The Holy Trinity

[cyberjosh]

There is no doctrine more sublime than that of the truth of the blessed holy Trinity. In it the definition & nature of God shows itself to be all in all, and sovereign, and self-sufficient, and loving, commanding yet humble, judging but merciful, far above man but mindful of him, stern but passionate, a gracious covenant Elohim but a righteousness-demanding YHWH. Also as Augustine said "if God is love, then in God there must be a Lover, a Beloved, and the Spirit of love, for there can be no lover without a beloved". The blessed and holy Trinity was love from eternity past, before man was created and was in this love relationship, which illustrates that God indeed is love itself in His very nature, from forever. Andrew Jukes quoting Augustine continued on and said,

And if God be eternal , then there must be an eternal Lover to the eternal Beloved, in a bond of love which is eternal and indissoluble. The relationship in God, in and with Himself, is one in which there can be no breach. From the beginning God is 'Elohim' in covenant union with Himself ever more.

And also,

For this covenant-relationship, which the name 'Elohim' expresses, is first a relationship in God. He is One, but in Him also, as His name declares, there is plurality; and in this plurality He has certain relationships, both in and with Himself, which, because He is God, can never be dissolved or broken. Thus as Parkhurst says, this name contains the mystery of the Trinity.

Also explaining more of the nature of God's nature as the Trinity by looking at the etymology of the name "Elohim" (brakets mine),

Parkhurst, in his well known lexicon, thus explains the name: - 'Elohim :' 'A name usually given in the Hebrew Scriptures to the ever-blessed Trinity, by which they represent themselves as under the obligation of an oath... This oath, (referred to in Psalm cx. 4, 'The Lord sware and will not repent.') was prior to creation'", [and Jukes expanding on this says], "As to the view of some, that the word 'Elohim' is derived directly from El, which signifies "strong" or "mighty", it may perhaps suffice to say that the plural of El is Elim, not Elohim. God may surely be and is called both 'El,' (Gen. xiv. 20, and in many other places,) and 'Elim' (as in Psalm xxix. 1; and elsewhere,) that is 'The Mighty;' but the letter H in 'Elohim' points to the true etymology of the name, as from elah "to swear" [in a covenant oath]; though, indeed, elah is also probably connected with El; for, as as the Apostle says, (Heb. vi. 16,) 'Men verily swear by the greater;" and the original idea of an oath may have been this affirmation by the 'Strong' or 'Mighty One'. In the case of God, as the same Apostle writes, 'Because he could swear by no greater, He sware by Himself.' (Heb. vi. 13.)

God is the eternal self-sufficient God, Elohim, who is love and in perfect relationship with Himself, and because of this he lacks nothing and is in need of no companionship, yet out of his superabundant love he created us for His Glory, that he may demonstrate his love and righteousness in us! Blessed be God, the Holy Trinity!

God Bless,

Josh

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Josh!

When studying the Godhead's Triune nature, one should also consider the word "echad".

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-one ... -echad.htm

and my personal fave:

http://www.dianedew.com/godhead.htm

Also, one should consider the concept of a hypostatic union.

 

[cyberjosh]

When studying the Godhead's Triune nature, one should also consider the word "echad".

I recognize that Hebrew word. I believe it means "one", or "a unit". Abstractly: unity. I believe this is in the verse where it says "the Lord God is one" is it not?

~Josh

 

[Vic C.]

I recognize that Hebrew word. I believe it means "one", or "a unit". Abstractly: unity. I believe this is in the verse where it says "the Lord God is one" is it not?

~Josh

Click on the links and you shall receive your answer. :-D

 

[Guest]

It Bible College, we were more apt to refer to the Godhead as the Tri-une Godhead, or the Tri-unity.

Ahhh.. the hypostatic union - bringing back my college days of Apologetics and Systematic Theology

 

[cyberjosh]

I recognize that Hebrew word. I believe it means "one", or "a unit". Abstractly: unity. I believe this is in the verse where it says "the Lord God is one" is it not?

~Josh

Click on the links and you shall receive your answer. :-D

I just wanted to test out my knowledge to see if I remembered right. Turns out I was right. :D

That first site is pretty cool though. I'll have to read all of it.

Thanks,

~Josh

 

[Vic C.]

It Bible College, we were more apt to refer to the Godhead as the Tri-une Godhead, or the Tri-unity.

Ahhh.. the hypostatic union - bringing back my college days of Apologetics and Systematic Theology

I really do like the word Triune. :-D

 

[DM]

The need for words like "Triune", "Tri-Unity" and "Trinity" to counteract the effect of the biblical Hebrew word "echad" (which means "one", in the most simplest way it can be expressed - not "three"), and the fact that so many Christians are coersed into believing in God-as-three as opposed to God-as-one, is where the true sublime factor resides, in my opinion.

Which is precisely why this issue has to be made into a so-called "essential", because if the freedom existed for the average Christian to explore it without condemnation from the upper echelon of ecclesiastical authority, its demise as a doctrine would be certain in the hearts of milions of believers within a short period of time. Fear is the greatest pillar in the framework of trinitarian theology - an asset without which it cannot survive easily.

Contrary to the idea that God is three persons, Jesus' own creed was always identical to his Jewish contemporaries, who always and forever understood that YHWH was "one" Lord (Hebrew = echad, meaning "one"). Jesus affirmed his own belief that God is a single entity in his adherance to the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 as recorded dutifully in Mark 12:28-33. The idea that "echad" means "compound unity" is one of the more desperate interpretations trinitarian theology uses to override the simplicty of the word. The testimony of two or three witnesses was always necessary over the testimony of "one" (echad) witness for the Jews. How much more then, should we call into question the redefining of a word for the sake of tradition?

Grace and peace.
David

 

[cyberjosh]

The need for words like "Triune", "Tri-Unity" and "Trinity" to counteract the effect of the biblical Hebrew word "echad" (which means "one", in the most simplest way it can be expressed - not "three"), and the fact that so many Christians are coersed into believing in God-as-three as opposed to God-as-one, is where the true sublime factor resides, in my opinion.

I would here interject the obvious fact though that substance is distinct from manifestation. The One True God has revealed himself in various ways through his different names in the OT and also in His shadows and types given in the former dispensation of the Law and Old Covenant.

Hebrews has much to say about this:

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Hebrews 1:1-3)

God at first revealed himself in portions, at different (sundry) times, and in different manners, revealing shadows and types of which the substance was in Christ (Colossians 2:17), who was the express image of his person (not a type or shadow of it). For now we only know in part and God reveals himself in different aspects of his character in different circumstances: sometimes the wrathful & righteous judge, and some times the loving and covenant keeping God - but these natures are but facets of the same unified nature. But first God had to build these different manifestations in the consciousness of his people to reveal to his people what they are slow to receive (remember the Author of Hebrews told them that they were slow to learn) so God reveals Himself to people in different manifestations of his character, a little here and a little there (of the shadows of the substance):

"Whom will He teach knowledge? And whom will He make to understand the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just drawn from the breasts? For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little " (Isaiah 28:9-10).

So I contend that though the sublime essence of God is summed up in his unity that his various manifestations were for man's benefit as God chose to relate in varying circumstances at varying times, and still does today.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[RobertMazar]

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is totally logical. I accept the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the other historical Christian doctrines and Christianity because I utilized logical and analytical thinking to ascertain that Christianity is the only logical religion and that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the other historical Christian doctrines are totally logical to believe in.
:morning:

 

[DM]

Hi Josh.

The "substance" revealed in the Scriptures refers to the unveiling of the mystery about God's plan and promise to Abraham to bless all nations in his seed. (cf. Ephesians chapter 3)

Speculations about God's literal "substance" or "essence" or "nature" are rooted in philosophical inquiry which permeated the Greco-Roman culture of Jesus' day. We even read that, ". . . all the Athenians and the strangers visiting [the Areopagus] used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new." (Acts 17:21).

In Paul's opportunity to present the gospel to the Athenians, we nowhere find any trinitarian theology embedded into his message. Rather, Paul expounds on the true God after finding an idol dedicated to “an unknown Godâ€Â. Paul’s explanation of this “God†which he “makes known†to the Athenians, is described in absolutely singular terms.

More importantly, Paul’s message to the Athenians culminates in his statement regarding Jesus, that he is “a man†whom God “appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising him from the dead.†(cf. Acts 17:31)

It was the substance of this message, (i.e. that God raised Jesus from the dead), that didn’t appeal to some in the audience, who “sneered†at Paul’s claim. Some others believed.

The point is that the trinitarian doctrine of the church today is foreign to the New Testament gospel. Jesus was a monotheistic Jew who would have never ascribed to believing God was anything but the “one Lord†that Moses had delivered to Israel’s understanding, just as God had inspired Moses to do. Moreover, Jesus himself claims to be “a man†who “heard from God†(cf. John 8:40). This same God is the one Jesus refers to as “the only true God†in John 17:3 and who is the God and Father of Jesus.

Grace and peace.
David

 

[cyberjosh]

Hi Josh.

The "substance" revealed in the Scriptures refers to the unveiling of the mystery about God's plan and promise to Abraham to bless all nations in his seed. (cf. Ephesians chapter 3)

Speculations about God's literal "substance" or "essence" or "nature" are rooted in philosophical inquiry which permeated the Greco-Roman culture of Jesus' day. We even read that, ". . . all the Athenians and the strangers visiting [the Areopagus] used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new." (Acts 17:21).

In Paul's opportunity to present the gospel to the Athenians, we nowhere find any trinitarian theology embedded into his message. Rather, Paul expounds on the true God after finding an idol dedicated to “an unknown Godâ€Â. Paul’s explanation of this “God†which he “makes known†to the Athenians, is described in absolutely singular terms.

More importantly, Paul’s message to the Athenians culminates in his statement regarding Jesus, that he is “a man†whom God “appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising him from the dead.†(cf. Acts 17:31)

It was the substance of this message, (i.e. that God raised Jesus from the dead), that didn’t appeal to some in the audience, who “sneered†at Paul’s claim. Some others believed.

The point is that the trinitarian doctrine of the church today is foreign to the New Testament gospel. Jesus was a monotheistic Jew who would have never ascribed to believing God was anything but the “one Lord†that Moses had delivered to Israel’s understanding, just as God had inspired Moses to do. Moreover, Jesus himself claims to be “a man†who “heard from God†(cf. John 8:40). This same God is the one Jesus refers to as “the only true God†in John 17:3 and who is the God and Father of Jesus.

Grace and peace.
David

The emphasis in the Bible is always on divine unity, but.....what are you saying? That you deny the Trinity?: that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God in perfect unity with the Father? God is indeed echad, and Jesus and the rest of the NT showed how He has an undiminished sharing in that fullness of the godhead as equal with, and infact being, God.

As for what you said, yes there was a revealation of God's plans (Ephesians), but you cannot deny also that there is a piece-meal foreshadowing of Christ and also the piece-meal revelation of God to man in the OT, first as Elohim, then Yahweh (but not fully revealed as such until Exodus), then as El Elyon, then El Shaddai, etc. (which were all revealed under differing circumstances). And Colossians clearly says that the feasts, sabbaths, etc. all foreshadowed the substance to be revealed in Christ. I do not see how you could deny this.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[DM]

Hi Josh.

What I affirm is Jesus' statement that the Father is "the only true God". Jesus' choice of the word "only" (Greek = "monos") leaves no doubt that God is One, and "only", One. There is no other. For Jesus, there was no other God. The Father was, and indeed still is, Jesus' God. (cf. Revelation 1:6 / 3:12).

As for Jesus having "unity" with the Father, this must be understood in the terms which are revealed in the Scriptures. The "unity" Jesus had with the Father was a unity, not of personhood, but of purpose. This is the case all throughout the whole New Testament:

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one".

1 Corinthians 3:8a "Now he who plants and he who waters are one; . . ."

Galatians 3:28b ". . . for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

The understanding of "one" in purpose is the proper understanding, I believe. To equate Jesus' statement that "I and the Father are one", to Jesus actually being God Himself, is to misunderstand John 10:30, as well as John 17:3.

In God's revelation of Himself to the Israelites, God placed special emphasis on His "one-ness". (cf. Deut. 6:4). The Israelites were to understand that God is a single, divine person, and that He alone is God. This creed of Israel was also the creed of the Jewish (and gentile) disciples of Jesus, as well as Jesus himself.

As Paul the apostle says, "yet for us there is one God, the Father . . ." (1 Cor. 8:6). It doesn't seem reasonable that Paul meant anything beyond what those words imply. Moreover, he had previously cautioned those who might take his words and misinterpret them, that they should "learn not to exceed what is written" (cf. 1 Cor. 4:6a).

Grace and peace.
David

 

[cyberjosh]

I think you need to read my thread where I spoke on the necessity of affirming Jesus' deity, being God himself. Jesus accepted a subordinate role in the Trinity by coming in the flesh and becoming the Son of Man, but Jesus is God - the express image of His person - and in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells in bodily form. Yet you only look upon Jesus according to the flesh, which Paul says Christians no longer do (2 Corinthians 5:16). Jesus was uncreated (creating all things) and higher then all men and angels, and was called "God" (Hebrews 1). This is undeniable.

You are more akin to a Gnostic as far as your theology goes.

~Josh

 

[DM]

Jesus accepted a subordinate role in the Trinity by coming in the flesh and becoming the Son of Man, but Jesus is God

Hebrews 5:5 specifically denies the theory you're offering in the above quoted section from your last post. Jesus' claim was that he was "a man" who "heard from God" (John 8:40). Your claim that Jesus is "God" who "became a man" is unfounded.

Also, Jesus is a human being and therefore is created, since, after all, God created man. If Jesus were "uncreated" as you suggest, then he is not a man in any sense. To claim Jesus is God, is to simply deny that he is human.

That Jesus is called "God" in Hebrews 1:8, is to understand his delegated position, as was the case of every other human being that Scriptures call "God". "He's 'God' in a delegated sense, just as was Moses, Israel's judges, and the Davidic king (cf. Exo. 7:1 / Psalm 82:6 / Pslam 45:6).

As for the passage in 2 Corinthians 5:16, I would suggest that you are simply misinterpreting the text. If you read the whole of chapter 5, you'll gather that the emphasis is on our eventual bodily resurrection, even as has already occurred for Jesus. Moreover, you skipped over the part of the verse that says we are to regard "no one any longer" with regard to the flesh. Wouldn't this mean, given your interpretation, that we're all "God" too?

I'm a recovered trinitarian Josh. I wouldn't rather not return to the bondage of it. I very much appreciate the tone of your posts, and I hope mine hasn't come across as harsh. That isn't my intent. Rather, my heart longs for Christians to be free from the burden of pretending that trinitarianism is inspiration from God. So, while I'm happy to read whatever you have to say, I don't think you'll say anything different from what I've already read of Augustine, Athanasius, Anselm, Hank Hanagraaff, John MacArthur or James White (just to name a few).

Grace and peace.
David

 

[Veritas]

huh, interesting you see it as bondage.

I guess if we are trying to make every thing line up with our reason, then yes, there is a bondage.... because the Trinity certainly is not something that makes sense.

Like you said, If Jesus is God, then he is not man...If Jesus is man, then he is not God. Either/or reasoning. And that kind of reasoning is certainly valid.

I affirm reason, but also acknowlege that God works in realms beyond reason and the natural. So this is why I wouldn't see believing Jesus can be both "fully God and fully man" as bondage at all.

 

[Rick W]

Jesus said He is the resurrection. He said He's many things but I'm looking at His claim to be something else other than being human.
How can He be an event? Thing is, He said that BEFORE He died on the cross.

We want to think in terms of a physical world and using worldly logic. If I speak what I say can and will be used against me in a court of law for what I speak is indeed me. If my voice is recorded on tape it is without question "me". "Is that or is that not you on that tape Mr. Potluck?". I speak through my intent, my will... what I say IS me. I can no more separate my intent, my will, my words from me any more than one can separate God from his divine purpose, His will, His Word. "And the Word became flesh." John 1:14 Here again is a concept we have a hard time understanding as we do understanding how Christ can "be" the Resurrection. God's Word cannot act alone for God's Word is indeed God, His holy purpose and essence of Himself as what we say is our intent and purpose.
So how can what I intend, my will, become physical? In worldly logic it's not only impossible but sounds downright ludicrous. Yet, we see Christ claiming to be an event that has not yet happened and we see the Word of God becoming flesh.
God's Word is God. "and the Word was God" testifies of whom John speaks, the Creator.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Gen 1:3 And God said...
Gen 1:6 And God said...
Gen 1:9 And God said...
Gen 1:11 And God said...

And on and on.

Is the Word of God God? Is Jesus the Word of God or not?

 

[cyberjosh]

Hebrews 5:5 specifically denies the theory you're offering in the above quoted section from your last post.

And why do you think Jesus was called first born from the dead? He was the first so that the fruits may follow. Paul also uses the analogy of the ressurection as giving birth to a child.

Jesus' claim was that he was "a man" who "heard from God" (John 8:40). Your claim that Jesus is "God" who "became a man" is unfounded.

So then who is the Logos again? I'd think that the very mind/thoughts/expression (logos) of God would be God himself, especially if also God's Holy Spirit can be spoken as the "Spirit of Christ" then Christ shares intrinsicaly and inherently in the Godhead (Colossians 2:9).

Also, Jesus is a human being and therefore is created, since, after all, God created man. If Jesus were "uncreated" as you suggest, then he is not a man in any sense. To claim Jesus is God, is to simply deny that he is human.

Uh, and what about the first chapters of John and Hebrews that make it clear that through Christ all things were made? Explain to me again how it is possible for a human to create all things, especially before God even created humans.

I wouldn't rather not return to the bondage of it.

Bondage?! Acknowledging the diety of Christ keeps you from having diminished views of Christ. Infact it can be stated from the sum of what the entire NT says about Jesus that it is impossible to overestimate the character and person of Christ!

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[DM]

Hello Veritas.

Thanks for offering your perspective on this topic. I appreciate where you're coming from, but this issue isn't something I think we should accept when the Scriptures don't reveal it in the first place. The very fact that there are no words for the doctrine of the trinity (at least, no words that "make sense") means that it is not a revelation from God to begin with.

In other words, anything that God has desired to reveal to man is, by default, understandable through language - through words. Likewise, anything that God has desired not to reveal to man is, by default, beyond understanding - beyond words. Which is to say, that the revelation of God, on the one hand, corresponds to the understanding by man of that revelation, on the other.

I would agree with you that , "God works in realms beyond reason and the natural". But I would leave it there, and not assume that we can therefore build doctrines on what is "beyond reason". In other words, if it's beyond reason, then it's beyond language and thus, beyond words. And if indeed, "the word was God" (meaning that God mediates His plans, purposes and promises through the agency of "the word"), then God has revealed His plans, purposes and promises to the understanding of man. If a doctrinal concept is beyond understanding (and consequently, "beyond reason"), then it's not a "revelation" (an unveiling of a mystery) from God at all.

Grace and peace,
David

 

[DM]

Hi Potlock.

I think your comparison to "words" (as in a recorded voice, per your example) being representative of a person is a valid point. I would not go so far as to say, however, that my words (recorded on a tape) are literally, me. In other words, we cannot say, "that's 100% Mr. Potluck" with reference to just a recording of your voice on magnetic tape. The words may indeed communicate your heart, but the words themselves are just soundwaves in the atmosphere. There's more to you, than just words.

I agree with you that God communicates through words (the spoken message and written message about the gospel of His kingdom). I agree that these words represent "God" to the extent that God reveals His plans and purposes via "the word". Which is the biblical understanding of John 1:1, " . . . and the word was God". Consequently, I agree with your assessment that God's word is synonymous with God's will - God's purpose.

I disagree with your assessment though, that God's word is synonymous with God's person (as in, His literal "being"). What God is, in-and-of Godself, is beyond understanding, and thus, beyond words. God has not revealed what He is. What God has revealed, is what He is like. God is described in the Bible with metaphorical terms that appeal to human understanding.

You yourself said the following:

We want to think in terms of a physical world and using worldly logic

The reason we do this, is because that's how God designed us. There's nothing wrong with utilizing our God-given gifts of reasoning to determine whether a message appears to be valid or not. As for the idea of the Trinity, it is, to borrow some of your words, "downright ludicrous". As a result, why in the world should we believe something that cannot be revealed by language at all?

Grace and peace.
David