Trinity.

[mattrose]

My only point is that Matt seems to assume that to be love requires a relationship between distinct persons. That's ascribing human restrictions on a limitless God.

We just disagree on that I suppose. Different things sometimes seem obvious to different people. I wholeheartedly believe that for a being to 'be love' entails internal relationship.

Creativity is shown by a creation. But wasn't God creative before He created?

I don't really take issue with the idea of describing God as 'creative' before God created. But I'd still point out that 'creative' is an adjective and 'love' in the sense we are dealing with it, is a noun. God is not creativity. God is love.

I know Matt distinguishes "being love" from "being creative," but that seems contrived to me.

It's not so much contrived as it is noticing the difference between a noun and an adjective.

[Homer]

Hi Dizerner,

You wrote:

Now I've said a lot without much backing from Scripture yet , but I do think an extensive study supports all these conclusions. In a nutshell my reasoning is, Scripture clearly shows all three are individuals (separate personalities with a mind, will and emotions), it shows their roles in relation to each other and humanity, it shows their attributes, and only God himself could fulfill the things that all three accomplish. This leaves me with the Trinitarian framework of roles and submissive positions. Now whether God at some point split himself into three or drew straws for these roles, I do not know . And I think the Son and Spirit would receive worship rightly, but still always point to the Father rather.

This is where I have a problem with Trinitarian jargon. An individual, by definition, can not be divided. If we say that each of the three are individuals, how do we escape the charge of polytheism?

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[jriccitelli]

Welcome Dizerner (Discerner), and welcome to disagreeing with people you agree with

Since two of the Godhead have given up the official role of the Father, they would no longer carry the formal designation of the role of God, just the substance of him.

You are right that they are of the same substance (they are One), but the roles I am sure are primarily for our anthropomorphic understanding of our God, and do not take away from the equality that scripture demands of any part or essence of God. This argument was the Subordinationalists position, in trying to define the roles or distinction of one from the other the Subordinationalists veer off into polytheism, or tritheism.

In this system the Spirit and the Son have a facilitating role to worship the Father. Christ clearly said the Father is the one seeking worship. I know this doesn't prove anything, but it's a description of our relationship to the Trinity and I'm content with it.

I am content with it also, because (like you allude to) it is how God breaks down 'our relationship' with God (God being them). But not to the division of the Godhead into actual lesser roles or parts, they are all spoken of in different places as 'equal' with 'God', the scriptural foundation for Gods Oneness, and the no-other option for us to include Jesus as being from, like and equal to God, unless He is God.

I would say my position cannot be proven from Scripture, but for me is heavily inferred

Inferred is the Word. As some repeat here; Jesus should have just come out and said that 'I am God'. I was trying to point out to Brenden (and as well in regards to a few other doctrines around here), that God has concealed Himself from man ever since Eden, and is now speaking only through His Word and testing our hearts and souls as to whether we 'believe' His Word. God could come right out and reveal Himself to the world by, well by revealing Himself to us in the sky. Just the idea of man being able to 'see' all of God is really ridiculous because He is super magnificent and as big as the Universe. So it is with Gods incarnation (the revelation of God to man), we cannot 'see' God, so God 'must' take on a 'form' that allows us to perceive 'something' of His being. Yet at the same time we also have believed that our sins have separated us from our God, thus God has preserved the covering of His being in the form of Jesus, and further more covered himself with the sacrifice of His Self. We cannot look upon God and live without the covering of His own blood. If Jesus were separate from God, we would be able to look upon God without looking at the Son. Thus it is not possible to look upon God without looking at Jesus (because we are holy indifferent to God, and He is holy indifferent to us). I see Gods great wisdom in this, the eternal reminder of our indifference to Him, of His great sacrifice for us, all rolled up in One perfect revelation of Himself to us.

All this is alluded to by 1; The fact that this is a test, because of the fact that God 'could' just reveal himself above us, but He does not.
2. The constant scriptural points of testing, and the slow but sure process of His revelations that build on each other. The revelations cannot contradict previous ones (like the serpents revelation to Eve), the mysteries and parables of scripture are revealed and made known, but nevertheless they were covered and kept hidden, until Christ should appear. Even during Christ’s life it was still covered but it was all coming to fruition. If it was all known during the first years of His incarnation, they may have killed Him earlier, or not at all according to Paul who said they would not have crucified the Lord if they had perceived the whole plan of redemption. But now it has been revealed.

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

I was trying to point out to Brenden (and as well in regards to a few other doctrines around here), that God has concealed Himself from man ever since Eden, and is now speaking only through His Word and testing our hearts and souls as to whether we 'believe' His Word.

I think that our conversation was started for slightly different reasons on the other thread. You had made the statement, then posed the question:

If God was a potato He would be easier to understand (but I suppose we would argue whether He was a vegetable or starch).
If the nature of God was as easy to understand He wouldn't be God (if we are complex, our creator must be all the more so).

Nevertheless, scripture demands a decision; who do you say that I am?

Typical of my facetious nature, I replied:

I believe Peter was asked that question, and he replied:
"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father"

Errr, I guess I missed that....

Regards, Brenden.

I think our interchange ended abruptly....for some reason. I am sure that banging your head on the keyboard didn't help. Ask my wife, I can be thick-skulled at times, though my kids generally have me wrapped around their finger, despite my vexation at their requests. Some might even find some kind of godly analogy in that. Either way, you seem to feel salvation in some sense is dependent upon trintarian theology, and I do not. Anymore, I try not to dislodge people from a cherished doctrine if I feel that it would do them no good. In this case, I can see it would probably do you no good, being from a Mormon background. As for me, there is still the 99% of Scripture that I can apprehend with study that keeps me busy. This nature of God business isn't the battle for me that it used to be.

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

'I can see it would probably do you no good, being from a Mormon background'

No worries, but I didn't understand this statement (?)

'I try not to dislodge people from a cherished doctrine if I feel that it would do them no good'

It is not so much cherished, I only want what is truth. I am an evangelist who wants people to know God and have that saving relationship. In too many instances it surfaces that a misunderstanding of the nature of God or Jesus is often problematic to their whole view of God and ultimately salvation, and life (also most all cults, and non-Christian religions do not hold to the trinity)

'As for me, there is still the 99% of Scripture that I can apprehend with study that keeps me busy. This nature of God business isn't the battle for me that it used to be'

I noticed you continued to post on the topic though. You say your tired of the topic, you say it doesn't have much relevance to salvation and I am stubborn to believe that it is. Yet you still seem willing to engage the topic, I counted over 50 posts by you in these two threads on this subject. I had many witnesses tell me they were tired of the trinity conversation, that I was stubborn, then I find they knock on the next door and argue same subject. You never did that did you?

[jriccitelli]

I think our interchange ended abruptly....for some reason. I am sure that banging your head on the keyboard didn't help.

I had put the following post together after your post on May 26, and I did not have a chance to sit down and post until June 3rd. By then it had moved on, but here is what I had wrote on May 26;

“… scripture demands a decision; who do you say that I am?

“I believe Peter was asked that question, and he replied:
"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father" (Brenden)

(I got your humor, that’s cool, but I then wrote the following in response, but never posted it)

I was hoping to express that people need to make a decision, and I used the simple line “who do you say that I am” because it expresses what Jesus says ‘in a dozen or more other’ passages. I made a list one time of different things Jesus asks us to believe, and it is a long list. Add to that list the things ‘The Lord’ asks us to believe, and the list grows exponentially (or you could add to the list the hundreds of ‘Commands’ we are supposed to keep, thus believe). Type ‘do you believe’ into your biblical search window and you will see Jesus asks many people what they believe, over dozens of topics, and reminds them over and over that it is only belief that counts as righteousness and eternal life. When you start in Genesis and finish in Revelation we find we are asked by God to believe ‘all’ His Words, from Genesis to Revelation, that is indeed a long list and I wasn’t thinking of only Mark 8:37.

I was also considering this passage:
He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11 “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. 12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also… If you love Me, you will keep My commandments”
Jesus equates Himself with the Father, speaks of them as two, and that the Father does His work through Him. He equates Gods commandments with his own commandments, and yet they were all Gods commandments to begin with. And then while at the same time Jesus is asking them to believe these things, Jesus also tells them the Father will send ‘another’

“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you… “In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him… “He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me. 25 “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. 27 “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful. 28 “You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 “Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.

Jesus is speaking plainly, this is not a parable, nor does it come across as symbolic (John 14:16,26, 15:26, 16:7,13-14). There is no way to ‘avoid’ that Jesus or the writer is speaking of ‘another’ person, and this is all in the context of ‘believing’ (and as most passages about faith/belief speak; faith/belief unto salvation). I wouldn’t make as big a deal over the personhood of the Holy Spirit, as I would over the Godhood/personhood of Jesus and the Father, but ‘if’ Jesus can be another person from the Father; I do not know what good ‘reasons’ would ‘prevent’ someone from believing in the personhood of the Spirit? If you accept what Jesus is saying about himself, and Jesus is the one expressing that the Spirit is ‘another’ why would anyone then ‘argue’ with Jesus over the matter?

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

The "Mormon background" comment is mainly me thinking out loud. I have found that when it comes to people changing religious paradigms rather radically, the newly embraced one seems to be a "tether" if you will. Giving up a bizarre notion that "what God was we are now and what God is we will become" (or however the Mormon axiom goes, what with Moses seeing His back and all), I can understand a natural cleaving to a new paradigm of God, and, frankly, one major religious paradigm-shift per lifetime is bad enough for anybody.

I have never experienced those that have issues with salvation due to their view of the trinity. I have had dialogue with those that seem to have a narrow view of God's love due to their Calvinist and eternal torment concepts. With the JWs, it was never a matter of their view of the "nature" of God and Christ, but rather, their view of others that didn't share their exclusive view of God--that He belonged to them, in essence--that was the crux of the problem. But this is not unique to JWs. I recommend Phillips' book "Your God is Too Small". They also had this weird hangup with epignosis.

Yes, I do post on the topic. But not because I believe that your, or anyone else salvation is hanging in the balance. My style of thinking is a synthesist--and as such, I like to be the bane of any certitude. Call it a weakness. Either way, you can see how I ran afoul of the smooth running WT machinery...

In one sense you are right--we are asked to believe many things. In another, not so much. It seems that the essential message is really distilled down to this: This is what God offers, this is how far He is willing to go. How do you respond? We do tend to complicate matters as humans, and that's fine, as far as it goes. But, trite as it may sound, and I have said it many times before, I just cannot conceive of a "Close, but no cigar" kind of Heavenly Father.

Regards, Brenden.