How can the Trinity be monotheistic?

[Free]

I think I take the position of the early church.

You don't since you are a polytheist. Judaism is monotheistic and Christianity is also monotheistic, otherwise our God is something other than the God of the OT.

 

[MarkT]

Where do you get that? [that "expression" is the primary meaning of "logos"]

You might say that I get it by osmosis from years of studying Greek, and from the context of the word in the New Testament and other Greek writings.

However, if you want a lexical witness, consider Abott-Smiths Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. When you look up the word "logos" in this lexicon, you find first of all:

I. Of that by which the inward thought is expressed, Lat. oratio, sermo, vox, verbum

Under Roman Numeral "I", you then have six sub-definitions. Here they are, but references, etc. given only in the first:

1. a word, not in the grammatical sense of a mere name (epos, onoma, hrÄÂma) but a word as embodying a conception or idea; Mt 8:8, Lk 7:7, I Cor 14:9,19, Heb 12:19, al.

2. a saying, statement, declaration

3. speech, discourse

4. subject-matter

5. a story, tale, narrative

6. that which is spoken of

A second main definition is given as:

II. Of the inward thought itself:

1. reason

Besides being the expression of God, it is also interesting to think of the Son of God as the very "logic" of God. Indeed, the English word "logic" has come from the Greek "logos".

It is interesting that the expression "logos of God" is also used with reference to the gospel. Our Lord Himself used it in his parable of the sower and the seed (Luke 8:11). Throughout the book of Acts, the expression "logos of God" is used in reference to the gospel.

Our Lord, Jesus Christ, is the chief expression of God. Possibly the gospel comes next as an expression of God, in the sense that it is the main logos which God wishes to bring to us other than His Son Himself.

LOL

What's wrong with 'the Word'? Why can't you use the words that you are given? You're like Drew. He has to use 'Torah' for the law. We know we use words to communicate our thoughts. But why do you find fault with the work of the translators? The Word was, "Let there be light." That was the first thing God said. That's who was with God in the beginning. Yes the Word came from God. The Word originated in him and he was brought forth.

You could say God expressed himself in the light or God was in the light. That would be consistent with what the light said; 'the Father is in me'. We could say the light was the wisdom of God and the wisdom of God was in the light because the earth was founded by wisdom. Pr. 3:19 And Christ is our wisdom.

But how can you say the chief expression? You have to be more definite. Why don't you say, the 'first' expression or the 'beginning' expression or the 'Holy' expression if he expressed God? The light was the beginning of creation. The Word became the light. God saw the light was good; and he separated the light from the darkness.

John was sent from God. 'He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light.' John 1:6,7

 

[MarkT]

Either God is a Trinity or he is not. If he is and the Church is correct, then there is no further growth required in that particular aspect. But that does not in any way stop any other growth in the knowledge of God. And of course, your argument presupposes that the doctrine of the Trinity isn't correct, so that cannot be your only disagreement with it.

It is my only concern. I admit the Father is the true God and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of God. Is that a Trinity? You admit there is no further growth possible. But it goes without saying that there is. We are not perfect in our knowledge of God. Knowledge is like a tree. It keeps growing. And it needs water to grow. But if there is no water, then the branch withers. But don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to uproot the tree. I'm just trying to give it a little water. If you can see what I'm saying in the light of Christ, then don't worry about it.

MarkT wrote:
He became God.

Two major problems with this:

1. No creature can ever become God.
2. This would lead to polytheism for Christianity (while Judaism would remain monotheistic).

We don't regard Jesus from a human point of view. Jesus Christ did inherit the throne of God and that's why we call him God. It says, 'when he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.' Heb. 1 3,4

So Jesus Christ became superior and he obtained the name of God; the Lord Jesus Christ.

In a manner of speaking, if I reach out and grab something, is it my hand that grabs it, or is it I who grab it. I am not my hand, yet my hand and I are one. If you could only see my hand, you might say I was my hand. Well, that's my best analogy. Jesus Christ was the hand of God.

And what is this polytheism, monotheism business? Do you see God and Christ as a religion or truth?

 

[Imagican]

In all I'd have to say Christ is much more than just an expression.

That may be so. But don't downplay the fact that He is the expression of God. If Jesus hadn't expressed God to us, we would not know what God is really like. Jesus was compassionate, and so we know that God is compassionate. Jesus was the exact expression of [God's] essence. [Hebrews 1:3]. He was so similar to His Father that He said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
Wow! How well our Lord Jesus expressed His Father to the world.

Jesus also expressed himself. For example, he expressed his anger when he threw out the money changers.

He said, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone'. Mr. 10:18 Of course that was his teaching, and it came from God. But the teaching is true. What was God saying? Wasn't Jesus good? Nope. Not compared to God. This is something to bear in mind, for when he returns, he will smite the nations, and tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. Rev. 19:15

He said, 'I proceeded and came forth from God.' John 8:42 and 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' John 20:17 This is what he said about himself.

Jesus expressed his sorrow, 'my soul is very sorrowful', and going a little further, he fell on his face and prayed, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me' Mt. 26:38

Jesus was like the Father, but like he said, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him.' John 13:16 And 'a servant is not above his master', and 'It is enough for the servant to be like his master' Mt. 10:25

Wow, Mark, this is GOOD stuff.

you offer Christ offering that God is HIS master. And you also offer that Christ was LIKE God. this is NOT saying that Christ WAS God Himself. And what PART of Christ was LIKE God? The words above also offer that OUR God is the God of Christ as well. NOTHING in this offering even INDICATES that Christ IS God.

We KNOW that the Father IS God. There is NO doubt of this for scripture offers it PLAINLY. But scriture does NOT offer that the Son is God as well. Scritpture dictates that the Son IS The Son. A part of the Godhead but NEVER is it offered that Christ IS God.

And I STILL maintain that the BASIC reason that 'trinity' was created was to BE ABLE to worship Christ AS God. And no matter HOW hard it tries to 'talk around it', 'trinity' teaches MORE than ONE God. It's veiled attempts to offer three persons in one God just don't add up so far as scripture is concerned. The same questions that existed PREVIOUS to 'trinity' still exist WITHIN 'trinity'. So the indication is that there is STILL an incomplete understanding of the relationship of God and His Son. But we DO KNOW that Christ Himself offered that HE was/IS The Son of God. So acceptance of this is a 'no brainer'. But to place Christ in a scripturally UNNATURAL place of honor is to go against what HE HIMSELF offered. Simply read the words offered in the scriptures offered by Mark above and it becomes OBVIOUS that Christ offered the distinction between Himself and God over and over again. And that God is GREATER than He. That in itself is enough to negate 'trinity' in it's present definement.

Christ SITS at the RIGHT HAND OF GOD. These words couldn't be clearer. Exactly what that means so far as 'symbolic or actuality' can be debated. But that there is a distinction here offered between GOD Himself and Christ is without denial. Either that, or one must 'make up' what they choose to believe that it means.

Father forgive them for they know not what they do. How can there be any other understanding than that Christ is praying for forgiveness FROM God? And IF He Himself WERE God, then would have been NO NEED for such a prayer. And He was NOT only praying for their forgiveness concerning His DEATH, but for the 'coming events' that He surely knew would take place. For not only did they MURDER Him, but the obvious course would be to persecute those that followed Him as well. And the reason that I offer this is that Christ was WELL able to forgive them for what they had done to Him personally. But LATER events would need be in the hands of the Father, GOD. For it is the NEED of God's forgiveness that we are bound. Christ CAME to offer us the ABILITY to BE forgiven through HIS Death. But that death and the POWER Of it was designated BY God. And the vehicle of it's event and perfection were designated by God as well. it was GOD who chose to send HIS Son to die for OUR sins. Christ surely accepted the decision and perhaps knew from the beginning that this was His purpose even then. But Chist offered over and over again that the words that He offered were NOT HIS OWN. People, this is NOT a hard thing to bear. Christ stated that what He offered was as He had observed OF God. Now, HOW is Christ God Himself when He plainly offered that the words and example that He offered were NOT His but GIVEN Him BY GOD?

'Trinity' does NOT explain this. It remains as much or more of a mystery than what was accepted BEFORE it's 'creation'. For since it's creation we can clearly see that it has evolved into that which even those that accept it don't agree upon.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Free]

You admit there is no further growth possible.

No, I said: "If he is [a Trinity] and the Church is correct, then there is no further growth required in that particular aspect". In other words, if God is a Trinity, there is no further knowledge that can be obtained in regards to that. The reason I say that is because if Jesus isn't God, then all sorts of fanciful ideas can be made about him, which is precisely what liberal and ultra-liberal scholars do. If Jesus is God, but not the Father, then enough is said.

Jesus Christ did inherit the throne of God and that's why we call him God.

But now you are changing what we mean when use the term "God". When you change the meanings of terms, the debate becomes meaningless. God, by biblical definition, is eternal, among other things. A creature, by definition, is not eternal and as such could never "inherit the throne of God" and could never assume the title "God". If logically follows then that Jesus, if he was a creature, could never be called God and never could become God.

In a manner of speaking, if I reach out and grab something, is it my hand that grabs it, or is it I who grab it. I am not my hand, yet my hand and I are one. If you could only see my hand, you might say I was my hand. Well, that's my best analogy. Jesus Christ was the hand of God.

There isn't a whole lot wrong with that analogy but two things must be kept in mind:

1. As you stated, "my hand and I are one". Your hand is of the same nature and substance as the rest of the body.
2. Jesus has a mind and personality, unlike a hand.

And what is this polytheism, monotheism business? Do you see God and Christ as a religion or truth?

Why do you separate the two as though they are mutually exclusive?

 

[Free]

'Trinity' does NOT explain this.

I will only say this once to you Imagican because you refuse to listen or do proper study: the Trinity is the only reasonable explanation of all that you stated, as well as the rest of what Scripture reveals about Jesus and God that you continue to ignore.

 

[n2thelight]

. . .The Christian Creeds do not speak of “ three Persons†as though they were three Gods. We are not Polytheists but Trinitarians; i.e., we believe in “a Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity.â€Â
"Three in One; and One in Three"

. . . It is not therefore correct to speak of the Holy Spirit as a Person apart from His being God Himself."

. . .the Holy Spirit is neither called nor spoken of as 'a Person.' . . .There is no need for us to increase the difficulties necessarily inherent in so great a subject, by introducing a word ["person"] which the Scripture does not once use of the Holy Spirit. He is never called a “Person†in Scripture; and we only create a difficulty when we use the language of Theology instead of the words of God. -- Word Studies on the Holy Spirit, by Dr, E.W. Bullinger, ppg. 36-39

The Following study should help


~~~ The Holy Spirit & The Holy Trinity ~~~
An Introduction to the subject


If someone walked up to you today and asked you to explain the Holy Spirit, could you do it? I mean, could you really do it? What about Jesus, you could explain Him certainly? Or how about God, could you explain the Lord God to your new friend? And when you were done answering those three questions, would you have been describing three separate individuals or only one, and would that have been clear to the person asking? Surprisingly, most people will only get one out of the three correct, many more might get two out of the three questions correct, but if we have done our work well you shall get all three correct in about an hour. We ask wisdom and understanding from our Heavenly Father  in Jesus Christ's name  as we search His Word for our answers.

http://www.biblestudysite.com/trinity.htm

 

[Imagican]

Yes,

I would explain that the Holy Spirit IS the 'Spirit of God'. Shared by God, Christ AND us. It is the means by which those that accept It are able to KNOW God AND His Son. For words are impotent powers compared to that offered through Spirit.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Oh, and allow me to add this:

The Spirit of God has manifest itself in myriad ways throughout the history of mankind. It has been 'sent along with angels', spoken through 'other objects', and been passed through prophets to the people. It iS the convicting force that is able to assure us that there IS God and He has exhibited it to mankind since OUR creation.

Question:

Is the BODY, physical BODY of Christ sitting at the right hand of God RIGHT NOW? Since His tomb was found empty and He was observed ascending to heaven IN Bodily form, is the PHYSICAL entity we know of as Christ in existence RIGHT now in physical form?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[OnFireForChrist]

It is true to say that God is one; it is also true to say that God is One with Himself. God is not one person, but one substance, and where one person is, the other two are. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Unity; God the Father is the Lover, His Son is the Beloved, and the Holy Spirit is the spirit between them two. In baptism, we are adopted into God through the Holy Spirit, and therefore we can be one with God, for by adoption, we have taken on a divine nature.

 

[MarkT]

No, I said: "If he is [a Trinity] and the Church is correct, then there is no further growth required in that particular aspect". In other words, if God is a Trinity, there is no further knowledge that can be obtained in regards to that. The reason I say that is because if Jesus isn't God, then all sorts of fanciful ideas can be made about him, which is precisely what liberal and ultra-liberal scholars do. If Jesus is God, but not the Father, then enough is said.

By his wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, God created this world. So don't say, 'it is enough', to the knowledge of God. 'For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. Mt. 25:29 Get wisdom; get insight. Pr. 4:5 Take instruction rather than silver, and knowledge rather than gold; for wisdom is better than jewwls, and all that you may desire cannot compare with her. Pr. 8:10,11 To get wisdom is better than gold; to get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver. Pr. 16:16 Get insight. Look within yourself, for the kingdom of God is within.

And what do you mean by 'the church'? We are all individual members of the church. So if you had something of your own, then I would be interested in it. If you have something from God, then we would be interested in hearing it. But this concept didn't come from you. You would be better off saying he was the light; the temple in whom the fullness of God was pleased to dwell. Col. 1:19

If the leaders of the church say there is no more water or no more water is required, then they are wrong. A requirement of living things is that they grow. Growth is life. No growth - no life. 'Can papyrus grow where there is no marsh? Can reeds flourish where there is no water?' Job 8:11

But now you are changing what we mean when use the term "God". When you change the meanings of terms, the debate becomes meaningless. God, by biblical definition, is eternal, among other things. A creature, by definition, is not eternal and as such could never "inherit the throne of God" and could never assume the title "God". If logically follows then that Jesus, if he was a creature, could never be called God and never could become God.

What makes a king a king is that he sits on the throne. What makes Jesus Christ God is that he sits on the throne of God. Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Even so, what does that tell you? If the Word of God took on the form of a servant and served God, does it mean he was not the Word of God? So what do you mean by saying he was a creature and a creature, meaning a man, can never be called God? He didn't call himself God. He said he was the Son of God. For a while he was made lower than the angels, meaning a mortal man. Heb. 2:9 We see he was crowned with glory and honor.

There isn't a whole lot wrong with that analogy but two things must be kept in mind:

1. As you stated, "my hand and I are one". Your hand is of the same nature and substance as the rest of the body.
2. Jesus has a mind and personality, unlike a hand.

1. I'm not my body either. My hand belongs to my body of flesh and blood. But I am spirit. I direct my hand. My hand doesn't direct me. I make the decisions. I decided to grab whatever. So even though my hand and I are one, we are not of the same nature or substance.

2. Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit, in the likeness of men. So he had the mind and the personality of God. He was the temple of God, like a hand.

 

[Free]

You would be better off saying he was the light; the temple in whom the fullness of God was pleased to dwell. Col. 1:19

I am continuously amazed at how many non-trinitarians refer to this passage in one way or another in an attempt to refute trinitarianism but completely ignore the context:

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
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.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,

The only logical way for this passage to make sense is that Jesus is God, in nature.

What makes Jesus Christ God is that he sits on the throne of God.

Not at all. If Jesus isn't in very nature God, then it follows that he cannot be God nor assume the title of God.

Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Even so, what does that tell you? If the Word of God took on the form of a servant and served God, does it mean he was not the Word of God?

So what do you mean by saying he was a creature and a creature, meaning a man, can never be called God?

I never said Jesus was a creature. I merely stated that a creature cannot be God since he doesn't have the nature of God. A creature can never be called God since, by definition, it is created.

He didn't call himself God. He said he was the Son of God. For a while he was made lower than the angels, meaning a mortal man. Heb. 2:9 We see he was crowned with glory and honor.

I never made that argument but since you have brought it up, I believe that Jesus did refer to himself as God, in the very least implicitly. And, no, "angels" does not mean "mortal man"; if it did, the verse would make little sense.