The Trinity

[Fish153]

I tried at length to explain this to you, from my perspective, but apparently you don't "understand me?" The Spirit of God indwells all men who put their faith in Jesus. And the Spirit of God indwelt Jesus as a man in the same way.

None of this implied anything with respect to Jesus' Divine Nature. By the Word and Revelation of God Jesus appeared *from Eternity,* ie from the Eternal God, to portray that same Eternal God in the form of a man, who happens to also be filled with the Holy Spirit.

As I said before, I don't believe we should conflate the Holy Spirit as a Person of the Trinity with the Spirit of God when referred to as God's Essence, or Constitution. God is spirit, we are told. That is His constitution, His essence, His substance.

But speaking of His Infinite Substance is very different from speaking of His *local operations* via the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is perceived in specific locations, even though He is also of God's Eternal, Infinite Essence.

And being a "local operation" it would be confusing to conflate God's local operations with His Infinite attributes, which include Omnipresence. God as a spirit and God as the Holy Spirit are both realities, but they are distinctly different expressions with their own meanings. One is God's Infinite Constitution, while the other is a Person expressing God in our own finite world.

In other words, "God as spirit" in His Constitution stands apart from the Holy Spirit as God's "local operations." Conflating them creates confusion.

But that's what you're doing. You're describing God's Infinite Constitution as "indwelling Jesus," which sounds irrational. God's Infinite Constitution, or Being, was revealed in the form of Jesus. But it was the Holy Spirit, God's local expression, who indwelt Jesus as a man.

But at this point I'm doubting you understand what I mean. This is becoming an exercise in futility for me?

"to PORTRAY that same Eternal God in the form of a man". Wait, What??? Are you serious?? Portray?? No---Jesus was very God of God---the Son of God. Jesus wasn't "portraying" anything. Jesus was and is the great I AM.

 

[RandyK]

"to PORTRAY that same Eternal God in the form of a man". Wait, What??? Are you serious?? Portray?? No---Jesus was very God of God---the Son of God. Jesus wasn't "portraying" anything. Jesus was and is the great I AM.

Yes, Jesus portrayed God and was God. If you don't think Jesus "portrayed" God, then what was he portraying?

But if you think to "portray something" contradicts "being something" then you are just fussing over words. Not interested.

I can portray a bum at the same time I am a bum. No contradiciton! ;)

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Fish153,

It is so sad that you say "Jesus is not God". Jesus tells the Pharisees in John 8:24: "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am (he), ye shall die in your sins".
Later in the same chapter he says: "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58)
It is interesting that both of those verses are in the same chapter, to the same people, and follow the same train of thought. Jesus is clearly revealing something to them that they are MISSING--and need to see for their salvation.

These two references have been extensively discussed earlier in this thread, by myself and a thorough presentation by a Trinitarian.

My position is that these two verses are part of a major theme in John's Gospel of whether Jesus is the Christ. The same words and language is used on a number of occasions concerning this theme:

John 1:19–20 (KJV): 19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

John 4:25–26 (KJV): 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

John 7:25–26 (KJV): 25 Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? 26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?

John 8:24 (KJV): I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

John 8:28 (KJV): Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 8:58 (KJV adjusted): Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am he.

John 1 is VERY CLEARY teaching us that Jesus is GOD.

Also this has been discussed and John 1 is part of the theme that Jesus is the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection. These two themes are mentioned in his concluding comments:

John 20:30–31 (KJV): 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Fish153]

Greetings again Fish153,

These two references have been extensively discussed earlier in this thread, by myself and a thorough presentation by a Trinitarian.

My position is that these two verses are part of a major theme in John's Gospel of whether Jesus is the Christ. The same words and language is used on a number of occasions concerning this theme:

John 1:19–20 (KJV): 19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

John 4:25–26 (KJV): 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

John 7:25–26 (KJV): 25 Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? 26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?

John 8:24 (KJV): I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

John 8:28 (KJV): Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 8:58 (KJV adjusted): Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am he.

Also this has been discussed and John 1 is part of the theme that Jesus is the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection. These two themes are mentioned in his concluding comments:

John 20:30–31 (KJV): 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Kind regards
Trevor

Trevor---

I repeat: "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD" (John 1:1)

"And the WORD BECAME FLESH and dwelt among us..." (John 1:14).

**This is far before Jesus was born. You say "Jesus is the Son of God by birth"----UNTRUE

This PERSON (The Son of God) existed in Heaven with the Father far before he came to earth and was incarnated. JESUS IS GOD. Any attempt to take that title from him is complete and total falsehood.

 

[RandyK]

Trevor---

I repeat: "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD" (John 1:1)

"And the WORD BECAME FLESH and dwelt among us..." (John 1:14).

**This is far before Jesus was born. You say "Jesus is the Son of God by birth"----UNTRUE

This PERSON (The Son of God) existed in Heaven with the Father far before he came to earth and was incarnated. JESUS IS GOD. Any attempt to take that title from him is complete and total falsehood.

Nobody knows what the Son of God was in Eternity, before he was incarnated as Jesus. Nobody! That's why I prefer the language that says, the Eternal Word generated the Son of God in the form of Jesus in the Incarnation. The "Son of God" is associated with the man Jesus--otherwise, he would not have been called the "Son of God."

Jesus, as the Son of God, is being eternally generated from the Eternal Word of God, who has been with God from Eternity. If you want to call the Word of God in Eternity the "Son of God," that's okay by me.

But I don't wish to give Trevor a foothold by claiming we know who the Son of God was in Eternity. We know Him only as the "Word of God," and after that we know the Word of God generated from eternity and still generates from eternity the Son of God, aka Jesus.

This doesn't mean either the "Son of God" or "Jesus" is strictly fixed in time. They are being *generated from eternity,* and as such are both eternal and produced in time. That sounds like a contradiction to some. To me it is not.

 

[Fish153]

Nobody knows what the Son of God was in Eternity, before he was incarnated as Jesus. Nobody! That's why I prefer the language that says, the Eternal Word generated the Son of God in the form of Jesus in the Incarnation. The "Son of God" is associated with the man Jesus--otherwise, he would not have been called the "Son of God."

Jesus, as the Son of God, is being eternally generated from the Eternal Word of God, who has been with God from Eternity. If you want to call the Word of God in Eternity the "Son of God," that's okay by me.

But I don't wish to give Trevor a foothold by claiming we know who the Son of God was in Eternity. We know Him only as the "Word of God," and after that we know the Word of God generated from eternity and still generates from eternity the Son of God, aka Jesus.

This doesn't mean either the "Son of God" or "Jesus" is strictly fixed in time. They are being *generated from eternity,* and as such are both eternal and produced in time. That sounds like a contradiction to some. To me it is not.

RandyK---

Thanks for the post. I understand what you are saying, and this is basically my opinion and conjecture. But it says in Genesis that God created man "in his own image". It doesn't say the Father created man in his own image--it says "God" created man in his own image. God as we know is a TRINITY. There is an interesting verse in Genesis:

"So God created man IN HIS OWN IMAGE, in the image of God created he him; MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM." (Gen. 1:27)

Now---what is the result of the union of a male and a female? A THIRD person---a son or daughter. I am not inferring by the way that God is "female" in any way---though a lot of His attributes are supremely sweet and kind.

What I am driving at is this: Is God in his creation of man showing us an ETERNAL LESSON? God is 3 persons. Man is based on 3 persons making a unit----a man, woman, and child are the very image of God perhaps? So, has there ALWAYS BEEN A SON? We, as humans, believe a son must have been born. But we are based on GOD---he is not based on US. I truly believe that this (along with Abraham potentially sacrificing Isaac) point to an ETERNAL FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT. Again, I realize this is opinion and conjecture. Psalm 2 says: "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him". (Psalm 2:12). I believe the SON is FROM everlasting TO everlasting and has ALWAYS existed. So when God made "man in HIS OWN IMAGE" he created a man and wife with a resulting child, as an example of who HE (God in three persons) is in eternal existence.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Fish153,

I repeat: "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD" (John 1:1)

I understand that The WORD in John 1:1 is a personification similar to the Wise Woman WISDOM of Proverbs 8 who preached in the streets of Jerusalem and was with God in the creation.

"And the WORD BECAME FLESH and dwelt among us..." (John 1:14).
**This is far before Jesus was born. You say "Jesus is the Son of God by birth"----UNTRUE

The WORD was made flesh initially at the time of the begettal, that is the conception where God the Father is the father and Mary the mother of the human child Jesus.

John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg Gk: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
These three passages speak of the conception/begettal, not a supposed incarnation. The result of this conception/begettal process is that Jesus becomes the Son of God by birth as Luke 1:35 clearly states.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Fish153]

Greetings again Fish153,

I understand that The WORD in John 1:1 is a personification similar to the Wise Woman WISDOM of Proverbs 8 who preached in the streets of Jerusalem and was with God in the creation.

The WORD was made flesh initially at the time of the begettal, that is the conception where God the Father is the father and Mary the mother of the human child Jesus.

John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg Gk: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
These three passages speak of the conception/begettal, not a supposed incarnation. The result of this conception/begettal process is that Jesus becomes the Son of God by birth as Luke 1:35 clearly states.

Kind regards
Trevor

Trevor---

No. John 1:-3 says: "IN THE BEGINNING was the WORD and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was GOD. The same was IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD. ALL THINGS were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made".

John 1:14 "And the WORD was made flesh and dwelt among us.." (John 1:14).

I really don't see how you are missing this. This is saying that JESUS IS GOD. He was WITH God at the beginning because he is the second member of the Trinity (The SON). He MADE "all things". He can't be a created being as some say because he made "all things" that were created, which would include himself--but how could he create himself if he himself is a created being? The Bible clearly teaches that the WORD has ALWAYS EXISTED--he is not (and cannot be) a created being.

"The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the EXACT representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." (Heb. 1:3)

How could a FINITE being be the EXACT REPRESENTATION of an INFINITE BEING? Impossible! The only way Jesus could be the EXACT representation of the Father is if HE HIMSELF is GOD. God is a Trinity---FATHER, SON AND SPIRIT. Revelation says the throne is "the throne of God and of the Lamb"--but God says "My glory will I not give to another"--so then why is Jesus sitting on the same throne as the Father?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Fish153,

why is Jesus sitting on the same throne as the Father?

Jesus, is a Human, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection, and he was invited by the One God, Yahweh, God the Father to sit down at the right hand of God in God the Father's Throne.

Revelation 3:21–22 (KJV): 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Jesus is soon to return to sit upon his own Throne, the Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem for the 1000 years.

Acts 3:19–21 (KJV):19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Luke 1:30–35 (KJV): 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Isaiah 2:1–4 (KJV): 1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Free]

Nobody knows what the Son of God was in Eternity, before he was incarnated as Jesus. Nobody! That's why I prefer the language that says, the Eternal Word generated the Son of God in the form of Jesus in the Incarnation. The "Son of God" is associated with the man Jesus--otherwise, he would not have been called the "Son of God."

The Word is the eternal Son from all eternity. That is exactly John's point in John 1:1-18. So, the Word could not have generated the Son. There was never a time when the Son did not exist as the Son; it is only John who, for certain reasons, refers to the preincarnate, eternal Son as the Word.

It's why Jesus said several times that he pre-existed and came from heaven, as the Son, not as the God-man.

Jesus, as the Son of God, is being eternally generated from the Eternal Word of God, who has been with God from Eternity. If you want to call the Word of God in Eternity the "Son of God," that's okay by me.

But I don't wish to give Trevor a foothold by claiming we know who the Son of God was in Eternity. We know Him only as the "Word of God," and after that we know the Word of God generated from eternity and still generates from eternity the Son of God, aka Jesus.

This doesn't mean either the "Son of God" or "Jesus" is strictly fixed in time. They are being *generated from eternity,* and as such are both eternal and produced in time. That sounds like a contradiction to some. To me it is not.

The God-man Jesus came into being--"became flesh." That is, the Word, the Son, entered time and added humanity to his deity. I don't think we can or should claim that Jesus was "generated from eternity." That is going beyond what Scripture states.

 

[Free]

You clearly have a differenet set of parameters for your argument. Based on your reasoning, I'd have to agree with you.

But I'm using a whole different set of parameters in order to explain things in my own terms. And I don't believe my understanding is in any sense heretical.

I don't believe "divine nature" and "human nature" are contradictory terms in Christ. Human nature, for me, would *require* both Jesus' human soul and human body. What is a bodiless man, but just a human spirit? And that's not the "human" God made Christ to be.

I am not saying anything different. Jesus is truly and fully human, which negates any possible deification of his humanity, but certainly includes soul and body. He is also truly and fully God--one person, two unmixed but joined natures.

This means, God became flesh, period. The human flesh is what God became--not in an eternal sense, but in a temporal sense. But being that this flesh was being *generated from eternity* it is "co-eternal" with God, whether you call him the Son of God or the Son of Man.

This is going beyond anything the Bible says. There is nothing to suggest that his 'flesh was being "generated from eternity," and cannot be considered '"co-eternal" with God.'

No, I separate the substances into "infinite" and "finite," eternal and temporal. The eternal absorbs the temporal being as its superior. The finite is subsumed under, or absorbed into, the infinite Being of God with Christ. And that's because Christ is uniquely being generated *from eternity" by the eternal Word of God.

Again, the Word of God doesn't generate the Son, the Son is the Word, in John's unique sense and usage. You should be careful with using terms such as "absorb" and "subsume," as they could be taken as mixing, or confusing, the two natures into one nature.

God identifies Christ's human personality as existing within and as corresponding to His own infinite Person or Being, and separates them as a necessary plurality of distinct Persons. They are separate Persons, but reflect the same Infinite Being of God.

I don't follow what you're saying here.

One Person does not equal Three Persons.

No, that is a contradiction.

But we are talking about one infinite Being whose Person can be expressed in a plurality of finite Persons who are distinct from one another.

This is Modalilsm/Oneness theology. The biblical teaching is that the one being that is God has always existed as three coequal, coeternal persons; one substance, three persons; one what, three whos.

I had this same discussion with CRI briefly back in the 70s. We'll be at an impasse. Nobody can explain what an "Infinite Person" is...

Even the concept of infinite is beyond our comprehension.

 

[RandyK]

The Word is the eternal Son from all eternity. That is exactly John's point in John 1:1-18. So, the Word could not have generated the Son. There was never a time when the Son did not exist as the Son; it is only John who, for certain reasons, refers to the preincarnate, eternal Son as the Word.

I anticipated you might have a problem with this. That's why I was very specific. The Son is being *eternally generated*--not just generated from the eternal God. An infinite Being can proceed from Infinity and into the Finite World to appear as that Infinite Person in Finite terms.

But at the risk of sounding nutty, I'll let it lie. Suffice it say, what you said I believe misrepresents what I believe. I do *not* believe the Son existed *as the Son* in eternity, because the Son is defined by his human appearance. But he, as a Divine Person, preexisted his human appearance in the form of God's Eternal Word--not as the "Son," but as the "Word."

Now you could argue that the Word was the Son, and vice versa. But the "Son" is a preexistent form of God in what form? You cannot say he has the form of the "Son" because that is necessarily associated with his human appearance, and not with his preexistent form.

This is not saying the Son is not eternal. Rather, it is saying that his eternal form was not always in the form of a human "Son of God."

It's why Jesus said several times that he pre-existed and came from heaven, as the Son, not as the God-man.

This wasn't saying Jesus preexisted in the *form* of the Son, but only as the identical *person* as the Son, which I believe had been the form of the Word.

The God-man Jesus came into being--"became flesh." That is, the Word, the Son, entered time and added humanity to his deity. I don't think we can or should claim that Jesus was "generated from eternity." That is going beyond what Scripture states.

It was the way some explained the Divine Son among the Church Fathers. The following is one man's brief look into Augustine's view...

Is the Eternal Generation of the Son a Biblical Idea?

Keith Johnson considers the biblical and historical case for the eternal generation of the Son.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

Tertullian and Origen are most interesting in this regard, both appearing to look a bit "heretical." Tertullian saw the Son being generated from eternity in time, which suffers the same criticism you're directing toward me. How can the Son be eternal if he only appears in time?

With Origen the protest is different. He viewed this eternal generation in terms of the subordination of the Son to the Father. This is different, but again suffers the same kind of criticism you're leveling at me. And many good Christian leaders criticized Origen for it--even called him a heretic!

So, I trust I'm putting these things correctly, because I'm really not close to having the expertise necessary to represent all these teachings. These are just my thoughts.

If the Son is being generated *from eternity* then the Son is in fact eternal based on his eternal origins. He just isn't called the Son before his appearance as a man.

Anyway, thanks for expressing your honest concerns. Believe me, I share your belief in the eternity of the Son, though I describe him as "the Word."

 

[Free]

I believe Jesus has the "Fathers" nature in Him and was with the Father in the beginning and God brought the world into existence through Him and nothing you posted states otherwise.

I haven't stated anything much different. Yes, of course Jesus had the Father's nature in him, because a son is always, always, always the same nature as his father. That means that the Son must have existed for as long as the Father has existed, having the exact same nature as the Father.

As I have repeatedly stated, "In the beginning was the Word" speaks of the Word (the Son) being in existence when the beginning began. That is, the Word is as eternal as the Father is. This is, in combination with John 1:1b, the reason why John says the Word is God in nature (1:1c). He further supports that argument by stating that everything that has come into existence, came into existence through the Son (the Word). If everything that came into existence came into existence through the Word, it necessarily follows that the Word never came into existence.

John 1:18 -"begotten"

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. If He's not coeternal then neither is the Son who was. But you all do seem to believe in a created Son of Man in Mary's womb. (Body & spirit) Thats why I ask what part of the Son who was descended and was in that body if not His own spirit. It seems your answers suggests to me none of Him. If the spirit of the Son who was descended into that body then all of Him.

Jesus isn't co-eternal as such, since he is the incarnation of the Son, the God-man, but the Son is as eternal as the Father is. When you say that I "seem to believe in a created Son of Man in Mary's womb," what is it you mean, exactly? It depends on how you define "Son of Man."

It is incorrect to ask "what part of the Son" descended. The Son, the Word, became flesh. That is what Scripture teaches. Don't try and break it down further than what Scripture clearly states, as that could lead to heresy.

 

[RandyK]

I am not saying anything different. Jesus is truly and fully human, which negates any possible deification of his humanity, but certainly includes soul and body. He is also truly and fully God--one person, two unmixed but joined natures.

I'm not sure you're using the description of "deifying his humanity" the same way I am?

This is going beyond anything the Bible says. There is nothing to suggest that his 'flesh was being "generated from eternity," and cannot be considered '"co-eternal" with God.'

Okay, I understand. I began to believe that when I read the Church Fathers decades ago because I believe I found an inconsistency in their arguments. It was said that God is not just inhabiting the body of Jesus, nor was He just the soul or mind that inhabited the body of Jesus. This would be the heresy of Appolinarianism.

The equation resulting from the protest was the formrula, one Christ with two distinct natures. He had a human spirit and a divine spirit.

But this left out the problem entirely: what about the human body and a divine body? Is only his human spirit the part that has a counterpart as a divine spirit? Was the body strictly human and not divine at all?

My solution to the problem was revelational. God revealed Himself in a transcendental way, by descending seamlessly into the finite realm and appearing as an entire human, both body and soul, along with all of the behaviors they reflect God's Divine Person in this human being called Jesus.

Again, the Word of God doesn't generate the Son, the Son is the Word, in John's unique sense and usage.

Wrong, the Word *is God,* and the Word *became flesh.* So Jesus was both the Word and the thing that generated the Son in the form of "flesh." We clearly disagree on this.

As I pointed out, many Church Fathers saw the Son as being "eternally generated." Maybe your issue should be with them, as well? And if the Word is not the source of this generation, then what other than the Word is revealing or generating anything? In the beginning, God said.... That is the Word.

You should be careful with using terms such as "absorb" and "subsume," as they could be taken as mixing, or confusing, the two natures into one nature.

I'm always trying to be careful. The infinite always absorbs and subsumes the finite. That is how God can be both infinite and finite at the same time, both eternal God and flesh in time simultaneously. Unless I say this I'm unable to describe the difference between Infinite and the Finite world, between the Eternal and things in Time.

And that is the Gospel, that the Eternal God was incarnated in Time. I believe that in our culture we need to be able to explain that seeming contradiction, because the Greeks saw God as ineffible and incapable of feeling.

This is Modalilsm/Oneness theology. The biblical teaching is that the one being that is God has always existed as three coequal, coeternal persons; one substance, three persons; one what, three whos.

No, you'rre using your definition of "Person" and imposing it on how I'm using the word. I've clearly spelled out that my definition of Person is being used in an infinite sense to describe the One Person of God. As an infinite Being He is able to express Himself, through His Word, in finite ways that we can understand.

These Persons of God, understood in finite terms, indicate clear, substantial distinctions reflecting different and separate Persons. That is *not* Modalism. That is "modalism" when imposing your own sense on how I use the word "Person."

Even the concept of infinite is beyond our comprehension.

Yes.

 

[Randy]

I haven't stated anything much different. Yes, of course Jesus had the Father's nature in him, because a son is always, always, always the same nature as his father. That means that the Son must have existed for as long as the Father has existed, having the exact same nature as the Father.

As I have repeatedly stated, "In the beginning was the Word" speaks of the Word (the Son) being in existence when the beginning began. That is, the Word is as eternal as the Father is. This is, in combination with John 1:1b, the reason why John says the Word is God in nature (1:1c). He further supports that argument by stating that everything that has come into existence, came into existence through the Son (the Word). If everything that came into existence came into existence through the Word, it necessarily follows that the Word never came into existence.


Jesus isn't co-eternal as such, since he is the incarnation of the Son, the God-man, but the Son is as eternal as the Father is. When you say that I "seem to believe in a created Son of Man in Mary's womb," what is it you mean, exactly? It depends on how you define "Son of Man."

It is incorrect to ask "what part of the Son" descended. The Son, the Word, became flesh. That is what Scripture teaches. Don't try and break it down further than what Scripture clearly states, as that could lead to heresy.

Nothing you posted states coeternal. Of course He was at the beginning. He is the First begotten. It is the Deity of the Father that dwells in Him. That Deity is the First and Last and there is no other. He and the Father are one in that Deity. The Father is stated as the only true God from whom all things come in the NT and the Source Deity in the creeds as the Son is stated from another which clearly can't be for one who has no beginning. In regard to the Father who is Deity in Himself He is unbegotten. Jesus is His child whom God granted His fullness to dwell in forever.

You still can't give a straight answer that states any reasonable explanation how this is so.
If the Son of Man had a human spirit and a human body what part of Him was God?
What part of the Son who was descended into the body prepared for Him if NOT His own spirit? Apparently, none of Him is in your answers. As you believe in a created Son of Man in Mary's womb. (His spirit) If the spirit of the Son who was lived in that human body only then ALL of Him descended as He wasn't born at that time. He is the Firstborn of all creation. The beginning of the creation of God.



Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Your belief which wasn't stated.
This is eternal life that they know us the only true God.

Again, for the umpteenth time I agree in part.

Born/begotten of the Father alone all things but not made.

 

[Free]

Nothing you posted states coeternal.

Everything I stated absolutely means that the Son (the Word) is coeternal; it cannot mean anything else.

Of course He was at the beginning. He is the First begotten.

If "first begotten" means there was a time when he did not exist, then it follows that he came into being, and John's words are false (also Paul's--1 Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:6-8; Col. 1:16-17--and the writer of Hebrew's--1:2, 10-12). It would mean the Son would have been the beginning and could not have existed when the beginning began. It is a logical impossibility for all things to come into existence through the Word if the Word was one of those things that came into existence. This is very basic logic that you have repeatedly failed to address.

You are making all the passages I have given to be contradictory and therefore false.

It is the Deity of the Father that dwells in Him. That Deity is the First and Last and there is no other. He and the Father are one in that Deity. The Father is stated as the only true God from whom all things come in the NT

Again, you're ignoring the logic which I have posted more times than I care to count.

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

Basic logic tells us that if "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternality of the Father, then "through whom are all things" speaks of the eternality of the Son. It is absolutely illogical to argue that the former is true but the latter is false.

Basic logic also tells us that if "one God, the Father" precludes the Son from being God, then "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord. Again, it is illogical to argue that the former is true but the latter is false.

Nothing I have stated goes against the idea that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, nor that the fullness of God dwells in Jesus.

and the Source Deity in the creeds as the Son is stated from another which clearly can't be for one who has no beginning. In regard to the Father who is Deity in Himself He is unbegotten. Jesus is His child whom God granted His fullness to dwell in forever.

You still can't give a straight answer that states any reasonable explanation how this is so.

For how what is so? We shouldn't be going beyond Scripture. The Bible clearly tells us these things:

1. That there is one God
2. The Father is fully and truly God, the Son is fully and truly God, the Holy Spirit is fully and truly God
3. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit

From those things, we can conclude that there are three distinct, divine persons within the one Being that is God. We can also conclude that the Son is just as eternal as the Father is, as is the Holy Spirit. It simply cannot be otherwise.

If the Son of Man had a human spirit and a human body what part of Him was God?
What part of the Son who was descended into the body prepared for Him if NOT His own spirit? Apparently, none of Him is in your answers. As you believe in a created Son of Man in Mary's womb. (His spirit) If the spirit of the Son who was lived in that human body only then ALL of Him descended as He wasn't born at that time.

I asked this, but you didn't answer: When you say that I "seem to believe in a created Son of Man in Mary's womb," what is it you mean, exactly? It depends on how you define "Son of Man."

I also already stated: It is incorrect to ask "what part of the Son" descended. The Son, the Word, became flesh. That is what Scripture teaches. Don't try and break it down further than what Scripture clearly states, as that could lead to heresy.

Why quote me if you're not going to address what I have asked or stated and then simply repeat what I was seeking clarification on?

He is the Firstborn of all creation. The beginning of the creation of God.

So, you're arguing that Jesus was created, that he was made, despite you arguing to the contrary.

Now this is eternal life: that they know you,the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.


Your belief which wasn't stated.
This is eternal life that they know us the only true God.

I don't know what your point is here.

Again, for the umpteenth time I agree in part.

With what? You certainly disagree with some critical points.

Born/begotten of the Father alone all things but not made.

The way you're using "born/begotten," it means he was made, created; it cannot mean anything else.

 

[Free]

I'm not sure you're using the description of "deifying his humanity" the same way I am?

Maybe not, since I have never seen anyone use it until you did.

Okay, I understand. I began to believe that when I read the Church Fathers decades ago because I believe I found an inconsistency in their arguments. It was said that God is not just inhabiting the body of Jesus, nor was He just the soul or mind that inhabited the body of Jesus. This would be the heresy of Appolinarianism.

The equation resulting from the protest was the formrula, one Christ with two distinct natures. He had a human spirit and a divine spirit.

But this left out the problem entirely: what about the human body and a divine body? Is only his human spirit the part that has a counterpart as a divine spirit? Was the body strictly human and not divine at all?

My solution to the problem was revelational. God revealed Himself in a transcendental way, by descending seamlessly into the finite realm and appearing as an entire human, both body and soul, along with all of the behaviors they reflect God's Divine Person in this human being called Jesus.

But this is just begging the question. Why should we suppose or assume that there is a divine body in the first place? Again, that is going beyond Scripture. God is spirit; that is all we know about the nature of his existence.

Wrong, the Word *is God,* and the Word *became flesh.*

I agree with those, so I don't know what your point is.

So Jesus was both the Word and the thing that generated the Son in the form of "flesh." We clearly disagree on this.

What do you mean by 'the thing that generated the Son in the form of "flesh"'? Jesus is the Son of God (the Word) who became flesh. That is what John plainly states.

As I pointed out, many Church Fathers saw the Son as being "eternally generated." Maybe your issue should be with them, as well?

No, I fully agree with that, hence why I have clearly stated that the Son has always existed, whom John alone calls the Word.

And if the Word is not the source of this generation, then what other than the Word is revealing or generating anything? In the beginning, God said.... That is the Word.

As I have stated, the Word is the Son. The Father generates the Son. And, again, you're going beyond Scripture in trying to figure out just how the Son is generated.

I'm always trying to be careful. The infinite always absorbs and subsumes the finite. That is how God can be both infinite and finite at the same time, both eternal God and flesh in time simultaneously. Unless I say this I'm unable to describe the difference between Infinite and the Finite world, between the Eternal and things in Time.

And that is the Gospel, that the Eternal God was incarnated in Time. I believe that in our culture we need to be able to explain that seeming contradiction, because the Greeks saw God as ineffible and incapable of feeling.

Would it not be better to just leave such language out of things and not go beyond Scripture? Should we not just keep things as simple as possible and say that God became flesh or the Son took human form?

No, you'rre using your definition of "Person" and imposing it on how I'm using the word. I've clearly spelled out that my definition of Person is being used in an infinite sense to describe the One Person of God. As an infinite Being He is able to express Himself, through His Word, in finite ways that we can understand.

This is a problem. If you're going to use the term "person" in a discussion on the Trinity, then you must use it only in the sense that it was originally used for the Trinity, otherwise you create all sorts of misunderstanding and confusion. And it can lead to heresy. To say "the One Person of God" is very problematic in discussions on the Trinity because you're using your own definition of "person" rather than the historical use of it with regards to the Trinity.

This is seen when you then continue that this "One Person of God" is "an infinite Being." You're equating Person and Being--the one Being is one Person. So now, this leads either to all sorts of contradictions--Is God one person that is also three persons, or one being that is also three beings?--or to Modalism/Oneness. This is exactly why the original formulators of the doctrine of the Trinity purposely used both "being" (substance) and "person" (center of consciousness) to keep the two different ideas distinct.

Only human beings are also one person, but not so with God. So we must not confuse the terms, nor redefine them from their original use in the doctrine of the Trinity.

These Persons of God, understood in finite terms, indicate clear, substantial distinctions reflecting different and separate Persons. That is *not* Modalism.

It is Modalism when you speak of the three persons solely in finite terms and the eternal God as being one person.

You previously stated: "we are talking about one infinite Being whose Person can be expressed in a plurality of finite Persons who are distinct from one another."

That is the very definition of Modalism--God is one Person who manifests, or expresses, himself as three different persons in time. Oneness, of course, merely states that all three can be manifested at the same time, rather than separately like traditional Modalism.

The doctrine of the Trinity includes both the ontological and the economic concepts of the Trinity. The ontological Trinity is God has he exists in and of himself, which is most easily considered as how he existed for all eternity prior to creation. And that is as one being in three coequal, coeternal, divine persons. It speaks of the transcendence of God.

The economic Trinity is the roles of each person of the Trinity in creation, salvation, and redemption of creation. That is what speaks to the immanence of God.

That is "modalism" when imposing your own sense on how I use the word "Person."

Again, it isn't "my" sense of "person," it is the historic, orthodox sense. It is your sense alone that deviates and so causes the issue and leads to Modalism.

 

[RandyK]

Maybe not, since I have never seen anyone use it until you did.

Yes, my goal, as always, has been to understand formulas and doctrines *for myself,* such that I could put them in my own words.

But this is just begging the question. Why should we suppose or assume that there is a divine body in the first place? Again, that is going beyond Scripture. God is spirit; that is all we know about the nature of his existence.

So, we should assume Jesus' body is Divine in the same way we see his human spirit as Divine. If we only view his human spirit as Divine, then we must say his human body was not Divine. I think that's a problem--apparently you do not?

I agree with those, so I don't know what your point is.

My point was that you seemed to question my position that the Word was the source generating the Incarnation, or what is begotten as "flesh." If the Word "was God," then obviously he was the source of the revelation of the Son of God.

You seem to want to make the "Son of God" who Jesus was prior to his Incarnation, separate from the man Jesus? I may have you wrong in this, so correct me if I'm wrong?

But I view Jesus and the Son of God as synonymous in time, such that their preexistence was as the eternal Word of God--not as something called "the preexistent Son." This may be the distinction we're in disagreement over?

What do you mean by 'the thing that generated the Son in the form of "flesh"'? Jesus is the Son of God (the Word) who became flesh. That is what John plainly states.

No, the Scriptures say "the Word" became flesh--not *Jesus* became flesh.

No, I fully agree with that, hence why I have clearly stated that the Son has always existed, whom John alone calls the Word.

That's the point I'm making, that the Son existed from eternity as "the Word," and not in the form of "the Son." The form of the Son came with the Incarnation. But he preexisted from eternity as "the Word."

As I have stated, the Word is the Son. The Father generates the Son. And, again, you're going beyond Scripture in trying to figure out just how the Son is generated.

Actually, you're the one going beyond Scripture by saying "Jesus became flesh" or "the Father generates the Son." Please quote for me Scripture passages that specifically state this without altering the names of these parties?

It's critical to me because "the Father," "the Son," and "the Word" are specific entities representing the same God performing tasks specific to their own person. If the Son has not been incarnated yet, then "the Father" is not generating him.

God from eternity used His "Word," specifically, to generate things about Himself in time, including all 3 Persons of the Trinity. We understand them in time, and not from eternity except as having originated from eternity via God's Word.

God Himself is transcendent and we can't say anything about Him until His Word shows us something in time. That's when we can speak of the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. They are facets of God in time, and are real distinct Persons of the Trinity.

Would it not be better to just leave such language out of things and not go beyond Scripture? Should we not just keep things as simple as possible and say that God became flesh or the Son took human form?

That's exactly what I'm trying to do when I mention that what we see of God in time, and what we understand about Him in time, can only be understood as generated from God's eternal Word! When we start talking about the Eternal Son, or the Preexistent Son, we are stepping into the realm of the transcendent. We may think we're protecting orthodoxy, but we're really moving beyond range of the human intellect.

This is a problem. If you're going to use the term "person" in a discussion on the Trinity, then you must use it only in the sense that it was originally used for the Trinity, otherwise you create all sorts of misunderstanding and confusion. And it can lead to heresy. To say "the One Person of God" is very problematic in discussions on the Trinity because you're using your own definition of "person" rather than the historical use of it with regards to the Trinity.

If there's one thing I've learned it's that people use the same words in different ways, and it's the user of those words who gets to define how he is using those terms.

I need to face the reality that my opponents feel that the Trinity and "One God" are incompatible. So I hypothesize, to be fair to them: One Divine Person and Three Divine Persons--how are they compatible? Most perhaps choose to simply relate the Creeds. I choose to try to *explain them,* even if the words I choose to use do not seem to fit within the standard language of orthodoxy.

My view, nevertheless, are not heretical. So perhaps it is fitting to quote, "If they are not against you, they are for you."

From the start I said this was not about Modalism. Nor is it about the impossibility of this Formula. It's rather an explanation of how I deal with what *seems to be* an impossible, irrational formula.

This is my way of analyzing a problem. And I suppose it's your way of trying to avoid heretical statements. I'll let God judge.

This is seen when you then continue that this "One Person of God" is "an infinite Being." You're equating Person and Being--the one Being is one Person.

This One Person, or One Being, is not being defined, when He is treated on an Infinite basis, as anything revealed by His Word in time. He is simply "Other." But when this "unknowable" Person reveals Himself in time, by His Word, then He appears to us as Father, Son, and Spirit. We cannot understand infinite concepts. But we can understand finite concepts.

Before we came to be told of Father, Son, and Spirit we were only told of the transcendent God, and understood Him via His Word in different, pre-Trinitarian ways. That's why I don't speak of a "Preexistent Son" unless he is explained to have existed as an infinite Being who only generates truth to us via His Word.

So now, this leads either to all sorts of contradictions--Is God one person that is also three persons, or one being that is also three beings?--or to Modalism/Oneness. This is exactly why the original formulators of the doctrine of the Trinity purposely used both "being" (substance) and "person" (center of consciousness) to keep the two different ideas distinct.

Yes, and I do like the formulation. However, I'm not dealing with the original concerns with corrupt Christians trying to contaminate the Faith. Rather, I'm trying to explain things to people who are genuinely thrown off by the Trinitarian formulations.

So I'm avoiding some of the rigid orthodoxy while respecting it and signing onto it at the same time. I'm not sure the Creeds even dealt with the specific issue I'm talking about here? I'm not talking to heretics but to those who question the rationality of our Faith. They are not always going to believe in "Creeds," or dogmatic statements where we just say, "Trust me." I want to show that I've worked through these problems myself, even if my approach seems "treacherous" to you.

Thanks for expressing your concerns. I've heard them.

 

[Free]

Yes, my goal, as always, has been to understand formulas and doctrines *for myself,* such that I could put them in my own words.

Sure, but if you introduce your own terms, then you need to define them so others can understand. And, you shouldn't be redefining terms that have an accepted meaning.

So, we should assume Jesus' body is Divine in the same way we see his human spirit as Divine. If we only view his human spirit as Divine, then we must say his human body was not Divine. I think that's a problem--apparently you do not?

Where have I stated that his human spirit was divine? Why should we assume either his human spirit or his body are divine? And, what do you mean by "divine"?

My point was that you seemed to question my position that the Word was the source generating the Incarnation, or what is begotten as "flesh." If the Word "was God," then obviously he was the source of the revelation of the Son of God.

This is what the Bible tells us:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God." (Luke 1:25, ESV)

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (ESV)

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. (ESV)

The Bible does not use the language of "generation" for the Son; that is thoroughly man's use, not that that is an issue for me. It is used as another way to speak of what is meant by the Father "begetting" the Son. However, the Father is not the Word, so I don't see how you can say "that the Word was the source generating the Incarnation." That is mixing up both what "generating" means and who does the generating.

You seem to want to make the "Son of God" who Jesus was prior to his Incarnation, separate from the man Jesus? I may have you wrong in this, so correct me if I'm wrong?

That's the biblical teaching--the Son of God, or God the Son, is the second person of the Trinity, and as such, has always existed (John 1:1-3, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:6-8; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10-12).

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, (ESV)

But I view Jesus and the Son of God as synonymous in time, such that their preexistence was as the eternal Word of God--not as something called "the preexistent Son." This may be the distinction we're in disagreement over?

It seems like it, but the historic, orthodox teaching is that the Son is the second person of the Trinity and as such has always existed.

No, the Scriptures say "the Word" became flesh--not *Jesus* became flesh.

You misread what I stated, which was: "Jesus is the Son of God (the Word) who became flesh." I didn't say Jesus became flesh.

That's the point I'm making, that the Son existed from eternity as "the Word," and not in the form of "the Son." The form of the Son came with the Incarnation. But he preexisted from eternity as "the Word."

Yes, I know the point you're making, but I am saying that John alone refers to the preincarnate state of Jesus as the Word. That suggests he has a specific reason for doing so, but it doesn't mean he wasn't the Son in his preincarnate state. Notice that Paul says either Jesus or the Son and the writer of Hebrews says the Son, in referring to Jesus's eternal preexistence. Of course, we know that Jesus refers only to the God-man, so we can safely assume that when Paul says Jesus, he means the Son. The same would apply to when Jesus says he pre-existed--he never calls himself the Word, only the Son of God or the Son of Man.

Also, if the Son never pre-existed, then all we can say about the Trinity is that there was a First Person, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. The first person remains nameless.

Actually, you're the one going beyond Scripture by saying "Jesus became flesh" or "the Father generates the Son." Please quote for me Scripture passages that specifically state this without altering the names of these parties?

As I have already pointed out, I never said "Jesus became flesh," and "the Father generates the Son" is in reference to the Father begetting the Son (John 1:14, 18, NKJV).

I could also ask you to provide Scripture passages that specifically state "the Word was the source generating the Incarnation."

It's critical to me because "the Father," "the Son," and "the Word" are specific entities representing the same God performing tasks specific to their own person. If the Son has not been incarnated yet, then "the Father" is not generating him.

And then the Father ceases to be the Father prior to the incarnation of the Son, and is merely the nameless First Person. This tells us nothing about God, certainly nothing that could explain John's claim that "God is love." The Father and Son represent the nature of the eternal relationship of the first two persons of the Trinity. The Son has always existed because the Father has always been generating him.

 

[Free]

God from eternity used His "Word," specifically, to generate things about Himself in time, including all 3 Persons of the Trinity. We understand them in time, and not from eternity except as having originated from eternity via God's Word.

So, this is back to Modalism/Oneness again, since all three persons are in time only. The doctrine of the Trinity is that all three divine persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--have always existed; there never was a "time" in eternity past, prior to creation, when all three persons did not exist.

God Himself is transcendent and we can't say anything about Him until His Word shows us something in time. That's when we can speak of the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

Yes, of course God is transcendent, that is rather the point. We can speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as being prior to all creation because that is what God reveals of himself in the Bible.

They are facets of God in time, and are real distinct Persons of the Trinity.

Again, this is Modalism/Oneness.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do when I mention that what we see of God in time, and what we understand about Him in time, can only be understood as generated from God's eternal Word!

Be very careful, as it seems you're actually teaching things even beyond Modalism. You're saying the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "facets of God in time," yet, that they "can only be understood as generated from God's eternal Word."

Given what John says in John 1:1--"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."--where the Word is a distinct person from God, yet God in nature, that means you're teaching that there is God and the Word, who generates the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in time.

That means you have a transcendent "binity," that then generates the immanent Trinity. This is why we must be very careful to stick to what the Bible says and to the language used by those who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity.

The biblical teaching is that God is both a transcendent and immanent Trinity; he has always existed as three divine persons.

When we start talking about the Eternal Son, or the Preexistent Son, we are stepping into the realm of the transcendent. We may think we're protecting orthodoxy, but we're really moving beyond range of the human intellect.

Of course we're "moving beyond the range of the human intellect;" we're talking about the infinite God. It isn't a matter of "protecting orthodoxy," but remaining true to what God reveals of himself in the Bible.

If there's one thing I've learned it's that people use the same words in different ways, and it's the user of those words who gets to define how he is using those terms.

No, we cannot do that. We must stick with the definitions as has already been determined, otherwise meaningful and effective communication ceases.

I need to face the reality that my opponents feel that the Trinity and "One God" are incompatible.

Then you don't seem to understand the doctrine of the Trinity, although it has been given many times in this thread. Monotheism is foundation to the Trinity, being one of the main reasons for the doctrine.

So I hypothesize, to be fair to them: One Divine Person and Three Divine Persons--how are they compatible?

They're not. That is a contradiction which has nothing to do with the Trinity.

My view, nevertheless, are not heretical. So perhaps it is fitting to quote, "If they are not against you, they are for you."

The more I look at it, the problematic it becomes, for the reasons given above.

From the start I said this was not about Modalism. Nor is it about the impossibility of this Formula. It's rather an explanation of how I deal with what *seems to be* an impossible, irrational formula.

That's the irony--your explanation is the irrational one for saying that One Person is three Persons. This is what the historic, orthodox position seeks to avoid by keeping being (substance) distinct from persons.

This One Person, or One Being, is not being defined, when He is treated on an Infinite basis, as anything revealed by His Word in time. He is simply "Other." But when this "unknowable" Person reveals Himself in time, by His Word, then He appears to us as Father, Son, and Spirit. We cannot understand infinite concepts. But we can understand finite concepts.

Before we came to be told of Father, Son, and Spirit we were only told of the transcendent God, and understood Him via His Word in different, pre-Trinitarian ways. That's why I don't speak of a "Preexistent Son" unless he is explained to have existed as an infinite Being who only generates truth to us via His Word.

But, just because he reveals himself to us in time as Father, Son, and Spirit, does not mean that he hasn't always existed as Father, Son, and Spirit. We could say that the relationship of Father and Son is specific for us in time, since we understand the nature of such relationships, but cannot say that all three persons didn't exist for all "eternity past," since that relationship has always existed.

Yes, and I do like the formulation. However, I'm not dealing with the original concerns with corrupt Christians trying to contaminate the Faith. Rather, I'm trying to explain things to people who are genuinely thrown off by the Trinitarian formulations.

But your formulation is much more problematic.

So I'm avoiding some of the rigid orthodoxy while respecting it and signing onto it at the same time. I'm not sure the Creeds even dealt with the specific issue I'm talking about here? I'm not talking to heretics but to those who question the rationality of our Faith.

How is One Person who is three persons rational? How is one God, who is in intimate, personal relationship with the Word, who is also God in nature and generates the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, rational?

They are not always going to believe in "Creeds," or dogmatic statements where we just say, "Trust me." I want to show that I've worked through these problems myself, even if my approach seems "treacherous" to you.

I find it not only treacherous, but far more confusing than just sticking to the historic doctrine of the Trinity.