concept of "trinity" is complex, and that careful vocabulary and definitions are needed. Distinctions between the concept of "person" and "being" are necessary for we who are trinitarians to express our point. To blur those distinctions would be to miss our point. Admitting to 3 persons does not make us tri-theists.

 

[Anth]

I am glad you got the one essence = one God. To a degree I agree that the statement of faith could be worded better.

Hi Mondar,

Thanks for the follow-up.

To clarify - I understand that trinitarian thought that one essence = one God; however, I think, at best, that this is a very weak type of monotheism and not nearly the singularity seen of Jah at least 10,000 times in the OT - which is clearly a singlur being (scripture knows nothing of neatly dividing a being into an essence and a person - this was a bit of sophistry introduced in the 2nd (cf. quote by Tertullian in an earlier post).

I do appreciate your recognition of the my point re: wording better. I think the issue is that regardless of what we believe, we want to clearly describe and not create confusion - which is what I believe this statement does. I agree that I may not have come up the best alternative - my examples were only meant as a movement in that direction.

Best,
Anth

 

[shad]

To clarify - I understand that trinitarian thought that one essence = one God; however, I think, at best, that this is a very weak type of monotheism and not nearly the singularity seen of Jah at least 10,000 times in the OT - which is clearly a singlur being (scripture knows nothing of neatly dividing a being into an essence and a person - this was a bit of sophistry introduced in the 2nd (cf. quote by Tertullian in an earlier post).

Anth,

You should know that Trinitarians believe Jah is Jesus.

.

 

[Joe67]

Much confusion is cleared by the victory over the wicked one; as John witnessed in his letter. 1 John 2:14.

Rev 15:2
2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire; and them that come off victorious from the beast, and from his image, and from the number of his name, standing by the sea of glass, having harps of God.
ASV

1 Cor 4:20
20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. ASV

Joe

 

[Paidion]

Just out of curiosity, in what way do your scriptural quotations which you offered without comment, Solo, and Joe, contribute to the discussion in this thread?

 

[Solo]

Just out of curiosity, in what way do your scriptural quotations which you offered without comment, Solo, and Joe, contribute to the discussion in this thread?

Ask the Holy Spirit.

 

[mondar]

... however, I think, at best, that this is a very weak type of monotheism and not nearly the singularity seen of Jah at least 10,000 times in the OT - which is clearly a singlur being (scripture knows nothing of neatly dividing a being into an essence and a person - this was a bit of sophistry introduced in the 2nd (cf. quote by Tertullian in an earlier post).

Two things....First, as a trinitarian, I have no problem with the YHWH, or any reference to Jah or any singular in the OT. The OT is clear that there is one God. I believe their are also references to God being the master (Ba'al) in the singular, and many personal pronouns in the OT referring to a singular God. Trinitarians affirm that God is a singular being, and can be referred to in the singular. The greater problem for trinitarians might be with be the plural references, such as Eloheim. I am not familiar with the translation issue of why both Jews and Gentile translators always use the singular for the plural Hebrew ending.

I would also see man as created in the image of the singular God who spoke in the plural and said "let us make man in our image."

Second, I recognize that it is a fact of history that the term "trinity" was coined by Tertullian in the 3ird century (or 2nd). Just because the term was coined in the 3ird century does not that earlier Christians had a different concept of the nature of God. I dont have any quotes, but my guess is that Polycarp, Clement of Rome, or many of the pre-Nicean Fathers would have seen Christ as fully God and of the same substance as the Father.

Why are non-trinitarians so fond of claiming Tertullian was the first trinitarian? I have yet to meet someone outright Arian in their theology. So then cannot we say that Arain theology or anything like it is the product of 3ird century theology?

 

[Anth]

Hi Mondar -

Thanks for the thought.

re: Tertuallian
The following quote should suffice not as establishing T- as the first trinitarian (he was one of many sophists that had crept into the church at that time) but that the trinity was not only the minority opinion but a scorned opinion by the faithful. This little gem is, oddly, totally avoided by trinitarians of a schollarly sort - as, likewise, I have even seen, all the monarchian strains that floated around.

Chapter III.â€â€Sundry Popular Fears and Prejudices. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity Rescued from These Misapprehensions.
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute 599the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation77907790 οἰκονÃ…μία. (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία . The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God).77917791 So Bp. Kaye, On Tertullian, p. 499. And so, as far as the sound goes, do even Latins (and ignorant ones too) pronounce the word in such a way that you would suppose their understanding of the μοναÃÂÇία (or Monarchy) was as complete as their pronunciation of the term. Well, then Latins take pains to pronounce the μοναÃÂÇία (or Monarchy), while Greeks actually refuse to understand the οἰκονομία, or Dispensation (of the Three in One). As for myself, however, if I have gleaned any knowledge of either language, I am sure that μοναÃÂÇία (or Monarchy) has no other meaning than single and individual77927792 Unicum. rule; but for all that, this monarchy does not, because it is the government of one, preclude him whose government it is, either from having a son, or from having made himself actually a son to himself,

re: Elohim
You need to understand Hebrew - just because it is plural in form does not mean it is plural in reference. We have similar forms - but we rarely think about them (they are not common) but if you watched enough English - I suspect you would see a few form anamolies - yet with the intent clear.

re: Jah
The problem in this matter is that trinities divide being into "person" and "nature" (albeit sometimes ascribing a given characteristic to either the one or the other - depending the scripture at hand. An obvious example regards "the will". The use of a singlue pronoun - of a very clear singular Jah speaking throughout the OT (in about 10,000 different instances) is far too compelling to overrule a few passages that non-Hebrews have been unable to properly exegete.

Best,
Anth

 

[mondar]

Hi Mondar -

Thanks for the thought.

re: Tertuallian
The following quote should suffice not as establishing T- as the first trinitarian (he was one of many sophists that had crept into the church at that time) but that the trinity was not only the minority opinion but a scorned opinion by the faithful. This little gem is, oddly, totally avoided by trinitarians of a schollarly sort - as, likewise, I have even seen, all the monarchian strains that floated around.

Chapter III.â€â€Sundry Popular Fears and Prejudices. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity Rescued from These Misapprehensions.
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute 599the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation77907790 οἰκονÃ…μία. (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία . The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God).77917791 So Bp. Kaye, On Tertullian, p. 499. And so, as far as the sound goes, do even Latins (and ignorant ones too) pronounce the word in such a way that you would suppose their understanding of the μοναÃÂÇία (or Monarchy) was as complete as their pronunciation of the term. Well, then Latins take pains to pronounce the μοναÃÂÇία (or Monarchy), while Greeks actually refuse to understand the οἰκονομία, or Dispensation (of the Three in One). As for myself, however, if I have gleaned any knowledge of either language, I am sure that μοναÃÂÇία (or Monarchy) has no other meaning than single and individual77927792 Unicum. rule; but for all that, this monarchy does not, because it is the government of one, preclude him whose government it is, either from having a son, or from having made himself actually a son to himself,

Anth, we went over this already.... I agreed that the term trinity was first used by Tertullian. I believe that I mentioned that the concept of the full deity of Jesus Christ was also present among those before Tertullian.

It seems to be that you assume as long as you can show that the term was first used by Tertullian, that should be sufficient to prove that I should not see Jesus as fully God. I dont agree that this is proper evidence. While the term "trinity" was not used to describe the doctrine that Jesus was just as divine as the Father, but they were separate persons, yet one God. Tertullian merely put a name to that doctrine.

As an illustration....It would be similar to Calvinism. Calvinism describes a high view of the sovereignty of God in salvation. You could even look at the acrostic TULIP which came after the synod of Dort. Yet the higher view of of the sovereignty of God in salvation was long before Calvin or the synod of Dort. Augustine and many of the ECFs behind the 2nd council of orange, Waldo, Wycliffe, Huss, and many other lesser known men were big on predestination. Some were so big on predestination and election we could call them Calvinists if the term had been invented earlier.

Just the same, those who had a high view of the complete deity of Jesus Christ before Tertullian would have been called "Trinitarians" had the term been invented. They did not have to express the doctrine in all its fullness as Tertullian did, but could speak of the absolute and complete deity of Christ, and his equality with the Father.

re: Elohim
You need to understand Hebrew - just because it is plural in form does not mean it is plural in reference. We have similar forms - but we rarely think about them (they are not common) but if you watched enough English - I suspect you would see a few form anamolies - yet with the intent clear.

Actually your point above carries some weight, but.... you make the same identical argument based upon the singuar use of Jah, the argument of Eloheim is identical. If your argument concerning the singular Jah carries any weight, then this argument should carry the same identical weight.

re: Jah
The problem in this matter is that trinities divide being into "person" and "nature"

We recognize that Christ is a different "person" from the Father, but why do you say "nature?" If the term "nature" refers to attributes, I would say that they have one and the same nature.

(albeit sometimes ascribing a given characteristic to either the one or the other - depending the scripture at hand.

I am not sure I grasp your use of the term "characteristic." I would say that the Father and Son could have changed roles if they had so chosen. They both have the ability to preform the others tasks. Their choice is based upon personality, not characteristics. What scripture and what writer are you referring to?

An obvious example regards "the will". The use of a singlue pronoun - of a very clear singular Jah speaking throughout the OT (in about 10,000 different instances) is far too compelling to overrule a few passages that non-Hebrews have been unable to properly exegete.

Best,
Anth

Differences in the persons of the Godhead is not explicit in the OT. I recognize that. This is not to say that in certain passages there the differences in person are not implicit. God made man in "our" image. The explicit scriptural teaching on the nature of the separate persons of the godhead did not come until after the incarnation of Christ.

 

[francisdesales]

re: Tertuallian
The following quote should suffice not as establishing T- as the first trinitarian (he was one of many sophists that had crept into the church at that time) but that the trinity was not only the minority opinion but a scorned opinion by the faithful. This little gem is, oddly, totally avoided by trinitarians of a schollarly sort - as, likewise, I have even seen, all the monarchian strains that floated around.

It appears your sophistry has leaked over to this thread, as well.

Yet again, you change the very words that Tertullian used, as well as the meaning. In the immediately preceding chapter, Tertullian defends his interpretation of the relationship between the Father and Son as part of the RULE OF FAITH. He claims that Praxeas is the innovator. He calls upon the common witness of the Church, saying his interpretation is the correct one. Then, in chapter three, Tertullian states that the SIMPLE MINDED were STARTLED. Not that they scorned.

Do you think just ignoring and not addressing what was written in that previous post makes you correct?

I have also given you citations from Scriptures which you never addressed that show Paul was in the same boat as Tertullian. The simple infant Christians were not ready for the meat of more sublime teachings. This is what Tertullain is saying. Do you then claim that Paul was a sophist as well? That is what you are claiming...

It is ludicrious to think that Tertullian is claiming he is teaching the rule of faith in chapter 2 and then going to chapter 3 and admitting that his interpretation was SCORNED. Such interpretation is a clear case of ignoring what was said to poke at a word to suit your fancy.

Even today, many are STARTLED by the deeper meaning of the Triune God. This is not cause to change the term to SCORN...

So let's try not call people sophist when you yourself are exhibiting those qualities with your changing words and contexts...

However, to end on a positive note, I will say that many Christians of the first two centuries were probably Monarchian, since most did not contemplate fully the relationship between the Father and Son to the degree required to take into account the Scripturesa and Apostolic Traditions taught. But as we know, Church doctrine is not determined by majority vote but by the Spirit working through His Church...

 

[Joe67]

Just out of curiosity, in what way do your scriptural quotations which you offered without comment, Solo, and Joe, contribute to the discussion in this thread?

Paidion,

Is your question directed toward the particular scriptures and the testimony of the spirit through them; or was it directed toward questioning the words of scripture as a means of discussion?

Paul's testimony to the Corinthians speaks as the mind that God has given me in this question of the words of our communication with our fellow man.
1 Cor 2:2-5
2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4 And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. NAS

Until God gives us as young men to overcome the wicked one, there remains much confusion in our thoughts concerning questions. We are the children of God through God's free forgiveness by the blood of Jesus. Children are not sent out to battle against the wicked one. The battle for children is to deal with the lusts of their flesh, appetite and passion.

When the Lord, our God, arms us for the warfare our weapons are not with uncertainty, but our weapons are yes and amen in Jesus Christ, the eternal Lamb of God, standing as it were slain, in the middle of the throne of God.

The making of many books there is not End(Christ, the end of the law/books/words for righteousness).

Joe

 

[Anth]

Mondar

Lots of good question - I am open to breaking them down one at a time. First, I need to clarify a misconception you have of what I am sharing regarding the passage from T-

It seems to be that you assume as long as you can show that the term was first used by Tertullian, that should be sufficient to prove that I should not see Jesus as fully God. I dont agree that this is proper evidence. While the term "trinity" was not used to describe the doctrine that Jesus was just as divine as the Father, but they were separate persons, yet one God. Tertullian merely put a name to that doctrine.

T-'s first use of the term is not really relevant. Please read the entire text. What is relevant is primarily seen in the following two portions of the text"

599the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation77907790 οἰκονÃ…μία. (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God

They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God;

First, the majority of believers were not only NOT trinitarian - as T- confesses (first quote) BUT were ANTI-TRINITARIAN (second quote). This is patently obvious - I assume you can see this ??

I believe that I mentioned that the concept of the full deity of Jesus Christ was also present among those before Tertullian.

First, the textual evidence of the early post-apostolic authors that even remain is scant (many became simply figments of history). Second, the references made by those writers to Jesus' ontology is mixed - even in T- to some extent - his conception is not the same as the formal Chalcedon Christology. This demonstrates that Trinitarian theology was a development - in this case a late development as evidenced by T-s statement regarding the majority of believers who were strongly opposed to this teaching being brought into the Church of Jesus Christ.

If you and I can get on board concerning these obvious issues - at least the force of the T- passage - we can work from here.

Best,
In Christ,
Anth

 

[dadof10]

It appears your sophistry has leaked over to this thread, as well.

Yet again, you change the very words that Tertullian used, as well as the meaning. In the immediately preceding chapter, Tertullian defends his interpretation of the relationship between the Father and Son as part of the RULE OF FAITH. He claims that Praxeas is the innovator. He calls upon the common witness of the Church, saying his interpretation is the correct one. Then, in chapter three, Tertullian states that the SIMPLE MINDED were STARTLED. Not that they scorned.

Do you think just ignoring and not addressing what was written in that previous post makes you correct?

I have also given you citations from Scriptures which you never addressed that show Paul was in the same boat as Tertullian. The simple infant Christians were not ready for the meat of more sublime teachings. This is what Tertullain is saying. Do you then claim that Paul was a sophist as well? That is what you are claiming...

It is ludicrious to think that Tertullian is claiming he is teaching the rule of faith in chapter 2 and then going to chapter 3 and admitting that his interpretation was SCORNED. Such interpretation is a clear case of ignoring what was said to poke at a word to suit your fancy.

Even today, many are STARTLED by the deeper meaning of the Triune God. This is not cause to change the term to SCORN...

So let's try not call people sophist when you yourself are exhibiting those qualities with your changing words and contexts...

However, to end on a positive note, I will say that many Christians of the first two centuries were probably Monarchian, since most did not contemplate fully the relationship between the Father and Son to the degree required to take into account the Scripturesa and Apostolic Traditions taught. But as we know, Church doctrine is not determined by majority vote but by the Spirit working through His Church...

Joe,

It seems as if you and I are on Anth's "ignore" list, along with questions, common sense, Truth, humility and integrity. At least we're in good company. ;)

 

[Free]

Must this turn into a debate on the Trinity? There are plenty of threads around on that. The Statement of Faith is trinitarian and that is the end of it.

 

[dadof10]

Must this turn into a debate on the Trinity? There are plenty of threads around on that. The Statement of Faith is trinitarian and that is the end of it.

Yes, plenty...all of a sudden...Huuummmmm...

 

[francisdesales]

This demonstrates that Trinitarian theology was a development - in this case a late development as evidenced by T-s statement regarding the majority of believers who were strongly opposed to this teaching being brought into the Church of Jesus Christ.

Of course Trinitarian theology is a development.

So was the canon of Scripture. What is your point? Christ established a divinely protected body of men who would bind and loosen, not a bible. The Bible was obviously a later development of the Church, by the Church, and for the Church...

Thus, your point about "development" is moot.

 

[francisdesales]

Joe,

It seems as if you and I are on Anth's "ignore" list, along with questions, common sense, Truth, humility and integrity. At least we're in good company. ;)

Yep. Not that it matters, since he didn't address anything we said, anyways... What is funny is how he is so arrogant while speaking of the "spirit of Christ"...

Regards

 

[Solo]

The Bible was obviously a later development of the Church, by the Church, and for the Church...

Not true. God used the Scriptures throughout His dealing with mankind. The term "It is written is found 80 times in the King James Version of Scripture in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. Also the preaching of the "Word of God" is essential in the salvation of each and every person born again, born of God. The church is not shown in the Word of God as those who LORD over the believers, but as those who serve the believers. The Holy Spirit gives the Word of God to the body of Christ through His body of believers through the gifts of the Spirit. This operation is not implemented or practiced by the works of man; but by the works of God Himself. All teachings that contradict the Word of God are teachings of the devil himself.