Doctrine of the Trinity

[Solo]

Doctrine of the Trinity
By Dr. Ed DeVries


Since God is a triune being, theologians use the word Trinity to represent the complex doctrine through which man comprehends His existence. Since the word Trinity is not found anywhere in the received text or in it's offspring (the Authorized Version and other biblical translations derived from the received text), many argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a Biblical one. However, when a person comes to understand the theory that is embodied in the terminology they can not help but find proof of the Trinity throughout the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity is believed by all Christian groups. Some groups profess to be Christian and do not believe in the Trinity, however, none of these groups are truly Christian because their various perversions of the gospel cause them to have, "a form of godliness but denying the power thereof" (II Timothy 3:5). The Bible went on to say we should have nothing to do with them. Why? Because they are not Christians. This does not mean we can not love them and share the gospel with them, it simply means we are not to fellowship with them as brothers in Christ. The concept of the Trinity is the very concept of the existence of God, and since God reveals himself to his children, it only makes sense that all Christian churches would believe in and defend the doctrine of the Trinity.

Since the word Trinity is used to represent God as a triune being, what is triune? Noah Webster defined the word triune to mean, "three in one." This means that God, a singular being, exists in a plural manner. This is why the term Godhead is often used in scripture (Acts 7:19, Romans 1:20, Collosians 2:9, etc.). God's very name implies His triune existence. The Hebrew name for God used in all known manuscriptsis ELOHIM, so Genesis 1:1 could read, "In the beginning ELOHIM created the heaven and the earth." The word ELOHIM means three in one. The word ELOHIM has both a singular and a plural usage in Hebrew, uniquely, the two usages are always simultaneous. The word ELOHIM can never be used in the plural form without implying the singular and vice-versa. Note also, that all Hebrew letters have a numeric value, all Hebrew words also have value. ELOHIM is an interesting word in that it has two values, three and one.


[Edit made to reduce length of quote. JM]

Retreived from http://www.biblebelievers.com/Devries2.html

 

[unred typo]

You might like to read my post:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=23900

:-D

 

[mutzrein]

Ah, now I understand. You have to have a doctorate to not be able to understand or explain it. I have had revelation of the nature of Jesus' (the only begotten son of God) relationship to his Father (God) and the righteousness that I have in Christ does not hinge on some sort of mental assent which some want to call faith because they can't understand or explain it.

 

[Imagican]

And might I add:

2 Corinthians 11:3, 4

3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

I offer THIS:

It was TOLD us that Christ IS THE Son of God. Simple. It was TOLD us that The Father IS God. Simple. This was TOLD to us BY God, through His Son as related TO US by the apostles and prophets. And HERE we have Paul WARNING that he is AFRAID that Satan, by ANY means possible, would be ABLE to 'subvert' this SIMPLICITY into 'something different'. And NOTE; his method, "subtlety". Offering a 'piece' of the truth to gain a 'foothold', and then offering just the 'least' bit of UN TRUTH, to change the TRUTH into a LIE. Now, what do you suppose Paul was refering to? Well, let's see: Someone preaching ANOTHER Jesus than the ONE offered by God, Christ HIMSELF, and His apostles.

What I contend is that neither God, Christ OR His apostles EVER taught a 'trinity'. Is it REALLY that difficult to open one's mind and heart and SEE? What 'trinity' DID was EXACTLY what Paul was fearful of: Changing JESUS CHRIST 'into something' that would DESTROY the simplicity of that which was OFFERED.

So, it becomes APPARENT in articles such as the one offered, that those that preach such a 'new gospel' have NOT KNOWN The Spirit, for to teach one that they must 'abandon' those that REFUSE to accept this 'man-made' doctrine, is NOTHING short of ignoring what Christ came and taught us THROUGH EXAMPLE. For those that are 'righteous' in their OWN MINDS AND HEARTS, DO NOT "NEED" a SAVIOR. It IS those that RECOGNIZE their faults and tresspasses that NEED a Savior. And WHO did the MOTHER Of CHRIST state that these ARE? And WHAT was stated about the difficulty of the 'RICH' entering the kingdom of heaven? And let me ASK THIS; WHERE IS THE KINDOM RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE? Answer: WITHIN.

So, for those of these Christian denominations that would insist that 'their way' is the ONLY way, smug in their elaborate and comfortable 'buildings'. Tossing out a 'few bucks' to make themselves 'feel' righteous. Beware my friends, for Paul's fears HAVE become manifest in the churches that claim such 'self-righteousness' that they would shun their TRUE brothers and sisters for the sake of THEMSELVES.

The article written by this man is DECEPTIVE at EVERY turn of his offering. And I contend that he offers what those with itching ears LONG to hear. An understanding of 'their OWN god' of their 'own making', understood from the eyes and hearts of 'THE WORLD'. Little 'true' love is offered there except for the SEPARATE group that he would insist we shoulc ALL become a 'part' of.

The wisdom of men is NOTHING but a mere 'sprinkling' of the wisdom of God. And when men decide that their wisdom is AS GREAT as Our Father, they have veered and performed the EXACT act that had Satan separated from God. Little puny insignificant men that are UNABLE to come the reality that there IS an ALL POWERFUL God and through the envy of the 'possibility SEEK to destroy this with the illusion that the gods that THEY create, (themselves), are as mighty as the ONE TRUE GOD. Foolishness born of ENVY.

Let it go folks. Accept what we ARE and what we have been 'given'. Be thankful and offer SUBMISSION to OUR FATHER. Do not resist with a belief in 'fairy tales' or a belief in men. Accept what has been offered and BELIEVE THIS; for to 'create' ANYTHING other than this is to create 'false gods' and allow the 'deciever' to OWN YOUR SOUL.

Now, WATCH JUST HOW SIMPLE IT REALLY IS:

2 Corinthians 1:1-4

1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:

2Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

NOTE: God, our FATHER and Jesus Christ (OUR LORD).

3Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

4Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God.

comfort them which are in ANY trouble. Now, I ask you with all humility; WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? WHO. ONLY our brothers and sisters that AGREE with us? Are these the ONLY ones that we are to comfort? Are these the ONLY ones that Christ died for; those that separate themselves through 'man-made' theology? Did Christ die for ONE exclusive 'GROUP' of mankind?

And look at what is stated above;

3Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

God EVEN the FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. It does NOT say God the Father, It simply states that God IS The Father, and Jesus Christ OUR LORD.

Doesn't get ANY more simple than this folks. ONLY more complex when men step in and try to 'alter' the simplicity with vain wisdom that is NOT from above.

MEC

 

[mutzrein]

Yes feel free MEC. :wink:

And Solo, feel free to fire a trintarian broadside at us in your typical fashion.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

God EVEN the FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. It does NOT say God the Father, It simply states that God IS The Father, and Jesus Christ OUR LORD

Absolutely, MagicMan, and this overwhelmingly clear premise is what finally cured me of Trinitarianism. No where does it say anything like the Father is the 1st of 3 members of the Godhead, but, rather, that the Father is God, the one God, the "only true God". That is the premise which all other questions on this issue must be reconciled to. If the bible truly indicates that Jesus Christ is God, omnipotent, omniscient, and having eternally existed alongside "God our Father" as a distinct person, then there is MORE than one God, no matter how "unified" these 2 Gods are thought to be.

 

[SpiritualSon]

I havn't been here for sometime, and I can see that some of you still believe in the same doctrine, the doctrine of three Divine persons. When the Apostles wrote about the Father of Jesus Christ they meant the Divine Soul in Him called the Father. He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, John 14:9. The Divinity of Jesus Christ is the Father. There is a trinity in every person called the soul, body and spirit. The Soul, Body and Spirit of Jesus Christ is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Heaven is ruled by one God, not three. Three Divine persons means three gods, three gods, like Tom, Dick and Harry. How can three guys be one god. Most Christians have a natural, not a spiritual idea about the Holy Trinity.

Harry :fadein:

 

[Guest]

Or, they ARE three distinct individuals and christians get stuck with how to reconsile it with "only one god", and in the process, have made it "impossible for us to comprehend", when in actuality, it was man making it more complicated to keep their doctrine in check.

 

[mutzrein]

Man has made it complicated because things of the Spirit cannot be comprehended by the man of the flesh.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Re: Who is Jesus

Friendly reminder from the SoF.

Also, let's remember that there is currently a moratorium against new trinity topics.

Though I'm new here, I'm a veteran forum participant. I read the SoF and ToS before joining, and respect the spiritual authority of those who own and administrate this board.

That said, I have to wonder why Godhead discussion is so taboo on so many sites. Anything and everything can be questioned, challenged, and discussed except the greatest spiritual mystery of all.

I was Trinitarian for 28 years, and 12 of those as a Pastor. In the 14 years since leaving Trinity dogma behind, I've come to know and understand who God is beyond what I find to be an incomplete formulated God-model that was given us by the ANFs (Ante-Nicene Fathers).

I understand the necessity of monitoring some of the craziness that can be posted, but why is revisiting the Nicean mandate for revision such an unapproachable thing for Protestants?

We have many perceptions and variations of Social and Anti-Social Trinity models, and the Filioque schism culminated in the division of East and West in 1054. Virtually any formulation is acceptable as long as "person/s" remains the defining terminology. But that's the only part I take issue with, and affirm all other contributing sub-tenets.

I've read every ANF writing extant. I've exhaustively studied early church history and the lives and writings of every early father. Many were quite brilliant and zealous, but I believe they got it wrong. Trinity wasn't from or by Apostolic authority, and the process was coerced in the urgent quest to oppose the rise of Arianism.

Protestants don't maintain an institutional church ecclesiology, yet maintain the results of Ecumenical Councils without considering revision. The Apocrypha was excluded post-Reformation, so I don't understand the taboo in discussing man's doctrinization of God's constitution among those truly searching for truth.

I was lost because of Trinity doctrine, so I've spent many years searching for truth. It would be beneficial for us to all discuss this with mutual respect.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Re: Who is Jesus

I affirm:
There is One Deity.
The Father is Deity.
The Holy Spirit is Deity.
The Word (Son) is Deity.
These Three are One Deity.
The Father is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Holy Spirit is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Word is Eternally Pre-Existent.
The Father is Uncreated and Unbegotten.
The Holy Spirit is Uncreated and Unbegotten.
The Son is Uncreated and the Only Begotten.
The Father is not the Holy Spirit nor the Son (Word).
The Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son (Word).
The Word (Son) is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit.
The Son proceeded forth and came from the Father, Sent by the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, Sent by the Father and the Son.
(The Holy Spirit proceedeth NOT from both the Father and the Son [Filioque], though Sent by Both.)
Jesus is the Son of God and is Fully Divine, Begotten of the Father by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the son of man and is fully human with a rational soul, born of the virgin by the Holy Spirit.
The Virgin Birth of Jesus was a Supernatural Procreative Act of God, NOT a Creative Act.
God hath made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

I also wholly affirm the Nicene Creed, though I disaffirm the later Filioque-based "persons"-laced anonymous Athanasian Creed.

However... God is NOT three "persons". In fact, God is not "person(s)" of ANY quantity. "Person(s)" is a creedal term that unprecedentedly manufactured an alternate definition for an existing term and superimposed it upon scripture by inference.

In relation to God, only two words are rendered "person" in the KJV. Hupostasis (G5286) appears ONCE, in Hebrews 1:3. It is rendered "substance" in Hebrews 11:1 ("Now faith is the [hupostasis] of things hoped for...") Prosopon (G4383) appears ONCE, in reference only to Jesus in 2Corinthians 2:10.

Further... I have no issue with the term Trinity and its absense in scripture. Trinity is essentially a "shorthand" means of immediate recognition. It is descriptive, not defining. "Person(s)", on the other hand, is a clearly defining term upon which the formulated conceptualization of Trinity hinges. No "persons"? No Trinity. Trinity becomes Triadism or Tritheism without this one creedal, manufactured-definition, extra-biblical, superimposed term.

Historically, the first mention of Triad was by Theophilus (circa 180AD)in reference to God, His Word, and His Wisdom. The first use of Trinity (trinitas) was by Tertullian (circa 213AD) in his treatise against Monarchianism shortly before his descent into semi-heretical Montanism. He subsequently referred to the "persons" of God, but until this time referred to the degrees, forms, or aspects of God. Once "persons" terminology was adopted, all contemporaries began to adopt the term, leading up to the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325AD.

My point? "Person(s)" is not from/by Apostolic authority and usage, and is extra-biblical. It is an adopted term with a definition manufactured specifically for formulation and expression of a God-model. It is NOT the Divine Expression of God by His Word or His Apostles.

For further clarification, I exclude and disaffirm ANY form of the following:

Tritheism
Triadism
Trinitarianism
Bitheism
Ditheism
Dyadism
Binitarianism
Unitarianism
Socinianism
Adoptionism
Sabellianism
Monarchianism
Patripassianism
Arianism
Transcendentism
Implantationism
Infusionism
Adamism
Ascensionism
Gnosticism
Angelicism
Polytheism
Polyadism
Henotheism
Pantheism
Pan-Entheism
Panen-Theism
Theism
Nestorianism
Eutychianism
Apollinarianism
Docetism
Prosopicism
Hypostaticism

Obviously, I also exclude:
Ebionitism
Hermeticism
Stoicism
Neoplatonism
Adventism
Mormonism
Witnessism
Buddhism
Hinduism
Taoism
Zoroastrianism
Talmudism
Paganism
Occultism
... And many others.

If it's in pursuit of true Christian faith, can this be discussed?

 

[Free]

Re: Who is Jesus

Though I'm new here, I'm a veteran forum participant. I read the SoF and ToS before joining, and respect the spiritual authority of those who own and administrate this board.

That said, I have to wonder why Godhead discussion is so taboo on so many sites. Anything and everything can be questioned, challenged, and discussed except the greatest spiritual mystery of all.

The moratorium isn't on discussing the Trinity but on starting new topics. There was a point where we were being inundated with new topics on the Trinity, with the same arguments being made in multiple threads.

Having said that, this topic is not about the Trinity per se but rather the deity of Jesus. Of course, it is next to impossible to keep them separated, but the focus here is the deity of Jesus.

I was Trinitarian for 28 years, and 12 of those as a Pastor. In the 14 years since leaving Trinity dogma behind, I've come to know and understand who God is beyond what I find to be an incomplete formulated God-model that was given us by the ANFs (Ante-Nicene Fathers).

I understand the necessity of monitoring some of the craziness that can be posted, but why is revisiting the Nicean mandate for revision such an unapproachable thing for Protestants?

We have many perceptions and variations of Social and Anti-Social Trinity models, and the Filioque schism culminated in the division of East and West in 1054. Virtually any formulation is acceptable as long as "person/s" remains the defining terminology. But that's the only part I take issue with, and affirm all other contributing sub-tenets.

I've read every ANF writing extant. I've exhaustively studied early church history and the lives and writings of every early father. Many were quite brilliant and zealous, but I believe they got it wrong. Trinity wasn't from or by Apostolic authority, and the process was coerced in the urgent quest to oppose the rise of Arianism.

Protestants don't maintain an institutional church ecclesiology, yet maintain the results of Ecumenical Councils without considering revision. The Apocrypha was excluded post-Reformation, so I don't understand the taboo in discussing man's doctrinization of God's constitution among those truly searching for truth.

I was lost because of Trinity doctrine, so I've spent many years searching for truth. It would be beneficial for us to all discuss this with mutual respect.

I believe in the Trinity as a result of searching the Scriptures and have never felt lost.

 

[Hitch]

Re: Who is Jesus

Can you say it three times real fast?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Re: Who is Jesus

The moratorium isn't on discussing the Trinity but on starting new topics. There was a point where we were being inundated with new topics on the Trinity, with the same arguments being made in multiple threads.

Having said that, this topic is not about the Trinity per se but rather the deity of Jesus. Of course, it is next to impossible to keep them separated, but the focus here is the deity of Jesus.

Thanx for clarifying.

I believe in the Trinity as a result of searching the Scriptures and have never felt lost.

Nor would I insinuate you or any other Trini is devoid of salvific faith; but I was, and it was directly because of Trinity. But I never felt lost, either. I was indoctrinated. My concern is that Trinity is propagated through indoctrination, and has become as much Ideology as Theology.

Anyway... If there's freedom to discuss, I don't necessarily see the need for starting threads to do so.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Re: Who is Jesus

Can you say it three times real fast?

Your sig? Your post? My screen name? What?

 

[smaller]

Re: Who is Jesus

Thanx for clarifying.
Nor would I insinuate you or any other Trini is devoid of salvific faith; but I was, and it was directly because of Trinity. But I never felt lost, either. I was indoctrinated. My concern is that Trinity is propagated through indoctrination, and has become as much Ideology as Theology.

Anyway... If there's freedom to discuss, I don't necessarily see the need for starting threads to do so.

So, not being one to bypass the occasion of hearing from people such as yourself who have studied out detailed matters of Trinity, even giving a healthy list of avoidances, heh heh, had to appreciate that disclaimer, what do your conclusions of the matters bring? I'm taking it that your handle implies some of those things as well.

s

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Re: Who is Jesus

CHRIST DEITY

Philippians 2:5-8
5"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form (morphe G3444) of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form (morphe G3444) of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; 8And being found in fashion (schema G4976) as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

Form (morphe G3444). When appearing with fashion, whole outward appearance (schema G4976), they are objective, for the form and the fashion of a thing would exist if it were alone in the universe, whether or not there was anything there to behold it. They cannot represent subjective ideas of non-existing things. The appearance of morphe (form) or schema (fashion) implies someone to whom this appearance is made. There needs to be a seer before something can be seen. It becomes objectively "real" by its subjective realization ("real"ization - made real).

In Phil. 2:6, morphe presumes an objective reality. None could be in the form of God who was not God. Morphe is the reality which can be externalized, not a mere shape that is the result of thought. It is the utterance of the inner life, a life which bespeaks the existence of God. He who had been from eternity en morphe Theou, in the form of God (John 17:5), took at his incarnation morphen doulou, the form of a servant.

Nothing appeared that was not in objective reality from the beginning. The fact that he continued to be God in his humanity is demonstrated by the present participle of huparchon, "being" in the form of God. Huparcho (G5225) involves continuing to be that which one was before. In the Incarnation, Jesus took upon Himself the form (morphe) of a servant , which is an inner attitude by taking upon Himself the shape (schema) of man. That was the only way He could die for man's salvation. The schema shape/fashion is the outward form having to do not with its essential/substantial being, but with His appearance.

Jesus had to have been God to be in the form (morphe) of God.

 

[smaller]

Re: Who is Jesus

The 'form' of God the Man, The Son, within whom existed the Spirit without Limit is an interesting contemplation. A Servant upholding 'all things' for sure, by the Power of His Word.

I note you may hold to the preexistence of all things in the Objective Mind of God. I lean toward that understanding myself. Origen also held to a fashion of this I believe.

s

 

[smaller]

Re: Who is Jesus

In reviewing your rather nice list of contemplations of God/Son/Holy Spirit I would also ask this of your statement here:

"The Son is Uncreated and the Only Begotten."

Doesn't God making or preparing a 'body' for Himself as The Son fix that event as a genuine 'creation of human flesh in time?' I have also had quite a time observing Gods Appearances in the O.T. as well, in what some term as Christophany or Theophany. It is quite hotly contested sometimes.

Hebrews 10:5
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me

s

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Re: Who is Jesus

So, not being one to bypass the occasion of hearing from people such as yourself who have studied out detailed matters of Trinity, even giving a healthy list of avoidances, heh heh, had to appreciate that disclaimer,

My exclusions come from being called several on the list, so I disown most everything in advance now. :-P

what do your conclusions of the matters bring?

I hate to (further) 'jack a thread. Where would be best to discuss it?

I'm taking it that your handle implies some of those things as well.

Perceptive, you are. I sense a refreshing opportunity for highly-rational conversation devoid of default dogma.