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

[chessman]

So in what sense was our Lord begotten?

In the sense stated by God. Namely for the demonstration of His love of the world.

If you (MarkT) love someone how would you demonstrate it to them. Give yourself for that person, right? Like a father would 'take a bullet' for his son/daughter God 'took a bullet' for the world (that is whoever would believe in Him, God). John 3:16 only makes sense within the Trinty.

First the LORD God called him his Son. Then he gave him life (eternal life) in himself.
John 5:26
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself,

It does not say the Father granted the Son life.

"For as" is the point of the verse.
For as X so also Y.
The Father (X) has life in Himself.
The Son (Y) also has life in Himself.
What was "granted" was life to the world, through the Son (the Son of Man):

John 5:25, 27 “Truly, truly I say to you, that an hour is coming—and now is here—when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and the ones who hear will live.​

... [your verse is talking about God's salvation and judgment of people through Himself, namely the Son, the Son of God and man]

And he has granted him authority to carry out judgment, because he is the Son of Man. ​

Do you think Jesus' birth brought peace to Earth or life to those who hear?

So Jesus wasn't born?

Jesus was born, yes.

 

[MarkT]

In the sense stated by God. Namely for the demonstration of His love of the world.

If you (MarkT) love someone how would you demonstrate it to them. Give yourself for that person, right? Like a father would 'take a bullet' for his son/daughter God 'took a bullet' for the world (that is whoever would believe in Him, God). John 3:16 only makes sense within the Trinty.



It does not say the Father granted the Son life.

"For as" is the point of the verse.
For as X so also Y.
The Father (X) has life in Himself.
The Son (Y) also has life in Himself.
What was "granted" was life to the world, through the Son (the Son of Man):

John 5:25, 27 “Truly, truly I say to you, that an hour is coming—and now is here—when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and the ones who hear will live.​

... [your verse is talking about God's salvation and judgment of people through Himself, namely the Son, the Son of God and man]

And he has granted him authority to carry out judgment, because he is the Son of Man. ​

Do you think Jesus' birth brought peace to Earth or life to those who hear?


Jesus was born, yes.

So the LORD God fathered him; called him and gave him life. He was born of God and born of man. Nevertheless, when the LORD said 'today', did he not appoint a day when he would beget him?

No he didn't bring peace on earth. He brought peace to those who believe in him. John 14:27

 

[Randy]

So Jesus wasn't born?

The meaning of begotten doesn't change just because you add 'not made'.

The Psalm says the LORD said to me, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'. Ps. 2:7 So we know the LORD God spoke to our Lord. So in what sense was our Lord begotten? First the LORD God called him his Son. Then he gave him life (eternal life) in himself.
John 5:26
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself,

The Son that Was, His Spirit, was in the tent of the body that was prepared for Him and born from the virgin Mary's body into this world as the SON of Man.
Jesus was before the world began.

 

[chessman]

I asked: "Do you think God is unchanging or changing."

You answered (thank you for answering):

The Father who is the one and only true God does not change so then His faithfulness endures forever.

I agree. How about His radiance; does His radiance change on your view of God?

Hebrews 1:3a [the Son, v2] who is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, sustaining all things by the word of power.​

Why do I perceive a hidden agenda behind the question then.?

Because I have the follow-up question posted above. Will you answer it please.

 

[chessman]

I asked:

Do you think Jesus' birth brought peace to Earth or life to those who hear?

You answered:

No he didn't bring peace on earth.

Isaiah 9:6 For a child has been born for us; a son has been given to us. And the dominion will be on his shoulder, and his name is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.​

Romans 15:33 Now may the God of peace be with all of you. Amen. ​

Romans 16:20 And in a short time the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. ​

 

[WIP]

If we all started making up our very own rules, and then expoused them, how long do you think Christianity would last?

history shows the exact opposite. as the the church added doctrines, the more it split up into divisions.

I wonder....is Christianity anything like it was in the beginning? Okay, I'm being facetious. I don't wonder because it is not at all anything like it was in the beginning.
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
Act 2:38-47 NKJV

 

[Randy]

I asked: "Do you think God is unchanging or changing."

You answered (thank you for answering):

I agree. How about His radiance; does His radiance change on your view of God?

Hebrews 1:3a [the Son, v2] who is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, sustaining all things by the word of power.​

Because I have the follow-up question posted above. Will you answer it please.

God firstborn would be a being not a word or radiance or a people.
Jesus is the exact image of the invisible God. The fullness was pleased to dwell in Him.
In other words Jesus is the wisdom and power of God. ALL the fullness of the diety dwells IN Him bodily. AS I have stated all along Jesus is ALL that the Father is and in that context He is GOD. We differ on the how. Always was and always was God vs the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him.

 

[chessman]

Jesus is the exact image of the invisible God. The fullness was pleased to dwell in Him.

Okay, I agree. But that's not an answer to my question about God.

does His radiance change on your view of God?

 

[Randy]

Okay, I agree. But that's not an answer to my question about God.

Does Gods radiance change my view of God?
I dont understand the context of this question. Radiance is not a being or person.

 

[Randy]

Radiance and the language used in Hebrews 1 in context is stating this simple statement. Jesus is ALL that the Father is. God in that context. However that doesn't state Jesus always was and alway was God especially since it was given Jesus was the firstborn of all creation IN whom all the fullness was pleased to dwell. AND Jesus the Son has his own Spirit which couldn't be divine in itself or you would have two Gods. THE Father and His spirit which is divine and the spirit that the creation was made by and the miracles were performed by at the will of the Father and Son. There is only ONE true God -The Father

 

[chessman]

I dont understand the context of this question.

Within the context of how the Bible describes God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: Does God's radiance change on your view of God?

This question goes back to your claim that the Son had a beginning. Your position is that the Father and the Holy Spirit had no beginning, yet the Son had a beginning (unless you've changed your position):

I asked:

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

Yes, a beginning but no end.

Heb 1 clearly states that the Son is the radiance of God. Here it is again;

Hebrews 1:2 in these last days he [God, v1] has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the world, who is the radiance of his glory
​

If the Son had a beginning, yet the Son is radiance of God's glory and God does not change, then what was the radiance of God's glory prior to the Son's beginning on your view?

 

[jaybird]

I wonder....is Christianity anything like it was in the beginning? Okay, I'm being facetious. I don't wonder because it is not at all anything like it was in the beginning.
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
Act 2:38-47 NKJV

Christianity today is nothing like it was in the beginning, no different than Judaism in the days of Jesus and the 12 was in a fallen state. if you dont study history your are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Randy]

Within the context of how the Bible describes God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: Does God's radiance change on your view of God?

This question goes back to your claim that the Son had a beginning. Your position is that the Father and the Holy Spirit had no beginning, yet the Son had a beginning (unless you've changed your position):

I asked:




Heb 1 clearly states that the Son is the radiance of God. Here it is again;

Hebrews 1:2 in these last days he [God, v1] has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the world, who is the radiance of his glory
​

If the Son had a beginning, yet the Son is radiance of God's glory and God does not change, then what was the radiance of God's glory prior to the Son's beginning on your view?

As usual your reasoning doest follow. The Son is the image of the invisible God. The fullnesss was pleased to dwell in Him. The brightness of Gods glory. JESUS as firstborn has a beginning at sometime before the world began. RADIANCE OF GOD = The image of the invisible God or ALL that the Father is. That doesn't change my view or make your case
YES GOD (THE FATHER) has spoken to us by His Son which Jesus confirmed whose words HE gave.
The HOLY SPIRIT is the Spirit of God since I only hold to one god the Father then that spirit is the Spirit of our Father and is divine and NOT a separate distinct person from the "Father"
Jesus has received from another will the fullness of God so HE is described as the image of the invisible God or the brightness of Gods Glory. Again ALL that the Father is The Fullness WAS PLEASED to dwell in Him. Jesus was not that fullness.

 

[Randy]

Christianity today is nothing like it was in the beginning, no different than Judaism in the days of Jesus and the 12 was in a fallen state. if you dont study history your are doomed to repeat it.

Jesus has gone from the mediator between GOD and man the only way to the "Father" to being God himself. JESUS is Gods SON.
IT was ONE GOD THE FATHER AND ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST that is God and HIS CHRIST

 

[chessman]

As usual your reasoning doest follow.

If you cannot follow the logic just ask:

Premise 1: God's essence, radiance and glory is eternal past and future.
Premise 2: The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the representation of his essence.
Conclusion: The Son is eternal past and future.

Which premise do you deny?

 

[Randy]

If you cannot follow the logic just ask:

Premise 1: God's essence, radiance and glory is eternal past and future.
Premise 2: The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the representation of his essence.
Conclusion: The Son is eternal past and future.

Which premise do you deny?

That Jesus is radiance He is a living being or person. AS stated the context in Hebrews 1 was that Jesus is ALL that the Father is. The exact expression of Gods wisdom and power the image of the invisible God and such fullness was expressly stated pleased to dwell in Him, Jesus the firstborn. In there words from another. Self evident its the Fathers fullness. Not another deity. The Father is with and in the Son without limit. ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge and all the power of God dwells in Jesus and Jesus has been given ALL authority in heaven and earth. No one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth rises up or sits down apart from the will OF Jesus EXCEPT the ONE who gave him that authority.

 

[Runner]

I wonder....is Christianity anything like it was in the beginning? Okay, I'm being facetious. I don't wonder because it is not at all anything like it was in the beginning.
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
Act 2:38-47 NKJV

On the other hand, that state of affairs ended so fast it would have made your head spin, as Paul's letters and the subsequent history of the faith make clear. The way the doctrine of the Trinity evolved is an almost perfect example of how much today's Christianity actually is, alas, like early Christianity.

The divinity of Jesus was accepted from the earliest days of the Christian community. Most of the confusion centered on how Jesus could have been human as well.

The doctrine of the Trinity evolved in fits and starts through a long process of negotiation and power politics. It is a way of thinking and speaking in human terms about the transcendent being we call God and how Jesus fits into the picture. It is not a logical syllogism or a mathematical equation. It is, as some of the early Christians recognized, fundamentally intelligible - which does not mean it is false.

Those who accept the Trinity do so as an article of faith, as the truest way we have of thinking and speaking about God (and Jesus) even if it isn't a completely tidy package.

Arguments over what "begotten" means and this sort of thing are treading very, very old ground and, more importantly, are missing the significance of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is a doctrine you "know" and "accept" at a level deeper than the intellectual one, while also accepting the limits of your human understanding.

The Trinity cannot be "proven" as though it were a syllogism or equation. You cannot "win" the Trinity debate through logical arguments or the Bible verse game.

 

[Free]

Those who accept the Trinity do so as an article of faith, as the truest way we have of thinking and speaking about God (and Jesus) even if it isn't a completely tidy package.

Arguments over what "begotten" means and this sort of thing are treading very, very old ground and, more importantly, are missing the significance of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is a doctrine you "know" and "accept" at a level deeper than the intellectual one, while also accepting the limits of your human understanding.

The Trinity cannot be "proven" as though it were a syllogism or equation. You cannot "win" the Trinity debate through logical arguments or the Bible verse game.

I think your first and last points stand in contradiction. If the Trinity is "the truest way we have of thinking and speaking about God," then it follows it must be able to be proven through logic and rational arguments. Otherwise, what makes it true or the truest way?

 

[Runner]

I think your first and last points stand in contradiction. If the Trinity is "the truest way we have of thinking and speaking about God," then it follows it must be able to be proven through logic and rational arguments. Otherwise, what makes it true or the truest way?

The great mystics and sages of all religions, including Christianity, have recognized that the transcendent divine must be approached through intuition, not dualistic logic. Christianity adds to intuition the element of revelation. One allows logic and reasoning to take one as far as they can, which is why I am a firm proponent of deep study and reflection as opposed to the mindless sort of Christianity. But logic and reasoning always stop well short of the transcendent divine, which is where intuition kicks in - not as some sort of touchy-feely New Age thing, but (as the great mystics and sages have always taught) as the highest form of knowledge. To this, of course, Christians would add that revelation brings one direct knowledge of that which God chooses to reveal.

This, then, is how Trinitarians "know" the truth of the Trinity - internally, through intuition and (they believe) the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which transcend logic and reasoning. "Truest" doesn't necessarily mean ontologically True, the way "my Ford is sitting in my garage" is the truest way of thinking and speaking about my car at the moment. It doesn't mean that God actually is a Trinity precisely as stated in the Creed of Chalcedon. It is the truest way we humans have of thinking and speaking about a transcendent Being whose thoughts are not our thoughts and whose ways are not our ways. It may be "true" only in the sense of being an analogy the Being uses to aid us in our understanding, the way a parent might simplify a complex subject for a child.

To say that a doctrine such as the Trinity must be capable of proof through logic and rational arguments seems to me to be a mistake. This is by definition not how metaphysical truths are "known." Probably the leading modern epistemological (theory of knowledge) philosopher is Alvin Plantinga, who makes the case that belief in God and even the Christian God is "properly basic." One is justified in believing in God without any evidence or argument whatsoever. I don't pretend to be a Plantinga scholar, but my understanding is that he has argued that a belief in a specific doctrine such as the Trinity may be "properly basic" through the working of the Holy Spirit in one's life. This doesn't mean the doctrine is ontologically True (i.e., God really is a Trinity), merely that a Christian is justified in believing it apart from logic and reasoning.

 

[chessman]

The Trinity cannot be "proven" as though it were a syllogism or equation.

Prove your conclusion stated above, please.