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

[Runner]

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

The Father has a Son. Both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians accept this. If the Father did not have a Son, He would not be referred to as the Father. I am not sure what argument you are making, or what position you believe you are arguing against, but I decline to follow you off the cliff.

 

[chessman]

For by Him all things were created,

Correct. "All things", not 'the rest of things'

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being

See, apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being". Since this is referring to the Son, Therefore, the Son did Not come into being.

Psalm 2:4-7, 10-12 He [Messiah] who sits enthroned in the heavens laughs. The Lord derides them. Then he speaks to them in his wrath, and in his fury he terrifies them:

“But as for me, I have set my king on Zion, my holy mountain.” ​

I will tell the decree; Yahweh said to me:

“You are my son; today I have begotten you. So then, O kings, be wise. Be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve Yahweh with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son [Messiah] lest he be angry and you perish on the way, for his anger burns quickly. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
​

Kiss the Son, brother! The Son is Yahweh. The Word of God, as John says.

The day the Son was "begotten" as Messiah was the day He revealed Himself as the Messiah, Yahweh to David.

It has zero to do with His creation as you previously aggreed He pre-existed creation (all things, not the rest of things). Your bias had reared it's head.

 

[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 the "SON" preexisted the angels because He is FIRSTBORN. And they bow to Him at Gods command not because He is God.
I agree Jesus who was given Gods fullness is not an angel nor ever has been.
The creation was made through Him and nothing was set in heaven without Him except GOD.
All things are from the Father (from whom all things came) and were created "through" Jesus . And Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. Before the angels of God as Jesus is first in everything not just the resurrection from the dead.

You are bias because you read the scriptures with the orthodox doctrine of the trinity as what must be. I do not. I know what firstborn means and again Jesu has His own Spirit. He has always been the Son.

 

[Randy]

The Father has a Son. Both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians accept this. If the Father did not have a Son, He would not be referred to as the Father. I am not sure what argument you are making, or what position you believe you are arguing against, but I decline to follow you off the cliff.

or if Jesus is not the Fathers Son then whose Son is He?

 

[chessman]

The Father has a Son.

And you agreed the Father has no beginning. Yet you assume the Son has a beginning, which is contradictory logic.

If the Father has no beginning, neither does His Son. Else, there would be a time when the Father was not the Father. Simple.

 

[Randy]

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.

The spirit Jesus sends he received from the Father.REf acts 2 Jesus as firstborn has his own spirit as in "father into your hands I commit my spirit" and since Jesus calls the Father the one true God how then can He have always been and always been God and one hold to one God?
IS Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.

 

[chessman]

Jesus the "SON" preexisted the angels

No, no, and no. Jesus was born of a virgin 25 Dec , 1 B.C. (Just kidding but pretty close to this day).

The Son, is the person that pre-existed the angels. So did His Father. Why??? Because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all pre-existed the angels. Simple.

 

[ezra]

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.

but you reject the trinity just like the egg it takes all 3 to make one the egg needs the shell the yoke needs the egg white . we cant have salvation with out God the father God the son and GOD the Holy Ghost 3 separate but yet 1

 

[Randy]

No, no, and no. Jesus was born of a virgin 25 Dec , 1 B.C. (Just kidding but pretty close to this day).

The Son, is the person that pre-existed the angels. So did His Father. Why??? Because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all pre-existed the angels. Simple.

Before abraham was born I AM.
Its clear to me the Son that was (his spirit) was in the tent of the "body" God prepared for Him.

 

[Randy]

but you reject the trinity just like the egg it takes all 3 to make one the egg needs the shell the yoke needs the egg white . we cant have salvation with out God the father God the son and GOD the Holy Ghost 3 separate but yet 1

I have a God my Father; I have a Lord Jesus Christ and I believe Gods very own spirit the spirit the sovereign Lord is divine as the Father is God. I believe the Father is in the Son just as the son is in a believer. oneness in that manner

 

[chessman]

Before abraham was born I AM.
Its clear to me the Son that was (his spirit) was in the tent of the "body" God prepared for Him.

Correct. Jesus is the pre-existing Son (His Father's Son in fact) incarnate in a 1st Century body.

The Trinity speaks of the Son being God, is my point.

 

[chessman]

I have a God my Father; I have a Lord Jesus Christ

Who sits upon the throne of your God?

A. Lord Jesus Christ
B. The Father
C. Both

 

[JLB]

Two different words, two different meanings.

Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers. Matthew 1:2


Again, I believe that the Son had no beginning, however, in the natural sense the beginning of our life as a human being begins at conception, when we are begotten of our Father.

When the seed co-mingles with the egg. [In the natural sense]

• So in that sense begotten and beginning are the point of "beginning".

The spirit part of our being also coincides with this natural phenomenon.

The burden of the word of the Lord against Israel. Thus says the Lord, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him: Zechariah 12:1

• and forms the spirit of man within him:

JLB

 

[chessman]

I personally have a more difficult time picturing the Holy Spirit as being distinct from the Father, but there you go.

Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth— Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

The Spirit of God (note, not the Spirit of the Father) "hovered", not the Father.

Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, “Ananias, for what reason has Satan filled your heart, that you lied to the Holy Spirit and kept back for yourself some of the proceeds of the piece of land? When it remained to you, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it at your disposal? ...
How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to people, but to God!”​

Lying in your heart is lying to the Holy Spirit, not lying to the Father. Yet lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God.

The Holy Spirit is as distinct and personal as Satan is. Satan filled Ananias heart. The Holy Spirit can fill hearts. Poof! The difference is the Holy Spirit is God (uncreated, Alpha AND Omega), Satan is created.

 

[Free]

Jesus the "SON" preexisted the angels because He is FIRSTBORN. And they bow to Him at Gods command not because He is God.
I agree Jesus who was given Gods fullness is not an angel nor ever has been.
The creation was made through Him and nothing was set in heaven without Him except GOD.
All things are from the Father (from whom all things came) and were created "through" Jesus . And Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. Before the angels of God as Jesus is first in everything not just the resurrection from the dead.

You are bias because you read the scriptures with the orthodox doctrine of the trinity as what must be. I do not.

You have your own bias against the Trinity. No one in this discussion is unbiased; there is no neutrality.

I know what firstborn means and again Jesu has His own Spirit. He has always been the Son.

What does firstborn mean?

 

[chessman]

Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers. Matthew 1:2

Abraham begot Issac on a certain day (I don't know, maybe someone could even figure out what day this occurred). Abraham's living flesh (sperm) entered Sarah's living flesh (egg). Both of which had the Spirit of God in their flesh.

The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (God) begot the Messiah (Christ) on a certain day. That day was the day David received the word of God in Psalm 2, not the day Mary birthed Jesus (as is commonly assumed from reading one verse in Heb, yet not realizing Paul was quoting a portion of Psalm 2. Nor continuing to read Heb or all of Psalm 2.).

Hebrews 5:5 Thus also Christ did not glorify himself to become high priest, but the one who said to him,

“You are my Son, today I have begotten you,” (Psalm 2:7b)
​

Hebrews 5:6 just as also in another place he says,

“You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek,” (Psalm 110:4)​

Hebrews (Paul) is telling Jews of his day (and us reading today) that the Son had no beginning (or end) by referring to the begotten Messiah as being priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

Christ didn't "become" High Priest, he's always been High Priest forever (past and future) because He is Messiah, begotten of God, not man's sperm.

There simply is no way around the Son of God, being God and thus eternal according to the Text.

Psalm 2:7 I will tell the decree; Yahweh said to me: “You are my son; today I have begotten you.
​

It could not be more clear. Messiah is God and begotten on the day of God's decree to David. Messiah was fulfilled in Mary, but begotten centuries prior.

Psalm 110:1-4 A declaration of Yahweh to my lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” Yahweh will send out your mighty scepter from Zion; rule in the midst of your enemies. Your people will volunteer in the day of your power. In holy splendor, from the womb of the dawn, you will have the dew of your youth. Yahweh has sworn and he will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever according to the manner of Melchizedek.” ​

God spoke to the Son (David's Lord) here, in v1, and they begot Messiah together and announced it to David. Hebrews is a great explanation of the Trinty to Jews.

 

[Runner]

You have your own bias against the Trinity. No one in this discussion is unbiased; there is no neutrality.
What does firstborn mean?

I'm not sure it's fair to call it a "bias" because that carries a negative, emotional connotation. My most frequent legal battles are arguing over what a particular phrase in a statute or contract means, but we don't speak in terms of "bias." We are simply trying to get at the intent of those who wrote the words (which is not always possible, which is why we have formal rules of interpretation).

As I've said, I accept the Trinity for theological reasons. If I had never heard of the Trinity, however, if someone had simply handed me the Bible and the early Christian writings and asked "So who is Jesus?" I probably would have answered, "the divine Son of God, the firstborn of all creation, through whom and for whom everything else was created." I am 100% certain I would not have said, "Oh, He's the Son, the Second Person of a Trinity comprising the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." So I think it is possible to see both perspectives and hold to one without a "bias" against the other. It appears to me from my studies that, while the divinity of Jesus was recognized at a very early stage of Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity was largely a reaction to some of the prevailing heresies that later arose.

As with so many of these divisive issues, it is possible to read the Bible and arrive at either a Trinitarian interpretation or a non-Trinitarian interpretation. Certainly, Trinitarians can explain away the "firstborn" and "why do you call me good" verses, but the overall thrust of the NT (as well as the early Christian writings) seems to me predominately non-Trinitarian. Non-Trinitarians must deal with the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" verses and others. I assume if this was a critical doctrine, we would have heard it from Jesus' mouth and it would have been made a GREAT DEAL clearer in the Scriptures than it actually is.

I suppose if one thinks the Fourth Century councils were inspired by God to the same extent as Scripture and that the creeds they adopted inevitably reflected God's Truth, then the Trinity is mandatory. I don't think that way. When you read the history of those councils, it is difficult to think that way.

 

[WIP]

The Father has a Son. Both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians accept this. If the Father did not have a Son, He would not be referred to as the Father. I am not sure what argument you are making, or what position you believe you are arguing against, but I decline to follow you off the cliff.

The point I believe chessman is trying to make is like this. I am a father. I was alive for 23 years before I became a father when my son was born. If the Son of God was not always with the Father, how can the Father be the father before the Son existed?

 

[WIP]

Lying in your heart is lying to the Holy Spirit, not lying to the Father. Yet lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God.

Thank you for posting this! It was something I needed for clarity.

 

[WIP]

I'm not sure it's fair to call it a "bias" because that carries a negative, emotional connotation. My most frequent legal battles are arguing over what a particular phrase in a statute or contract means, but we don't speak in terms of "bias." We are simply trying to get at the intent of those who wrote the words (which is not always possible, which is why we have formal rules of interpretation).

As I've said, I accept the Trinity for theological reasons. If I had never heard of the Trinity, however, if someone had simply handed me the Bible and the early Christian writings and asked "So who is Jesus?" I probably would have answered, "the divine Son of God, the firstborn of all creation, through whom and for whom everything else was created." I am 100% certain I would not have said, "Oh, He's the Son, the Second Person of a Trinity comprising the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." So I think it is possible to see both perspectives and hold to one without a "bias" against the other. It appears to me from my studies that, while the divinity of Jesus was recognized at a very early stage of Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity was largely a reaction to some of the prevailing heresies that later arose.

As with so many of these divisive issues, it is possible to read the Bible and arrive at either a Trinitarian interpretation or a non-Trinitarian interpretation. Certainly, Trinitarians can explain away the "firstborn" and "why do you call me good" verses, but the overall thrust of the NT (as well as the early Christian writings) seems to me predominately non-Trinitarian. Non-Trinitarians must deal with the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" verses and others. I assume if this was a critical doctrine, we would have heard it from Jesus' mouth and it would have been made a GREAT DEAL clearer in the Scriptures than it actually is.

I suppose if one thinks the Fourth Century councils were inspired by God to the same extent as Scripture and that the creeds they adopted inevitably reflected God's Truth, then the Trinity is mandatory. I don't think that way. When you read the history of those councils, it is difficult to think that way.

Do you think non-trinitarians believe Jesus is God? I would struggle with that because if Jesus is not God and we worship Him as we do, then we are in a grave danger for worshiping an idol.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Exodus 20:3 KJV