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

[chessman]

The point was Isaac's beginning was when he was begotten by Abraham.

So when God told Abraham and Sarah they would have a Son together, and even told them the boy's name, there was no beginning of Isaac on your view???

That's simply how you and I see God's decrees, His words (all of them) differently.

Simple question here, as my last off-topic reply to you on your point.

Who first said the name; "Isaac" in the Bible; Abraham, Sarah or Yahweh?

 

[ezra]

Who sits upon the throne of your God?

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

Christ is seated on the right hand side of the heavenly father

 

[Runner]

We have, of course, been over this before. And I have shown very clearly that the biblical usage of "firstborn" is not at all limited to "the eldest child of a parent." In fact, I have also shown, and will do so again, that it simply cannot mean that of Jesus without contradicting one of the very contexts in which it is used.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Here we see Jesus being called the firstborn. If we take that to mean he is the eldest child of God, that would stand in direct contradiction to "by him all things were created...all things were created by him and for him." Notice that that agrees completely with John 1:3:

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

So either Jesus did, in fact, create everything that has ever been created, as these passages plainly state, and "firstborn" in Col 1:15 means that Jesus is preeminent over all creation (that he has the highest rank, as does a literal firstborn son), or, Jesus didn't create everything, since he himself would have to have been created, thus causing a significant contradiction.

Which is it?

It's clearly the Christian doctrine that Jesus was not "created" or "made." He was "begotten." "Firstborn of all creation" does not mean "the first thing created." As you state, it means "preeminent over all creation." But Jesus was "begotten." I think that's the real issue. What does "begotten" mean in this context? What does it mean to say that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, that at no point in eternity did He not exist, but that He was nevertheless "begotten" - "eternally begotten," no less, if you accept that formulation?

Conceptually, there is no difficulty if one says that God "begat" Jesus as His divine Son before anything was created or made and that everything that was created or made was done so by, for and through the Son. Conceptually, there is a problem if you try to fit "begotten" into the Trinity, which is why it seems to me that if one is going to accept the Trinity one has to conclude that it is simply a mystery what it means to say the Son is begotten. It seems to me that saying that Jesus is "preeminent over all creation," as opposed to the first thing created, begs the real question and doesn't necessarily get you to the Trinity.

There is no earthly sense in which "beget" means "coexistent with." The term "beget" means precisely the opposite.

be·get
bəˈɡet/
verb
literary
verb: beget; 3rd person present: begets; past tense: begot; past tense: begat; gerund or present participle: begetting; past participle: begotten

1. (typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.
   "they hoped that the King might beget an heir by his new queen"
   synonyms: father, sire, have, bring into the world, give life to, bring into being, spawn
   "he begat a son"
2. give rise to; bring about.
   "success begets further success"
   synonyms: cause, give rise to, lead to, result in, bring about, create, produce, generate, engender, spawn, occasion, bring on, precipitate, prompt, provoke, kindle, trigger, spark off, touch off, stir up, whip up, induce, inspire, promote;
   literary enkindle
   "violence begets violence"

 

[chessman]

Jesus overcame and sat down on His Fathers throne.

Isaiah 6:1 In the year of the death of Uzziah the king, I saw the Lord sitting on a high and raised throne, and the hem of his robe was filling the temple.​

Did Isaiah see the Son or the Father or both, seated here?

 

[JLB]

So when God told Abraham and Sarah they would have a Son together, and even told them the boy's name, there was no beginning of Isaac on your view???

That's simply how you and I see God's decrees, His words (all of them) differently.

Simple question here, as my last off-topic reply to you on your point.

Who first said the name; "Isaac" in the Bible; Abraham, Sarah or Yahweh?

We/he could very well have existed before we became flesh, as the scripture says... For whom He foreknew, He also predestined, but again that is not the point.

and again

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5

The point is "naturally speaking", a person, a human being, has there beginning when they are begotten in the mothers womb, in which at that point, the Lord forms the spirit of that person, within the womb, not before.

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

• forms the spirit of man within him:

The flesh body of a person is dead until the spirit of the man [which is from God] enters him.


For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26


All this is moot, since I have already said that I believe Jesus had no beginning, as He always existed as God, within the Father, even before He was begotten.

A position I believe, you also agree with.



JLB

 

[JLB]

So when God told Abraham and Sarah they would have a Son together, and even told them the boy's name, there was no beginning of Isaac on your view???

That's simply how you and I see God's decrees, His words (all of them) differently.

Simple question here, as my last off-topic reply to you on your point.

Who first said the name; "Isaac" in the Bible; Abraham, Sarah or Yahweh?

When the Lord foretold Abraham's son's name, was the human being [spirit,soul, and body] Issac born or conceived or existing yet?

No.

Did Abraham have Issac by faith, when God foretold of his name? Yes.

Abraham then had the hope of having a son.

Does someone actually have what they hope for? No.


Hope this clears up your confusion about this subject and OSAS, which disregards the principle of faith, the substance or confidence or assurance of the thing we are hoping for.




JLB

 

[JLB]

A sonless father???

Yes, until a child is begotten, a man is not yet a Father.

Example: Jesus, shall be or will be called Everlasting Father.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

• This scripture in Hebrews is a reference to God the Father.

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
Hebrews 12:9



JLB

 

[ezra]

Isaiah 6:1 In the year of the death of Uzziah the king, I saw the Lord sitting on a high and raised throne, and the hem of his robe was filling the temple.​

Did Isaiah see the Son or the Father or both, seated here?

since you got the answers you tell us

 

[chessman]

We/he could very well have existed before we became flesh, as the scripture says... For whom He foreknew, He also predestined, but again that is not the point.

It was MY point about the Son.

All this is moot, since I have already said that I believe Jesus had no beginning, as He always existed as God, within the Father, even before He was begotten.

The Son had no beginning. Not in Mary's womb (neither did His Father). The Son always existed. If you think that point is moot with regard to the Trinty, then God help you.

A position I believe, you also agree with.

Yes. But not all who are 'participating' in and/or reading this discussion believe the Son pre-existed Jesus of Nazareth's conception. Yet somehow these same folk think the Father (His Father) did pre-exist His only Son. Which is so contradictory a belief as to be incomprehensible. There is no sense in which a Father can be called a Father, yet not have a son. Sorry, if you think that point is moot with respect to what is supposed to be a focused discussion of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (not OSAS).

 

[Runner]

I realize Internet discussions are entertaining, but we are treading ground that has been tread for at least 1,600 years. Everything we have been hashing and re-hashing - how the Father could have been the Father without a Son, how the Second Person of the Trinity could have been begotten and yet have coexisted eternally with the Father, what the heck begotten means in the context of the Trinity anyway - was beaten to death during the Arian Controversy (referring to Arius, who lived roughly 256-336 A.D.) and was settled (in favor of the Trinity) through a process of discussion, debate and power politics at the Fourth Century ecumenical councils. Pretty much everything I have been saying in support of a non-Trinitarian position is right out of the Arian playbook.

Wikipedia has a pretty good article on Arius and the controversy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius, noting: "Arius is notable primarily because of his role in the Arian controversy, a great fourth-century theological conflict that rocked the Christian world and led to the calling of the first ecumenical council of the Church. This controversy centered upon the nature of the Son of God, and his precise relationship to God the Father. Leading up to the council of Nicaea, the Christian world had many different competing Christological formulae. After Nicaea, the dominant orthodox worked to conceal the earlier disagreement, portraying 'Arianism' as a radical disagreement to the 'norm'. The Nicaean formula was a rapidly concluded solution to the general Christological debate that did not have prior agreement." In short, the Trinity is a heavily negotiated doctrine, not a clear biblical truth. That's just the undeniable reality.

For some reason, many Christians and especially many Internet posters seem to have an aversion to scholarship, preferring to rely solely on their own reading and interpretation of Scripture, and thus the discussions proceed at the level we see here. One book that I have on my Kindle - completely Trinitarian in its perspective - is The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity by Stephen R. Holmes, https://www.amazon.com/Quest-Trinit...270&sr=1-1&keywords=the+quest+for+the+trinity. It reviews the OT and NT support for the doctrine and the evolution of the doctrine at all phases of history from the earliest Christian communities to the present. A half-day with a book like this would vastly expand your understanding of the doctrine and the battles that have raged around it and would, I feel sure, open your eyes to the reality that the discussions we have at places like this (including my own contributions) are kindergarten-level stuff.

 

[Randy]

Isaiah 6:1 In the year of the death of Uzziah the king, I saw the Lord sitting on a high and raised throne, and the hem of his robe was filling the temple.​

Did Isaiah see the Son or the Father or both, seated here?

My vote is He saw the Father the God of Israel.

 

[Randy]

I realize Internet discussions are entertaining, but we are treading ground that has been tread for at least 1,600 years. Everything we have been hashing and re-hashing - how the Father could have been the Father without a Son, how the Second Person of the Trinity could have been begotten and yet have coexisted eternally with the Father, what the heck begotten means in the context of the Trinity anyway - was beaten to death during the Arian Controversy (referring to Arius, who lived roughly 256-336 A.D.) and was settled (in favor of the Trinity) through a process of discussion, debate and power politics at the Fourth Century ecumenical councils. Pretty much everything I have been saying in support of a non-Trinitarian position is right out of the Arian playbook.

Wikipedia has a pretty good article on Arius and the controversy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius, noting: "Arius is notable primarily because of his role in the Arian controversy, a great fourth-century theological conflict that rocked the Christian world and led to the calling of the first ecumenical council of the Church. This controversy centered upon the nature of the Son of God, and his precise relationship to God the Father. Leading up to the council of Nicaea, the Christian world had many different competing Christological formulae. After Nicaea, the dominant orthodox worked to conceal the earlier disagreement, portraying 'Arianism' as a radical disagreement to the 'norm'. The Nicaean formula was a rapidly concluded solution to the general Christological debate that did not have prior agreement." In short, the Trinity is a heavily negotiated doctrine, not a clear biblical truth. That's just the undeniable reality.

For some reason, many Christians and especially many Internet posters seem to have an aversion to scholarship, preferring to rely solely on their own reading and interpretation of Scripture, and thus the discussions proceed at the level we see here. One book that I have on my Kindle - completely Trinitarian in its perspective - is The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity by Stephen R. Holmes, https://www.amazon.com/Quest-Trinit...270&sr=1-1&keywords=the+quest+for+the+trinity. It reviews the OT and NT support for the doctrine and the evolution of the doctrine at all phases of history from the earliest Christian communities to the present. A half-day with a book like this would vastly expand your understanding of the doctrine and the battles that have raged around it and would, I feel sure, open your eyes to the reality that the discussions we have at places like this (including my own contributions) are kindergarten-level stuff.

I have never quoted Arius and I don't believe the Spirit of God was created as or is lesser being. I believe the spirit of God is the Fathers very own Spirit. Matt10:20.

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

 

[chessman]

My vote is He saw the Father the God of Israel.

Nope. Isaiah saw the Son who later tabernacled in the flesh as Jesus Christ, (Messiah).

John 12:37-41 But as many signs as he had performed before them, they did not believe in him, in order that the word of the prophet Isaiah would be fulfilled, who said,

“Lord, who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” ​

For this reason they were not able to believe, because again Isaiah said,

“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn, and I heal them.” ​

Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him.
​

The same "him" that performed signs before these Jews (who didn't believe Jesus was the incarnate Son of God) was seen on the throne of God Centuries earlier. Now that's pre-existence.

 

[JLB]

It was MY point about the Son.

The Lord existed before He became flesh was my point.

We were discussing His being begotten.

The Son had no beginning. Not in Mary's womb (neither did His Father). The Son always existed. If you think that point is moot with regard to the Trinty, then God help you.

What I said was moot, is the example of Abraham and Isaac.

I said at the beginning that I believe Jesus had no beginning as the Lord God.

As far as Mary's womb He became flesh and had a beginning as a Man, just as all humans have a beginning.

As the Eternal Son of God He had no beginning.

Mary's womb was empty, then the Holy Spirit conceived His body within Mary's virgin womb.


JLB

 

[Randy]

Nope. Isaiah saw the Son who later tabernacled in the flesh as Jesus Christ, (Messiah).

John 12:37-41 But as many signs as he had performed before them, they did not believe in him, in order that the word of the prophet Isaiah would be fulfilled, who said,

“Lord, who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” ​

For this reason they were not able to believe, because again Isaiah said,

“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn, and I heal them.” ​

Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him.​

The same "him" that performed signs before these Jews (who didn't believe Jesus was the incarnate Son of God) was seen on the throne of God Centuries earlier. Now that's pre-existence.

Or rather what God spoke through His prophet concerning the Son. Is what Isaiah saw. But the one on the throne would have been the God of Israel. The one Jesus, even the risen Jesus calls His God.
Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

[Mike]

i agree Jesus was worshiped, kings and angels are also worshiped so i guess i should be more specific.

Angel's were worshiped at times, but they rebuked people for doing this. See Rev 19:10. Did Jesus ever rebuke anyone for worshiping Him?

 

[chessman]

Or rather what God spoke through His prophet concerning the Son. Is what Isaiah saw.

Isaiah saw the Lord sitting on a high and raised throne.

Isaiah 6:1 In the year of the death of Uzziah the king, I saw the Lord sitting on a high and raised throne, and the hem of his robe was filling the temple.​

After God's voluntary incarceration of the Son (that is making Himself lower than He was before) and after His sacrifice, and after His resurrection and glorification as the firstborn of the resurrection; John then says Isaiah spoke about him [the resurrected Jesus] sitting on a high and raised throne.

John later received a vision of the firstborn of the resurrection (that is the Lamb of God who called Himself the Son of Man in reference to Daniel's visions as well) seated on the Throne of God:

Revelation 22:1 And he showed me a river of the water of life, shining like crystal, proceeding out from the throne of God and of the Lamb, ...​

 

[chessman]

Angel's were worshiped at times, but they rebuked people for doing this.

Yep. And people worshiped false gods too. The One True God doesn't like false god worship very much. Whether these false gods are created from wood, bronze, gold or angelic. It's a big no-no.

Yet, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ (Messiah) was worshiped as God and will be worshiped by all creatures (human and angelic) in the New Creation. Something to think about, at least.

 

[chessman]

Or rather what God spoke through His prophet concerning the Son. Is what Isaiah saw.

Isaiah saw the Lord sitting on a high and raised throne. Isaiah even saw what He was wearing.

Isaiah 6:1 In the year of the death of Uzziah the king, I saw the Lord sitting on a high and raised throne, and the hem of his robe was filling the temple.​

After God's voluntary incarceration of the Son, making Himself lower than He was before (who is named Jesus, called the Lord Jesus by His followers, the Lord Christ Jesus (Messiah), Emmanuel, which means God with us) and after His sacrifice, and after His resurrection and glorification as the firstborn of the resurrection; John then also says Isaiah spoke about him sitting on a high and raised throne.

John later (at the end of his life) received a vision of this same firstborn of the resurrection (that is the Lamb of God, the Son of God) seated on the Throne of God:

Revelation 22:1 And he showed me a river of the water of life, shining like crystal, proceeding out from the throne of God and of the Lamb, ​

Poof, the Lamb of God is God.

 

[Randy]

Isaiah saw the Lord sitting on a high and raised throne. Isaiah even saw what He was wearing.

Isaiah 6:1 In the year of the death of Uzziah the king, I saw the Lord sitting on a high and raised throne, and the hem of his robe was filling the temple.​

After God's voluntary incarceration of the Son, making Himself lower than He was before (who is named Jesus, called the Lord Jesus by His followers, the Lord Christ Jesus (Messiah), Emmanuel, which means God with us) and after His sacrifice, and after His resurrection and glorification as the firstborn of the resurrection; John then also says Isaiah spoke about him sitting on a high and raised throne.

John later (at the end of his life) received a vision of this same firstborn of the resurrection (that is the Lamb of God, the Son of God) seated on the Throne of God:

Revelation 22:1 And he showed me a river of the water of life, shining like crystal, proceeding out from the throne of God and of the Lamb, ​

Poof, the Lamb of God is God.

God did not make himself lower than Jesus or lower himself
Jesus remains in the Fathers love because He always does what pleases the Father. Jesus obeys the Fathers will. Have you ever read where the Father needs to obey anyone or received power and authority from any being? OR did the Father ever call anyone His God?

Rv 22:1 has 2 conditions not 1 the throne of God AND the lamb
And Isaiah did speak about God sitting on a high and raised throne. Jesus has a place on His Fathers throne. But the visions of God are just that visions of the God of Israel.
Rev 5 NIV
He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. Jesus takes the scroll from the One who sat on the throne. That would be the Father

1 COR 15 NIV
For he “has put everything under his feet.”c Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in