Doctrine of the Trinity – Is it Fundamental to the Christian Faith

[jaybird]

Jesus said he was the Son of God. The Jews said he was making himself God. True or false. Judge for yourself. Who was justified? Then how is your claim justified?

Jesus and John called the pharisees sons of the devil, they also said Jesus was a blasphemer, going to kill Himself and all the rest. i think i believe Jesus over the sons of the biggest liar ever.

 

[ezra]

The foundation should be "truth" as in Jesus used truth. WE are only discussing the relationship between Father and SON and Holy Spirit. Jesus is still Christ the Lord who was crucified and raised from the dead and is currently, by the command of God, seated at the right hand of power in heaven UNTIL His enemies are made His footstool. No one gets to the "Father" except by Him. And No one enters the kingdom of God except by him. Jesus is the mediator between God and man. HE is Christ the Lord the Son of the living God.

{Doctrine of the Trinity – Is it Fundamental to the Christian Faith} answer yes it is

 

[Randy]

{Doctrine of the Trinity – Is it Fundamental to the Christian Faith} answer yes it is

Jesus is fundamental to the christian faith and who he is according to Peter is christ the lord the son of the living God. Which I agree.

 

[Randy]

So therefore you would agree that the Son pre-existed the creation of the world, right?

Same question of the Father and the Holy Spirit, both pre-existed the creation of the world, on your view.

yes - Jesus is Gods firstborn and has always been the Son.
The Father and his spirit have no beginning found in scripture.
What is found states
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me

So "if" the Father has a beginning it couldn't be by any other being.

 

[chessman]

The Father and his spirit have no beginning found in scripture.

The Father and the Holy Spirit have no beginning found in Scripture.

But what of the Son, do you believe the Son has a beginning?

 

[Randy]

The Father and the Holy Spirit have no beginning found in Scripture.

But what of the Son, do you believe the Son has a beginning?

Yes, a beginning but no end. Jesus has a God who defined His being- The one he has claimed all along, the Father. He is Gods firstborn. Before any other living being And the fullness was pleased to dwell IN Him. Jesus the son is not that fullness in himself. It is the fullness of the living God and there is only One God. The Father.
Hebrews 1:6

 

[chessman]

I asked about the beginning of the Son, not of Jesus (the Son incarnate in living flesh).

Yes, a beginning but no end.

Upon what OT or NT Scripture do you base a belief that "the Son" had a beginning? (Not Jesus of Nazareth, but "the Son". We both, it seems, believe the Son pre-existed the creation of the world. We differ in that it is my belief the Son has no beginning just as His Father has no beginning.

Are you suggesting that the Father, at some point in the past, had no Son? How could He be the Father without a Son???

 

[Randy]

I asked about the beginning of the Son, not of Jesus (the Son incarnate in living flesh).


Upon what OT or NT Scripture do you base a belief that "the Son" had a beginning? (Not Jesus of Nazareth, but "the Son". We both, it seems, believe the Son pre-existed the creation of the world. We differ in the it is my belief the Son has no beginning just as His Father has no beginning.

Are you suggesting that the Father, at some point in the past, had no Son? How could He be the Father without a Son???

Col 1:15
Hebrews 1:6
hebrews 12:23
Jesus has his own spirit the Father is His God and there is only one God

your biased because of the doctrine of the trinity

 

[MarkT]

So then we should throw it out because extremists go over-the-top and take things into their own hands? If that's the case, Protestantism should be thrown out because that is what happened but it was never what Martin Luther wanted. Or, let's take it a step further and consider the persecutions at the hands of Christians and throw out Christianity itself. Dare I call to mind the Crusades for example?

The moment we discard the trinity is the moment we condemn ourselves because we reduce Jesus to merely a mortal man. I'm not willing to do that. I believe Jesus was fully God and fully man, God in human flesh, One with the Father.

Extremism? Maybe extreme fundamentalism. Or just plain fundamentalism, the belief that this doctrine is fundamental to the Christian faith. If a man says it is fundamental, is he being extreme?

 

[chessman]

your biased because of the doctrine of the trinity

Convince me from Scripture that the Father has NO beginning (which you and I believe because the Father is God) yet His Son DOES have a beginning and I'll change my bias to match yours. Not only does it make no logical sense (how can a father be a father without a son????), none of these Scripture answer my question; "Upon what OT or NT Scripture do you base a belief that "the Son" had a beginning?"

Col 1:15
Hebrews 1:6
hebrews 12:23

Colossians 1:15-18 [the Son] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because all things were created by Him in the heavens and on the earth, the visible things and the invisible things— whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities. All things have been created through Him and for Him. And He Himself is before all things, and all things have existence in Him. And He Himself is the head of the body, the church. ... Who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, in order that He Himself might come-to-be holding-first-place in all things,​

Not only does this passage NOT say anything about the Son having a beginning (He is the beginning of all things, not had one), it prohibits the Son from having a beginning anytime after "all things were created" (including unseen things). This is why I asked you already and you agreed that the Son pre-existed His birth as Jesus (and He did, as explicitly stated here and in other passge).

All things have been created through Him [the Son]. I can only image what things existed before the Father on your view, now. Regardless, Where you do get the idea of a beginning to the Son from this passage? And notice, that if it's because of the use of the title "firstborn" (which you seem to have word searched) then was "the Father" not "the Father" prior to 'birthing' the Son? What name do you give to a sonless father?

Wouldn't the same assumption you seem to be making for the Son based on the title "firstborn" apply to His Father???

If it's from the title "firstborn" where you get the idea of a beginning from this title? The Text (not me or my bias) tells you why the Son is called the "firstborn"; because all things were created by Him in the heavens and on the earth, the visible things and the invisible things—

Not because He had a beginning.
The resurrected Jesus IS the firstborn from the dead. Yet He pre-existed His resurrection! It's the same principle of His pre-existing the angels (unseen things) too!

Hebrews 1:5-6 For to which of the angels did He ever say

“You are my Son. Today I have fathered you”? Ps 2:7];
and again,
“I will be a father to Him, and He will be a son to Me”? 1 Chron 17:13.
And again, when He brings the Firstborn into the world He says in Deut 32:43 “And let all the angels of God give-worship to Him”. ​

The Son pre-existed even all the angels. That's why even the angels give-worship to Him as God (not as an angel). Same reason we do as firstborn of the dead. The Son pre-existed Adam. Adam will give Him worship. The Son pre-existed the angels. The angels will give Him worship. Again, this Text tells you why the Son has the title of 'firstborn". It does NOT say the Son had a beginning. It prohibits His beginning.

Hebrews 12:22-24 But you have come to Mount Zion; and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem; and the myriads of angels, a festive-gathering; and the church of the firstborn ones having been registered in the heavens; and the Judge, God of all; and the spirits of righteous ones having been perfected; and the mediator of the new covenant, Jesus; and the blood of sprinkling speaking better than Abel. ​

The Son is the God of "all", angels and humans! No bias needed.

 

[Runner]

The moment we discard the trinity is the moment we condemn ourselves because we reduce Jesus to merely a mortal man. I'm not willing to do that. I believe Jesus was fully God and fully man, God in human flesh, One with the Father.

This is called a "false dilemma." The only two choices are not "Jesus is God" or "Jesus is merely a mortal man." The very high (but non-Trinitarian) Christology that most of the early Christians shared was that the Christ (Messiah) was a divine being, the only begotten Son of God, the firstborn of creation, and the Son for whom, by whom and through whom all the rest of creation, in heaven and earth, was created (i.e., the Lord of creation). The divine Son incarnated as the man Jesus in order to accomplish the plan of salvation that had been in place since before the foundation of the world and that was the very purpose of creation. Jesus is (by this understanding) the incarnation of the divine Son of God, which is considerably different from being "merely a mortal man." As I read the Bible and the early Christian writings, this view is what seems to predominate - God is God and Jesus is our Savior and Lord. As one who accepts the Trinity as an article of faith (i.e., without pretending to understand exactly what it entails), I'm not pushing this view, but I have a difficult time seeing why anyone would think it was offensive or a low form of Christology.

 

[JLB]

Convince me from Scripture that the Father has NO beginning (which you and I believe because the Father is God) yet His Son DOES have a beginning and I'll change my bias to match yours. Not only does it make no logical sense (how can a father be a father without a son????), none of these Scripture answer my question; "Upon what OT or NT Scripture do you base a belief that "the Son" had a beginning?"

Colossians 1:15-18 [the Son] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because all things were created by Him in the heavens and on the earth, the visible things and the invisible things— whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities. All things have been created through Him and for Him. And He Himself is before all things, and all things have existence in Him. And He Himself is the head of the body, the church. ... Who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, in order that He Himself might come-to-be holding-first-place in all things,​

Not only does this passage NOT say anything about the Son having a beginning (He is the beginning of all things, not had one), it prohibits the Son from having a beginning anytime after "all things were created" (including unseen things). This is why I asked you already and you agreed that the Son pre-existed His birth as Jesus (and He did, as explicitly stated here and in other passge).

All things have been created through Him [the Son]. I can only image what things existed before the Father on your view, now. Regardless, Where you do get the idea of a beginning to the Son from this passage? And notice, that if it's because of the use of the title "firstborn" (which you seem to have word searched) then was "the Father" not "the Father" prior to 'birthing' the Son? What name do you give to a sonless father?

Wouldn't the same assumption you seem to be making for the Son based on the title "firstborn" apply to His Father???

If it's from the title "firstborn" where you get the idea of a beginning from this title? The Text (not me or my bias) tells you why the Son is called the "firstborn"; because all things were created by Him in the heavens and on the earth, the visible things and the invisible things—

Not because He had a beginning.
The resurrected Jesus IS the firstborn from the dead. Yet He pre-existed His resurrection! It's the same principle of His pre-existing the angels (unseen things) too!

Hebrews 1:5-6 For to which of the angels did He ever say

“You are my Son. Today I have fathered you”? Ps 2:7];
and again,
“I will be a father to Him, and He will be a son to Me”? 1 Chron 17:13.
And again, when He brings the Firstborn into the world He says in Deut 32:43 “And let all the angels of God give-worship to Him”. ​

The Son pre-existed even all the angels. That's why even the angels give-worship to Him as God (not as an angel). Same reason we do as firstborn of the dead. The Son pre-existed Adam. Adam will give Him worship. The Son pre-existed the angels. The angels will give Him worship. Again, this Text tells you why the Son has the title of 'firstborn". It does NOT say the Son had a beginning. It prohibits His beginning.

Hebrews 12:22-24 But you have come to Mount Zion; and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem; and the myriads of angels, a festive-gathering; and the church of the firstborn ones having been registered in the heavens; and the Judge, God of all; and the spirits of righteous ones having been perfected; and the mediator of the new covenant, Jesus; and the blood of sprinkling speaking better than Abel. ​

The Son is the God of "all", angels and humans! No bias needed.

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

I'm actually with you on this doctrine, as the Son has no beginning and no end.

However our understanding of "beginning" may not fully encompass the term Begotten.

It would seem in the natural sense that the Father would exist before the Son in order to beget the Son.

Of course in the natural sense the Son is contained within Father even before the Son is begotten.

We know the Son created all things.

However what I am speaking of is before creation itself.


JLB

 

[Randy]

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

I'm actually with you on this doctrine, as the Son has no beginning and no end.

However our understanding of "beginning" may not fully encompass the term Begotten.

It would seem in the natural sense that the Father would exist before the Son in order to beget the Son.

Of course in the natural sense the Son in contained within Father even before the Son is begotten.

We know the Son created all things.

However what I am speaking of is before creation itself.


JLB

This is called a "false dilemma." The only two choices are not "Jesus is God" or "Jesus is merely a mortal man." The very high (but non-Trinitarian) Christology that most of the early Christians shared was that the Christ (Messiah) was a divine being, the only begotten Son of God, the firstborn of creation, and the Son for whom, by whom and through whom all the rest of creation, in heaven and earth, was created (i.e., the Lord of creation). The divine Son incarnated as the man Jesus in order to accomplish the plan of salvation that had been in place since before the foundation of the world and that was the very purpose of creation. Jesus is (by this understanding) the incarnation of the divine Son of God, which is considerably different from being "merely a mortal man." As I read the Bible and the early Christian writings, this view is what seems to predominate - God is God and Jesus is our Savior and Lord. As one who accepts the Trinity as an article of faith (i.e., without pretending to understand exactly what it entails), I'm not pushing this view, but I have a difficult time seeing why anyone would think it was offensive or a low form of Christology.

There is a yes and no choice as well.
Yes, He is all that the Father is
no, he has always been the son
He never dies.

 

[Randy]

Convince me from Scripture that the Father has NO beginning (which you and I believe because the Father is God) yet His Son DOES have a beginning and I'll change my bias to match yours. Not only does it make no logical sense (how can a father be a father without a son????), none of these Scripture answer my question; "Upon what OT or NT Scripture do you base a belief that "the Son" had a beginning?"

Colossians 1:15-18 [the Son] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, because all things were created by Him in the heavens and on the earth, the visible things and the invisible things— whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities. All things have been created through Him and for Him. And He Himself is before all things, and all things have existence in Him. And He Himself is the head of the body, the church. ... Who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, in order that He Himself might come-to-be holding-first-place in all things,​

Not only does this passage NOT say anything about the Son having a beginning (He is the beginning of all things, not had one), it prohibits the Son from having a beginning anytime after "all things were created" (including unseen things). This is why I asked you already and you agreed that the Son pre-existed His birth as Jesus (and He did, as explicitly stated here and in other passge).

All things have been created through Him [the Son]. I can only image what things existed before the Father on your view, now. Regardless, Where you do get the idea of a beginning to the Son from this passage? And notice, that if it's because of the use of the title "firstborn" (which you seem to have word searched) then was "the Father" not "the Father" prior to 'birthing' the Son? What name do you give to a sonless father?

Wouldn't the same assumption you seem to be making for the Son based on the title "firstborn" apply to His Father???

If it's from the title "firstborn" where you get the idea of a beginning from this title? The Text (not me or my bias) tells you why the Son is called the "firstborn"; because all things were created by Him in the heavens and on the earth, the visible things and the invisible things—

Not because He had a beginning.
The resurrected Jesus IS the firstborn from the dead. Yet He pre-existed His resurrection! It's the same principle of His pre-existing the angels (unseen things) too!

Hebrews 1:5-6 For to which of the angels did He ever say

“You are my Son. Today I have fathered you”? Ps 2:7];
and again,
“I will be a father to Him, and He will be a son to Me”? 1 Chron 17:13.
And again, when He brings the Firstborn into the world He says in Deut 32:43 “And let all the angels of God give-worship to Him”. ​

The Son pre-existed even all the angels. That's why even the angels give-worship to Him as God (not as an angel). Same reason we do as firstborn of the dead. The Son pre-existed Adam. Adam will give Him worship. The Son pre-existed the angels. The angels will give Him worship. Again, this Text tells you why the Son has the title of 'firstborn". It does NOT say the Son had a beginning. It prohibits His beginning.

Hebrews 12:22-24 But you have come to Mount Zion; and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem; and the myriads of angels, a festive-gathering; and the church of the firstborn ones having been registered in the heavens; and the Judge, God of all; and the spirits of righteous ones having been perfected; and the mediator of the new covenant, Jesus; and the blood of sprinkling speaking better than Abel. ​

The Son is the God of "all", angels and humans! No bias needed.

Jesus calls the Father the only true God and his God.

NO Jesus is not an angel as I read about the "son" in hebrews and that the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. So Jesus the firstborn is in a class about angels. "GOD" And you take on firstborn is because of the doctrine of the trinity in other words your so biased in that direction you state different then what Paul wrote.

Jesus calls the Father the one true God. If Jesus always was and always was god how do you believe in One God for Jesus stated on the cross "Father into your hands I commit my spirit"

If Jesus always was and aways was God how then did he become the son?

 

[chessman]

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

Correct. It would be very difficult for you us to see the Holy Spirit or the Father. Providentially, the Son has made God known to us, however.

However our understanding of "beginning" may not fully encompass the term Begotten.

Two different words, two different meanings.

However what I am speaking of is before creation itself.

So was John:

John 1:1, 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ...
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory— glory as of the only-born from the Father, full of grace and truth.
​

... [the Son became flesh, was gloriifed by The Father and The Holy Spirit on Earth, worked some signs and miracles, wept, suffered, died, rose from the dead, and then spoke the following:]

John 17:5-8 And now Father, You glorify Me with Yourself with the glory which I was having with You before the world was. “I revealed Your name to the men whom You gave to Me out of the world. They were Yours, and You gave them to Me. And they have kept Your word. They have now come-to-know that all things that You have given to Me are from You— because I have given them the words which You gave to Me, and they received them, and truly understood that I came forth from You, [begotten] and believed that You sent Me forth.​

 

[chessman]

Jesus calls the Father the only true God and his God.

Correct. But I asked about the Son. Jesus of Nazareth also pooped, grew in knowledge and stature and was tempted. But that's not the subject. The question is when did the Son have a beginning, not Jesus.

If Jesus always was and aways was God how then did he become the son?

I'm asking about the Son's beginning. The pre-existing Son became Jesus, not the other way around.

And you take on firstborn is because of the doctrine of the trinity in other words your so biased in that direction you state different then what Paul wrote.

Nope. Like I said, the very Text you referenced tells you EXACTLY why the resurrected Jesus is given the title "firstborn":

because of the hope reserved for you in heaven, which you have heard about beforehand in the word of truth, the gospel, that has come to you, just as also in all the world it is bearing fruit and increasing, just as also among you from the day you heard about and understood the grace of God in truth, so that you may live in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good deed and increasing in the knowledge of God, giving thanks to the Father who has qualified you for a share of the inheritance of the saints in light, who has rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins, who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, because all things in the heavens and on the earth were created by him, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things were created through him and for him, ​

Did you not agree that the Son pre-existed creation yet Paul says the resurrected Jesus is "the firstborn over all creation"???

The term does NOT imply the Son was created.

Jesus calls the Father the one true God. If Jesus always was and always was god ...

Again, Trinty says the Son always was God. There is zilch reason to believe the Son is not God just because Jesus of Nazareth calls the Father God, yes even His God.

 

[Runner]

Just so there's no confusion, the doctrine of the Trinity posits that the Son is "eternally begotten." "Begotten" does not refer to the incarnation. As the Nicene Creed says, the Son was "begotten, not made." It was amended in 381 A.D. to say "begotten of the Father before all worlds."

How the Son can be "begotten" but not in any sense "made" or "created" is one of the mysteries of the Trinity. We simply don't know what "begotten" means in this context.

The Holy Spirit, of course, was not begotten but "proceeds" from the Father (or perhaps from the Father and the Son, which is the "filoque" dispute that caused the Great Schism between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church). What "proceeds" means in this context we likewise don't know.

The non-Trinitarian position, as I understand it, is that the Son was "begotten" before all the rest of creation (including the heavenly creation), has been with the Father since that act of "begetting," and never dies - but that the Son actually was "begotten" by the Father as an act of creation and has the status of a true Son, not the status of the Second Person of the Trinity.

 

[chessman]

The very high (but non-Trinitarian) Christology that most of the early Christians shared was that the Christ (Messiah) was a divine being, the only begotten Son of God, the firstborn of creation, and the Son for whom, by whom and through whom all the rest of creation, in heaven and earth, was created (i.e., the Lord of creation).

The rest of creation??? Puff, there is no Text that says the Son created 'all the rest of creation'. Nor is there a Text that says there was a time when the Father had no Son.

Was Paul not an early Christian? Who called Jesus Christ (Messiah); "God our Savior" appearing, not 'Lord of creation'.

Titus 3:4-6 But when the kindness and love for mankind of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not by deeds of righteousness that we have done, but because of his mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,​

 

[chessman]

How the Son can be "begotten" but not in any sense "made" or "created" is one of the mysteries of the Trinity.

Pfff, how can the Father be called a Father without a Son??? Now there's a mystery.

 

[Runner]

The rest of creation??? Puff, there is no Text that says the Son created 'all the rest of creation'. Nor is there a Text that says there was a time when the Father had no Son.

Gee, I didn't think I was exactly making a controversial statement:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Colossians 1:16-17, NASB.

Or perhaps you prefer:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

John 1:1-3, NASB.

I think the thread has gone off the cliff.