Doctrine of the Trinity

[Gregg]

Yeshua did not say "I AM" as though he was the great "I AM" of Ex 3:14. That is the translator adding his bias into his translation.

Thinking that way, ones make the Scripture say anything he wants, and defines his god any way that pleases him.

Yeshua simply said "I am" referring back to his declaration in verse 23 that he was from above and not of this world.

Perhaps the Author of the Scriptures is saying something about the LORD Jesus Christ, that His Name is Yahweh, the I AM.

Jn 6:20 I Am
Jn 8:24 that I Am

Jn 8:28 that I Am
Jn 8:58 I Am

Jn 13:19 that I Am
Jn 18:5 I Am

Jn 18:6 I Am
Jn 18:8 that I Am

"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you" (Exo 3:14 KJV).

.

 

[Free]

No it doesn't. I'm simply using the word the way the Scriptures do. The word God is used as a name and a title. I believe many don't realize this and get confused. The majority of times the word God is used in the NT it is using it as a name for the Father. However, the word is also a title. We could use human presidents in a similar way. If I say the President, you would know I was speaking of Obama. However, if there were three presidents from three different countries, they all be a president but they would not all be the same person. The word theos, translated God means deity. The Father is deity, the Son is deity, the Holy Spirit is deity, in that sense they are God, however, that is the only sense in which they are God.

You believe in three gods, which is polytheism. Your distinction between a name and a title is moot. If someone has the title "God," in reference to them being deity, then they must be God. If would make no sense to say that the Son is deity because he has the title "God" but yet is not actually God. That is just a false distinction. Only God proper can be called God and have the title God as referring to his deity.

Note the following (all ESV):

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Isa 44:8 Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,

Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.
Isa 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Isa 46:9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,

These verses completely do away with your position. This is God using the terms "God" and "god" as titles, saying that there is no other.

The man Jesus was born of Mary, the Word was born of God. The Word existed as a part of the Father but not as a separate entity apart from the Father as He did after being begotten.

Do you agree that the pre-incarnate Word was distinct from the Father?

I have studied it, that's why I'm pointing out the contradiction. I might suggest the same advice.
per·son
ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   a human being regarded as an individual.
   "the porter was the last person to see her"
   synonyms:human being, individual, man/woman, child, human, being, (living) soul, mortal, creature; More

Incorrect. You need to study why "person" is used and how it is used. You simply cannot assign meanings you like, even if they are legitimate meanings in other contexts. The terms "person" and "being" are, of course, very limited terms and cannot fully account for the eternal God, as no word can. However, as limited as they are, theologians purposely make the distinction and "person" does not equate to "being," they are not one and the same.

If you want to debate the issue properly, you must use the terms as they are defined by Trinitarians. You simply cannot make up your own definitions, otherwise it is, as I have said, just a straw man on your part.

Not at all, what I've explained makes perfect sense. I've stated that whatever is born of God is deity. There is only one substance that is God, it stems from the Father. We've got to make sure we're understanding the difference between the name and the tile. Saying Jesus is God speaks to His substance, not his name. It's this confusion, I believe, that lead to the modern idea that three persons are one being.

Your position makes no sense and is completely contradictory. I find it pretty incredible that you redefine what Trinitarians mean by "person" and "being" so as to claim a contradiction, yet you see no contradiction between thinking that Jesus can be God in substance and not be God in name. There is no difference. If Jesus, or anyone, ever, is said to be God in substance, then they are, by definition, God in name. Only God is and can be God in substance.

What doesn't make sense is the modern contradiction. If "He," God, is three persons, what exactly is "He"

One God: He. How would "they" be appropriate for a word that is singular?

 

[Free]

He didn't reprimand Thomas because Thomas did NOT call him "LORD and God". He called him "kurios and theos". Since both words are used of men, no reprimand was necessary.

But you are completely ignoring the context. The context is that of a Jewish disciple who believed, as did the others, that the Messiah would bring about an end to Roman oppression through the use of force. Jesus' followers all believed he was this Messiah. We even see this in Acts, after his resurrection, just prior to his ascension:

Act 1:6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" (ESV)

But when Jesus died, they thought that was it. This is clearly seen in the disciples' unbelief at the claims that Jesus had arisen. They didn't believe until they saw the empty tomb and saw Him. So of course Thomas isn't going to believe without seeing for himself. And when he does, his response cannot be understood in any other way than a declaration of the deity of Jesus as his God.

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" (ESV)

This is an exceedingly personal response to going from utter disbelief to belief. There is no mistaking what is meant by Thomas' words. To call the risen Saviour, "my God," is highly significant; he is telling Jesus that He is his God. Your explanation doesn't explain it at all.

When do you believe Jesus/the Son came into existence and did he pre-exist?

 

[th1b.taylor]

Yes, and so is the modern idea of the Trinity. It comes from the Anthanasian Creed. However, my point in posting it was to show what was first believed.

Stating your position as such, and I understand before I say it, it will not please but, it means you have a limit on what God can reveal from the scriptures. Either that or you, a created man, demand that God has revealed it all and there is no more.

I keep a copy of the Creeds on my study programs but I have never read one of them, they are there, only, for reference, if needed. In the area, where I live, I am known for being tossed out of vone assembly for calling out a pastor of better than twenty years for teaching what the Bible does not say and I'm also known in the Christian Circle here for not being afraid to stand up and question any preacher when I cannot see how, what he is teaching does not align with scripture. I am a self taught graduate of Junior High and I grew to manhood as a Family Taught Atheist.

From the moment of my conversion I have studied the scriptures in submission to the Holy Spirit and if any doctrine of a church assembly disagrees what I'm taught by the Spirit I do require that I be shown how it fits within the context of the scriptures and the Spirit must agree after I pray on the issue.

I did not, just, sit in the pew and pick the Trinity up from some teacher/preacher. There are many One Goders, as you folks are known by the rest of us, and many will even take and personally validatethe JW position that Jesus never said He is God but;
John 8:24 - “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM He, you will die in your sins.”
John 8:58 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
The Jews understood what Jesus had said as should we. You go to the Creeds, adapted from the scriptures but the proper place to search is the scripture and that, only, with the guidance of the Spirit of Him that inspired the Word to be written.

A Koine Greek word for the Trinity is not found in the scriptures but then, neither is a single word for the Rapture found before the Latin translations. In neither case does that invalidate the teaching. The scriptures and always have taught both of these concepts because they are true.

 

[eklektosdoulos]

The term is not found explicitly in the Scriptures, and terms can always be built on or modified or whatever. Terms are only useful in so far as they describe an actual reality. But does the Scriptures refer to God as a unity in a plurality? Yeah, all over the place. Just think of the "Messenger/Angel of Yahweh." He's doing God stuff all over the place (Samson, Moses at the burning bush, before Joshua). But the other question worth asking is what happens when the Trinity goes away? That's the real question. If we demolish the Trinity on the basis of the term not being found in the Bible, then what image of God will be left? Well, for one, Jesus will no longer be ruling over all things and filling all things as God (Eph 4:10-16). Then we also can move to the fact that Jesus did not have the power to cover over our sins (Col 1). And then we can move to the fact that Jesus is no longer the one who makes God known for us, so we do not know God, because only the only begotten God from the bosom of the Father can make God known (John 1), for he alone has seen him. And then we can move on to the fact that there was no one actually worthy to die on our behalf, so we'll probably lose the atonement as well (Rev 5). The reason to cling to Trinitarian doctrine is twofold: first, because Scripture does teach it (as noted above and seen in Philippians 2, all the baptism accounts of Jesus, the creation narrative, the beginning of John, Isaiah, where it speaks of God putting his Holy Spirit on his servant, the upper-room discourse in John, the Psalms (The Lord said to my Lord), etc.), losing this always leads to rampant rationalism and the demolition of the gospel (look at the Socinians, the Unitarians/Universalists, the Arians, the JWs, the Mormons, is there vision of God in any way remotely Christian?), and second, because Jesus Christ shows what the Trinity is all about, God working for us through all his being. The Father creating and sending his Son, the Son dying and rising (and being raised by the Father), and the Holy Spirit keeping us connected to this reality ever anew in every place where Word is given in all of its forms. The Trinity is about us, and our salvation, and about the infinite love of God for his creation, and we should remember this aspect of it, even while remembering also that it is an eternal truth about the nature of God to be reverentially accepted and revered. Also, as an aside, don't think the guys who thought through this stuff so long ago weren't using the Bible, they really knew their stuff and fought tooth and nail for this. It is a Biblical doctrine.

 

[Butch5]

You believe in three gods, which is polytheism. Your distinction between a name and a title is moot. If someone has the title "God," in reference to them being deity, then they must be God. If would make no sense to say that the Son is deity because he has the title "God" but yet is not actually God. That is just a false distinction. Only God proper can be called God and have the title God as referring to his deity.

Note the following (all ESV):

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Isa 44:8 Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any."

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,

Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isa 45:21 Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.
Isa 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Isa 46:9 remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,

These verses completely do away with your position. This is God using the terms "God" and "god" as titles, saying that there is no other.

I think you're confusing identity with person. I've already agreed there is one God, one substance that is God. However, as I said, the word God is used as both a title and a name. Also, we must remember what Jesus said,

KJV John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. (Joh 12:49 KJV)

The passages you've presented here pose no difficulty to what I've said.

Do you agree that the pre-incarnate Word was distinct from the Father?

After being begotten.

Incorrect. You need to study why "person" is used and how it is used. You simply cannot assign meanings you like, even if they are legitimate meanings in other contexts. The terms "person" and "being" are, of course, very limited terms and cannot fully account for the eternal God, as no word can. However, as limited as they are, theologians purposely make the distinction and "person" does not equate to "being," they are not one and the same.

I didn't assign a meaning to the word, I simply posted its definition. Oh, I can't assign a meaning to the word but theologians can? Even better they can assign a meaning that the word doesn't even have? No wonder no can explain how three persons can be one being. No, it's logical contradiction, theologians just have misunderstood the Trinity probably based on Augustine's musings

If you want to debate the issue properly, you must use the terms as they are defined by Trinitarians. You simply cannot make up your own definitions, otherwise it is, as I have said, just a straw man on your part.

It seems it should be the other way around. Theologians should define the terms using the actual meaning of the words so Christians can understand it and don't have to say things like, it's a mystery, or it's beyond our understanding, etc.

Your position makes no sense and is completely contradictory. I find it pretty incredible that you redefine what Trinitarians mean by "person" and "being" so as to claim a contradiction, yet you see no contradiction between thinking that Jesus can be God in substance and not be God in name. There is no difference. If Jesus, or anyone, ever, is said to be God in substance, then they are, by definition, God in name. Only God is and can be God in substance.

You would have point if that was my argument but it's not. My argument is that Jesus is not the Father. The argument, one being consisting of three persons makes a being that consists of three persons. If they are all coequal and all God, in person then the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father.

One God: He. How would "they" be appropriate for a word that is singular?

You didn't answer my question, what is "He"? Saying He is He doesn't answer the question.

However, I'll answer your question, how would they be appropriate for word that is singular. Some words while singular can incorporate a multiplicity of subjects, for instance, suppose I have bag of Kentucky blue grass seed and a bag of Fescue seed, I could say I have grass seed. Seed is singular by can be used to describe a plural number. The same thing could be say of the word royalty, I could say, the king, the prince, and the earl are royalty. Royalty is a singular word yet can incorporate multiple individuals. The same can be said of the word fish, I could have one fish or five fish, again the word can incorporate multiple specimens.[/QUOTE]

 

[Butch5]

Stating your position as such, and I understand before I say it, it will not please but, it means you have a limit on what God can reveal from the scriptures. Either that or you, a created man, demand that God has revealed it all and there is no more.

I keep a copy of the Creeds on my study programs but I have never read one of them, they are there, only, for reference, if needed. In the area, where I live, I am known for being tossed out of vone assembly for calling out a pastor of better than twenty years for teaching what the Bible does not say and I'm also known in the Christian Circle here for not being afraid to stand up and question any preacher when I cannot see how, what he is teaching does not align with scripture. I am a self taught graduate of Junior High and I grew to manhood as a Family Taught Atheist.

From the moment of my conversion I have studied the scriptures in submission to the Holy Spirit and if any doctrine of a church assembly disagrees what I'm taught by the Spirit I do require that I be shown how it fits within the context of the scriptures and the Spirit must agree after I pray on the issue.

I did not, just, sit in the pew and pick the Trinity up from some teacher/preacher. There are many One Goders, as you folks are known by the rest of us, and many will even take and personally validatethe JW position that Jesus never said He is God but;
John 8:24 - “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM He, you will die in your sins.”
John 8:58 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
The Jews understood what Jesus had said as should we. You go to the Creeds, adapted from the scriptures but the proper place to search is the scripture and that, only, with the guidance of the Spirit of Him that inspired the Word to be written.

A Koine Greek word for the Trinity is not found in the scriptures but then, neither is a single word for the Rapture found before the Latin translations. In neither case does that invalidate the teaching. The scriptures and always have taught both of these concepts because they are true.

Well, if had made my case from the early church then you would have an argument, but I didn't. I simply pointed to the Nicene Creed to show what was originally taught in the Christian faith regarding the Trinity and I pointed to the Anthanasian Creed to show where the idea of the Trinity that three coequal persons are one being enter the Christian faith. What I've stated was taught from the beginning, the three persons one being teaching doesn't show up until about the 5th century.

However, I've made my case from the Scriptures, I believe what Paul said,

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1Co 8:6 KJV)

Paul here is using the word God to identify the Father, he's not referring to His nature or substance which would be the same a Jesus. Paul says there is one God in several places. James too says there is one God.

 

[Butch5]

Something to ponder, If the Trinity is three co-equal, co-eternal, persons that are one being then, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the supreme being. If they are all the supreme being how can any one of them have a God?

15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: (Eph 1:15-17 KJV)

7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Psa 45:7 KJV)

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You would have point if that was my argument but it's not. My argument is that Jesus is not the Father. The argument, one being consisting of three persons makes a being that consists of three persons. If they are all coequal and all God, in person then the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father.

This is fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial persons, which means that they are of the same substance. These three are separate in person in that the Father is not the Son, etc.

While they might be the same in one thing, substance or essence.
They are separate in another, person.
Hence, Trinitarians reject Sabellianism which says that these three are on person, but just different modes of the same God.

Logically your argument does not stand, nor does it accurately represent the views that Christians have held on the nature of the Trinity for millenia.

 

[Butch5]

This is fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial persons, which means that they are of the same substance. These three are separate in person in that the Father is not the Son, etc.

While they might be the same in one thing, substance or essence.
They are separate in another, person.
Hence, Trinitarians reject Sabellianism which says that these three are on person, but just different modes of the same God.

Logically your argument does not stand, nor does it accurately represent the views that Christians have held on the nature of the Trinity for millenia.

If you're going tosay my argument doesn't stand please explain why. On the other hand, you said, Hence, Trinitarians reject Sabellianism which says that these three are on person, but just different modes of the same God." I know they deny it, but then essentially say the same thing when the refer to the three as "He." He is first person singular.

Regarding what's been held, I've already addressed that and shown where the modern idea entered the faith around the fifth century

 

[Doulos Iesou]

If you're going tosay my argument doesn't stand please explain why.

I did. I didn't just say "your argument doesn't stand," I explained why.

On the other hand, you said, Hence, Trinitarians reject Sabellianism which says that these three are on person, but just different modes of the same God." I know they deny it, but then essentially say the same thing when the refer to the three as "He." He is first person singular.

You're conflating on the word "person" and "being," and you're not understanding the way in which it is used. Trinitarians claim that they are consubstantial, of the same substance and essence, we do not say that they are the same persons.

The "He" is also a proper use as it represents the sense in which Trinitarians believe that God is one, but if that was all we said then your argument would be an accurate representation, but it is not.

Regarding what's been held, I've already addressed that and shown where the modern idea entered the faith around the fifth century

The explanation and understanding for the faith was clarified and provided. However, to say that people didn't embrace the Divinity of Jesus prior to this date is wholly in error. The only thing that changed was the expression of the doctrine, the real contents of that belief were embraced throughout Christian history. Of course, those of us here who are Trinitarians will argue that this is what Scripture teaches.

What is it exactly that you believe? Some form of Arianism?

 

[th1b.taylor]

Well, if had made my case from the early church then you would have an argument, but I didn't. I simply pointed to the Nicene Creed to show what was originally taught in the Christian faith regarding the Trinity and I pointed to the Anthanasian Creed to show where the idea of the Trinity that three coequal persons are one being enter the Christian faith. What I've stated was taught from the beginning, the three persons one being teaching doesn't show up until about the 5th century.

However, I've made my case from the Scriptures, I believe what Paul said,

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1Co 8:6 KJV)

Paul here is using the word God to identify the Father, he's not referring to His nature or substance which would be the same a Jesus. Paul says there is one God in several places. James too says there is one God.

And I have agreed as have Free and others. The funny thing you're missing is that we live and are saved by Faith, not by scientific nor by human logical facts. The truth is the recorded Word of God teaches of the three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, all being God and all being the one God Saul/Paul teaches of after being taught, one on one, by Jesus after His death on the cross for about three years. (Philippians)

 

[Lewis]

Can you explain the Trinity?

The Bible clearly speaks of: God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit. But emphasizes that there is only ONE God.

If we were to use math, it would not be, 1+1+1=3. It would be 1x1x1=1. God is a triune God.
http://www.everystudent.com/forum/trinity.html

 

[Butch5]

I did. I didn't just say "your argument doesn't stand," I explained why.

Actually, you didn't. My argument is that Jesus is not the Father.

You're conflating on the word "person" and "being," and you're not understanding the way in which it is used. Trinitarians claim that they are consubstantial, of the same substance and essence, we do not say that they are the same persons.

Again, that's what they say, yet refer to the three collectively as "He." Three persons cannot be one being. The words person and being are interchangeable, in essence what is being espoused ti s that three persons are one person even though this is denied. No, this red car isn't red.

The "He" is also a proper use as it represents the sense in which Trinitarians believe that God is one, but if that was all we said then your argument would be an accurate representation, but it is not.

OK, please elaborate one this.

The explanation and understanding for the faith was clarified and provided. However, to say that people didn't embrace the Divinity of Jesus prior to this date is wholly in error. The only thing that changed was the expression of the doctrine, the real contents of that belief were embraced throughout Christian history. Of course, those of us here who are Trinitarians will argue that this is what Scripture teaches.

I didn't say anyone denied the deity of Christ. What I said was that the idea or three co-equal co-eternal persons being one being was not what was originally taught, it entered the faith around the 5th century.

What is it exactly that you believe? Some form of Arianism?

I'm a Trinitarian, just not of the modern contradiction.

 

[Butch5]

question for those who hold the modern view, Jesus is God, what does that mean?

 

[LovethroughDove]

question for those who hold the modern view, Jesus is God, what does that mean?

I posted it on the first page of this thread. God is Love, Light and Holiness. There is hierarchy in God. God the Father is Almighty, Jesus is under the Father as mediator between God and man, Believers are under Jesus.

We are part of God when we are born again of the Spirit.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Actually, you didn't. My argument is that Jesus is not the Father.

We agree that Jesus is not the Father, and I explained here:

This is fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial persons, which means that they are of the same substance. These three are separate in person in that the Father is not the Son, etc.

While they might be the same in one thing, substance or essence.
They are separate in another, person.
Hence, Trinitarians reject Sabellianism which says that these three are on person, but just different modes of the same God.

Logically your argument does not stand, nor does it accurately represent the views that Christians have held on the nature of the Trinity for millenia.

It's one thing to disagree with my explanation, and another to claim that I did not offer one.

Again, that's what they say, yet refer to the three collectively as "He." Three persons cannot be one being.

How do you know this?

It is not a logical contradiction.
3 in 1 way, 1 in another. If we said that they are 3 in person and 1 in person, then that would be a contradiction. It is possible to conceive of such a being without creating a contradiction, therefore it is not an impossibility.

The words person and being are interchangeable, in essence what is being espoused ti s that three persons are one person even though this is denied. No, this red car isn't red.

The words are used to denote different things, and they are not simply interchangeable when used in this context. Being speaks to the essence of something, a person or individual and a person as it relates to the Trinity are separate individuals who are united in the essence of the Godhead.

These terms are used to denote different things, and to argue semantics (which is what you're doing) is to fail to recognize the distinct ways in which these terms are used with regards to the Trinity. A word's meaning is defined by it's usage.

OK, please elaborate one this.

Trinitarians do not deny the oneness of God, as we embrace that they are of the same substance and essence, yet distinguish them as three persons. While it may be mysterious, it is not contradictory.

I didn't say anyone denied the deity of Christ. What I said was that the idea or three co-equal co-eternal persons being one being was not what was originally taught, it entered the faith around the 5th century.

I disagree with this, as all the aspects of the Trinity were apparent in the writings of the

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority . . . There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father"
-Origen (185-254)

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
-Tertullian (160-215)

Theologians have always had distinctions regarding the ontological equality and functional subordination among the members of the Godhead. And these views represented above far predate your claims of the teachings only being taught in the 5th Century.

I'm a Trinitarian, just not of the modern contradiction.

How would you describe the Trinity then?

 

[Butch5]

I posted it on the first page of this thread. God is Love, Light and Holiness. There is hierarchy in God. God the Father is Almighty, Jesus is under the Father as mediator between God and man, Believers are under Jesus.

We are part of God when we are born again of the Spirit.

OK, what is God?

 

[LovethroughDove]

I posted it on the first page of this thread. God is Love, Light and Holiness.

OK, what is God?

.

So God is what I posted above:

 

[Butch5]

We agree that Jesus is not the Father, and I explained here:

It's one thing to disagree with my explanation, and another to claim that I did not offer one.

If we agree, how did you refute my argument?

How do you know this?

It is not a logical contradiction.
3 in 1 way, 1 in another. If we said that they are 3 in person and 1 in person, then that would be a contradiction. It is possible to conceive of such a being without creating a contradiction, therefore it is not an impossibility.

See, you’re doing what I’m talking about. You said it’s possible to conceive of such a being. What being? A being that consists of three persons? If that’s what you’re saying it is an impossibility. How can three lives be one life?

The words are used to denote different things, and they are not simply interchangeable when used in this context. Being speaks to the essence of something, a person or individual and a person as it relates to the Trinity are separate individuals who are united in the essence of the Godhead.

Then why is this being referred to as “He”? An essence is not a He. If you’re saying that the three persons are just of the same essence and don’t comprise a different entity which is God then we are in agreement. However, what I see from most Christians who say they believe in the Trinity is that God is an entity that is comprised of three persons.

These terms are used to denote different things, and to argue semantics (which is what you're doing) is to fail to recognize the distinct ways in which these terms are used with regards to the Trinity. A word's meaning is defined by it's usage.

And if those who hold position you’re espousing would nail down the terms it would make discussion much easier. However, the terms seem to change as needed. Onetime they’ll say Jesus is God and they’re mean the Jesus, yet at other times they’ll say God in reference to the Trinity.

Trinitarians do not deny the oneness of God, as we embrace that they are of the same substance and essence, yet distinguish them as three persons. While it may be mysterious, it is not contradictory.

I agree 100% with this statement. However, I don’t think that’s what most believe about the Trinity. Too many that I discuss this with see God as a being or entity that consists of three persons. If you say God is an essence or a title then I agree.

I disagree with this, as all the aspects of the Trinity were apparent in the writings of the

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority . . . There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father"
-Origen (185-254)

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
-Tertullian (160-215)

Theologians have always had distinctions regarding the ontological equality and functional subordination among the members of the Godhead. And these views represented above far predate your claims of the teachings only being taught in the 5th Century.

And they present no problem to what I’ve stated. These don’t show an equality except substance.

How would you describe the Trinity then?

I’m really surprised you’re debating this with me when it seems we’re in agreement from the most part. What I’ve been arguing is that three persons don’t equal one which is essentially what many Christians say if you listen to their words.


The Trinity is the three persons, Father. Son and Spirit all of the same essence, all deity, but not the same persons or beings.