The Trinity

[for_his_glory]

So how would you summarize the trinity doctrine based on what you have said?

I think the scriptures speak for themselves if you would read all that I have given to know it's all God and not three separate identities, but that all three identities are God.

 

[Free]

I think the scriptures speak for themselves if you would read all that I have given to know it's all God and not three separate identities, but that all three identities are God.

But that is not all the Scriptures show. The Scriptures show that the Father is God but that he is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit, and that the Son isn't the Holy Spirit either.

What you seem to be saying is akin to modalism.

 

[for_his_glory]

But that is not all the Scriptures show. The Scriptures show that the Father is God but that he is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit, and that the Son isn't the Holy Spirit either.

What you seem to be saying is akin to modalism.

I do not know how to make it any clearer.
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
all equals the very Spirit of God manifested in three different ways.

 

[Free]

I do not know how to make it any clearer.
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
all equals the very Spirit of God manifested in three different ways.

That's fine and clear. That is modalism.

 

[abide]

Does anyone really get The Trinity? Whenever I ask people, I get John 1:1 quotes and a bunch of sort of disconnected thoughts.

And yeah I've heard all the stuff like I am my father's son, my daughter's father,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

This is a very contentious teaching within churches today. I do not argue since my purpose is to believe God's word. Whether God is a Trinity or not. My purpose is not to know the COMPOSITION of God.

I believe there are three distinct beings. Whether we term it Trinity or whatever. The Christian's purpose is to believe the word of God not question it.



Deut 29:29
The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Without faith we cannot please God. This is important to me. The bible no where states that we have to understand everything.

 

[Tri Unity]

As if the Trinity doctrine was not difficult enough on its own to confuse and confound the children of God; we also have another issue relating to the nature of Christ's divinity. This issue emerged under the debate of Monophysitism and Dyophysitism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyophysite

In short, does the divinity of Christ compose two natures, Divine and Human (Dyophysitism), or does Christ consist of one nature (Monophysitism). Two natures or one... what do you think? Which do you think is the official position taken by the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches?

 

[Tri Unity]

In the 5th century the question of the divinity of Christ brought with it intense hatred and infighting. At the second Council of Ephesus in 449 AD, the Bishop of Alexandria, Dioscorus, had kicked, punched and trampled Flavian, the Bishop of Constantinople, so badly that after a few days Flavian died of his injuries. They exclaimed at that council:

"May those who divide Christ be divided by the sword, may they be hewn in pieces, may they be burnt alive!"

We need to see that the church went on a different path then from the Apostolic Fathers. This was not what Christ meant when he said "Love your enemies." Today people still belong to this camp. That is why it behoves us to search for the true doctrine that the earliest church fathers left for us - before all of the hatred and infighting developed. Groups like Jehovah's Witnesses claim to do this; yet they merely introduce a form of Messianic Judaism. They take advantage of the gap of knowledge that other Christians refuse to explore. Christians need to be bold enough and strong enough to unwind the misdeeds of the institutional church and discover afresh what the earliest church fathers taught us.

 

[Butch5]

Does anyone really get The Trinity? Whenever I ask people, I get John 1:1 quotes and a bunch of sort of disconnected thoughts.

And yeah I've heard all the stuff like I am my father's son, my daughter's father,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I think I have a fair grasp of the Trinity, is there anything in particular you'd like ot know?

 

[Tri Unity]

I think I have a fair grasp of the Trinity, is there anything in particular you'd like ot know?

I will ask...

• What do you think is the easiest way to explain the Trinity and still remain faithful to the biblical depiction of the Godhead?

• How did the earliest fathers explain the trinity?

• Is it imperative for Christians to follow the definitions as given at Chalcedon, Constantinople or Nicaea, or is the Apostles Creed just as acceptable?

• How do we understand the nature of Christ... Does Christ have two natures, human and divine, or one nature?

• Does it matter?

Sorry Butch if I am putting you on the spot. Basic answers will do.

God Bless
Tri

 

[Eventide]

One glorious way to 'see' the Trinity is to know from the holy scriptures that the Father is in you, the Son (Christ is in you), and the Holy Spirit is in you.. that's the word of God..

We tend to 'see' it as ONE Spirit because they are ONE.. although perhaps the Father is more into the chastening part.. the Spirit is going to convict you more and more of sin, righteousness, and judgment.. and Christ in you is like the closest friend you've ever had.. the one who bought you with a price, one which only he could measure and pay..

to bring us back to His Father..

The Father loveth the Son...

I'm sure we haven't even nicked the surface of this marvelous thing to think upon in Christ Jesus our LORD.

 

[Webb]

While I have due respect for the so-called "Church Fathers", I have first and lasting respect for what the scriptures teach on any subject.

 

[Tri Unity]

While I have due respect for the so-called "Church Fathers", I have first and lasting respect for what the scriptures teach on any subject.

Angels and Devils both claim to follow scripture. Scripture is used to justify every opinion; from Modalism to Arianism. Saying you follow the scriptures says nothing. The earliest fathers of the 2nd century give us a window of knowledge of how the Trinity was understood by the first chistians. By discounting their testimony you might as well say no one knows anything about anything. They were taught by the Apostles themselves (i.e., Ignatius and Polycarp were taught by John); so their testimony tells us what was intended by the Apostles. Do you really think that your opinion is more valuable than theirs?

 

[Webb]

Read my post again. I said nothing about discounting "church fathers." I said nothing about my "opinion" being better than theirs. You called it right when you wrote their "opinions". Scripture is not "opinion". Its God's word, by that we will be judged,Jn.12:48-50. As I said in my post, I respect the so-called "church fathers" but their word is not necessarily God's word. I verily believe one can read, believe and obey the scripture unto salvation and never have heard of a single "church father" or any other theologian. Further, I am not saying I am always correct in my understanding of the scripture. I may well agree with your posts, I do not know as I have not read but a few sentences you wrote.

God bless

 

[Butch5]

While I have due respect for the so-called "Church Fathers", I have first and lasting respect for what the scriptures teach on any subject.

Hi Webb,

I'd sggest there's a big difference between us reading Scripture and Polycarp or Ignatius saying John taught me this, or Clement saying Paul said xyz. They didn't have to try to interpret the Scriptures likewe do, they were there with the apostles. They could easily ask questions when they didn't understand something.

 

[Butch5]

I will ask...

• What do you think is the easiest way to explain the Trinity and still remain faithful to the biblical depiction of the Godhead?

The way I understand it Christ came out of the Father, thus He is the substance as the Father.

How did the earliest fathers explain the trinity?

I'm not 100% sure how the earliest fathers understood the Trinity,

Is it imperative for Christians to follow the definitions as given at Chalcedon, Constantinople or Nicaea, or is the Apostles Creed just as acceptable?

My feeling on creeds is that they should reflect the Scriptures if they do then they should be held, if not then they shouldn't. It's been my experience that most are only partially true. I would give exception to the Apostles’ creed. It's simple and accurate.

How do we understand the nature of Christ... Does Christ have two natures, human and divine, or one nature? Does it matter?

I'd need a defination of nature here since many people define this term differently

 

[Webb]

Hi Butch5

When we read "church fathers" we read uninspired men, no more inspired of the Holy Spirit than you or me. When we read the scripture its God Himself talking to us through His inspired writers. Jesus told His apostles they would be guided into ALL truth and made to remember All things He had taught ( Jn.14:26; 16:13 ). Jesus did not say such to anyother, including "church fathers". No thanks, I'll stay with Jesus and the inspired writers.

God bless

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch5

When we read "church fathers" we read uninspired men, no more inspired of the Holy Spirit than you or me. When we read the scripture its God Himself talking to us through His inspired writers. Jesus told His apostles they would be guided into ALL truth and made to remember All things He had taught ( Jn.14:26; 16:13 ). Jesus did not say such to anyother, including "church fathers". No thanks, I'll stay with Jesus and the inspired writers.

God bless

You're correct. However, as I said, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clemet were with the apostles. They're not interpreting Scripture as you and I must do. They were taught by those inspired writers. Clement didn't need to look at Romans 9 and try to figure out what Paul was saying, he knew. Ignatius and Polycarp didn't have to look at John's writings and wonder what John meant, they knew.

Here's one major problem when people dismiss the early church writers. You look at the Scriptures to see what apostles wrote. Do you understand Koine Greek? Do you understand first century Roman and Judean culture? These issues play into a proper understanding of the Scriptures. Just look at a few commentaries and you'll see that there are different understandings of the same passages of Scripture. This is because some don't have a proper understanding of the Scriptures. Much of this is do to people trying to interpret the Scriptures in a vacuum, devoid of an understanding of the times. I'll give you an example, many protestants will tell you that salvation is by faith alone, yet that teaching doesn't appear in church history until the 1500's. The bottom line is that Luther didn't have a proper understanding of Paul's writings and as such created a whole new doctrine. If Luther had had the Ante-Nicene writings he could have seen how the first Christians understood Paul's writings and realized that his was not in line with the original teachings of Christianity. This has been the history of Christians since the 4th century.

Another thing to contemplate is, how do you know which books were written by the apostles or are inspired?

 

[Webb]

Hi Butch5

As said previously, I do look with respect upon the church fathers as well I do with any student of the word. But, none of the above are inspired, and therefore subject to error in their interpretation and remembrance of which none of the apostles were.

Apparently we agree that salvation is not by faith only. For Luther to have had to understand that it was not by faith only he would not have had to access the Ante-Nicene writings to learn that but only the scripture. Actually, I find that most of the cardinal errors of churches have already been identified in the scripture long before those errors were espoused, sprinkling and pouring for baptism for example.

I continue to assure you that I do occasionally read and profit the writings of the above, but the scriptures are without peer, Jn.5:39.

God bless

 

[Tri Unity]

I believe too that the scriptures are adequate. However, God has appointed teachers to the church to understand the things written. Some of the genuine teachers were appointed with a gift and are truly inspired. That does not mean they were infallibly or inerrant; but that we should give due consideration to their words as ones who received a special gift from God to teach.

Ephesians 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.â€

These 2nd and 3rd century Fathers were particularly blessed with gifts of teaching. They were appointed by the apostles themselves for this end. It is when we reject this clearly evident gift from God that we start drifting off into strange waters. That is what happened with the church generally. New teachers came about who rejected the former teachers, and this process has continued until this day. We became wise in our own eyes. With each rejection came greater self-deception. To remedy this problem we need to go back and hear the teachings of those who were first appointed for the church. These are the ones who directly followed after the apostles and who were appointed to teach.

 

[Webb]

You wrote: "Those 2nd and 3rd century Fathers were particularly blessed with gifts of teaching. They were approved by the apostles for this end."

How could those 2nd and 3rd century Fathers have been approved "by the apostles" as the apostles had been deceased for 1 to 2 centuries? The gifts of Eph.4:10-13 were of a miraculous nature and did not extend beyond the NT.