A great explanation of the trinity

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:48 pm

Not too long ago I came across an excellent explanation of the trinity provided by Dr. Nathan Wood (former president of Gordon College of Theology and Missions) from his book "The Secret Of The Universe". I recently stumbled upon a web page that incorporated and expanded upon Dr. Wood's explanation. It's a bit too long to post here, so here's the link.

See what you think:

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

Post by **_Paidion** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:18 pm

I read the article. From my point of view, it wasn't "an explanation of The Trinity, since The Trinity doesn't exist. Indeed, I didn't think it even explained the concept, since the concept itself is inherently self-contradictory. However, it did make a lot of analogies which no doubt made some people feel that they understood the concept better.

One little point: To me the idea of the future "coming to meet us" didn't make sense. The future does not yet exist. What the future will be depends on the choices that God, angels, demons, and people make.
Future events are not pre-determined --- crystalized into some sort of preformed blueprint that one faces. If we watch a movie, the events come at us, since they were pre-recorded. Those events "already exist" on the movie film. The actual future is not a pre-recorded movie. It does not already exist.

Post by **_Homer** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:42 pm

Paidion,

The article made sense to me. In your mind, does the past "exist"?

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:47 pm

Interesting points Paidion. I particularly see your point that the article doesn't so much explain the trinity as offer useful analogies (which I think is a good thing, especially since much of our language used to describe God is analogous).

I can't go along with the idea however that the future does not exist simply because it is not perceivable to us and (probably) is not pre-determined. I would agree that the *shape* the future will take does not yet exist (from our perspective anyway) but that doesn't mean the future itself doesn't exist. I know that the point of time which I currently reference as 5 minutes in the future will become the present in about 5 minutes (Lord willing).

Post by **_Anonymous** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:00 pm

Paidion, if the future doesn't yet exist, is time being created all the ... um, time?

Post by **_Sean** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:44 am

Paidion, what do you make of this statement:

Psalm 139:16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.

How could God know the future before the future could occur? I mean, God can certainly just mean He wanted David to be King, but how could God know that so soon? David could have been killed by Saul, or changed his mind. Yet it seems God knew. That seems to be the very definition of foreknowledge.

It's also known that "time travel" is possible. If you travel at near the speed of light, time would "slow down" for you. You wouldn't notice it until you returned to earth and found that thousands of years passed, but you were still alive. Time is relative, it's not fixed. If time is realtive and can even be tampered with my mere men, isn't it possible God can "time travel".

Personally, I believe that God knows the end result of all possible contingencies and intervienes as He desires to affect change as He wills. God does this to get the result He desires. I do not believe that this affects our "free will" choices because we don't know what God knows. I believe the events God sees are the results of our free will choices. Is there ever a time when God limits our choices? Sure, like when the flood came. People were living their lives as they wished and then they suddenly had only a few choices, like swim. But they could still choose not to.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:48 am

How could God know the future before the future could occur? I mean, God can certainly just mean He wanted David to be King, but how could God know that so soon? David could have been killed by Saul, or changed his mind. Yet it seems God knew. That seems to be the very definition of foreknowledge.

"I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times what is still to come. I say MY PURPOSE WILL STAND AND I WILL DO ALL THAT I PLEASE" Isa 46.10
Chicken or egg? Does God know what free will agents will do or does he intervene to CAUSE events?

"I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and i made them known.
then suddenly I ACTED and they came to pass." Isa 48.3

God could have encamped the Angel of the Lord to protect David from Saul. It sounds in these verses like God may know because He intervenes to cause it to happen.
As far as time being relative is that theoretical or has it been demonstrated?

Post by **_TK** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:53 am

steve7150 asked:

As far as time being relative is that theoretical or has it been demonstrated?

i believe this has been demonstrated with the use of atomic clocks-- clocks placed on high speed jets run "slower" relative to atomic clocks on earth. I know that i learned this either in physics class or reading it somewhere.

TK

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:28 am

Michelle:

Paidion, if the future doesn't yet exist, is time being created all the ... um, time?

Michelle, time never was created! It didn't have to be. It is not a physical entity that needed creation. Time is simply a measurement of the passing of events, or, if you prefer, the change in matter and beings, including movement. God performed his first act, the begetting of His Son, and thus time began. Nothing happened before that, since there was no "before". The phrase "before the beginning of time" is an oxymoron. It is meaningless to speak of it. For if there was a "before", then "the beginning of time" was not the beginning of time.

It is difficult for us to think of the beginning of time since we have been cultured, both in our educational system and in our churches to assuming an infinite regression of time into the past.

Homer

Paidion, the article made sense to me. In your mind, does the past "exist"?

No, it doesn't. Only the present exists. But the past is fixed and unalterable. The future isn't.

Sean

It's also known that "time travel" is possible. If you travel at near the speed of light, time would "slow down" for you. You wouldn't notice it until you returned to earth and found that thousands of years passed, but you were still alive. Time is relative, it's not fixed. If time is realtive and can even be tampered with my mere men, isn't it possible God can "time travel".

Time travel is logically impossible. Suppose you travel to a time two hours after your birth. You see yourself as a baby. Who is the real "you", the conscious being you identify as yourself, you, the time traveller, or you, the baby?

But it gets worse. Suppose you time travel just 5 minutes ago, meet up with yourself, and the two of you travel to 5 minutes earlier, pick up your self from that time, and travel another 5 minutes back. You could end with hundred of Seans in the same place and time!

Of course, there would be plenty of contradictions if, at time A, you travelled to "the future" to time B. If you found yourself committing a crime, returned to time A, and allowed time to proceed "normally" you presumably could not avoid committing that crime when the time came. We have been cultured by science fiction to suppose you could refuse to commit the crime, and thus "change the future". But that would mean that your actions which you had previously committed at time B were not perfomed at time B after all. But it gets worse. Now, after having temporally arrived at time B without committing the crime, suppose you travelled back to the time A. But at time A, you travelled to time B. Now when you travel to B you have not committed a crime. Thus you have not not only changed the future by time travel, but also the past.

I am not convinced of the supposed ramifications of Einstein's theory of relativity. Many aspects of the theory seem to correspond to reality. Nevertheless, as I see it, the theory is not about time at all, but about the behaviour of light.

Steve 7150

"I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times what is still to come. I say MY PURPOSE WILL STAND AND I WILL DO ALL THAT I PLEASE" Isa 46.10
Chicken or egg? Does God know what free will agents will do or does he intervene to CAUSE events?

This scripture so often quoted to show that God knows and makes known all events in advance, does not qualify for that purpose. God knows the end from the beginning of what? When we read the passage in context, we see that it refers not the end from the begining of all events in history, but the end from the beginning of His plans and purposes. Your own quote reveals this. Note the part you capitalized:

"I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times what is still to come. I say MY PURPOSE WILL STAND AND I WILL DO ALL THAT I PLEASE" Isa 46.10

Of course, He knows His plans from beginning to end, and can declare them before they happen. For if God makes up His mind to do a thing for certain, nothing can prevent it. It will happen. But we cannot conclude from that that the same is true of all events that ever happen.

We must also consider the scriptures in which God [1] is sorry for what He has done, the ones in which [2]He changes His mind about what He intends to do, and the ones in which by looking at the hearts and minds of people,[3] He thought they were going to choose a certain way, but they didn't (they had free will).

I'll give one example for each:

[1] Before God sent the flood upon the earth, when He saw that the thoughts of man were only evil continuously, He said, "I'm sorry I made man." If He had known all that man was going to do, why would He be sorry? Rather He would say, "Ahhhh... fitting right into my plan!"

[2]

At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.

And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. Jeremiah 18:7-10 NRSV

So God changes His intentions, taking into account upon human choices. The future is not fixed.

[3]

I thought how I would set you among my children, and give you a pleasant land, the most beautiful heritage of all the nations. And I thought you would call me, My Father, and would not turn from following me. Instead, as a faithless wife leaves her husband, so you have been faithless to me, O house of Israel, says the LORD. Jeremiah 3:1,20

So Israel did not do what God thought they would do. If God knew what they would do, how could He have thought they would do something else?

Post by **_SoaringEagle** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:34 pm

I Thought that the topic of this discussion is focused on the Trinity but now it seems more on how God and us relate to time. Oh, well.

1] Before God sent the flood upon the earth, when He saw that the thoughts of man were only evil continuously, He said, "I'm sorry I made man." If He had known all that man was going to do, why would He be sorry? Rather He would say, "Ahhhh... fitting right into my plan!"

Here is Matt Slick on this verse:

"And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart," (Gen. 6:6, NASB).

The above verse is not a problem for Classical Christian Theism nor is it a proof text for Open Theism. The verse simply tells us that the Lord was grieved and had sorrow in His heart for making man. Why? Because mankind had fallen into great sin and this grieved the Lord. Does it mean that God didn't know that mankind would fall and become sinful? Of course not. Cannot God know that they would become sinners and also be grieved when it happens? Of course. Let me illustrate.

I have children. I love them and provide for them. But, they have grieved me in their various sins -- as any child will do to his parents. I knew they would grieve me when they were born because I know they are sinners by nature. This doesn't mean I was surprised and didn't know they would rebel when it happened. Quite the contrary, and knowing they would sin doesn't mean I won't be grieved when their rebellion and sin is finally manifested.

The open theist would have us believe that God was grieved because He was surprised or didn't know the depths of sin to which the world would fall. But surely, even in Open Theism, God knew that people would sin. So, this verse can't be claimed to demonstrate that God didn't know the future choices of people.