Trinity theology

[andiwashere]

I start with the assumption that, in the early church, the trinity was an answer to a heresy. Am I correct?

If so, what was the heresy?

In general, is there some theological reasoning that requires the trinity? I'm not asking about salvation requirements. But, what caused the early church to adjure Jesus as a lesser being then God?

I cannot conceptualize the trinity. But, I cannot conceptualize anti-matter either. Doesn't mean they don't exist...I guess.

:lolo:

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

I start with the assumption that, in the early church, the trinity was an answer to a heresy. Am I correct?

If so, what was the heresy?

In general, is there some theological reasoning that requires the trinity? I'm not asking about salvation requirements. But, what caused the early church to adjure Jesus as a lesser being then God?

I cannot conceptualize the trinity. But, I cannot conceptualize anti-matter either. Doesn't mean they don't exist...I guess.

:lolo:

Hi Andi. Thanks for your question! I apologize for any delay. Sunday isn't the day I do the most work online.

First off, the Trinity was not a response to a heresy. A heresy was a response to the Trinity. Going back to the writers of Theophilus and Tertullian before Nicea, we can find that they affirmed the Trinity. All of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) affirmed the full deity of Christ. Arius was the one who opposed and that was the cause for the council.

What difference does it make? Well if he's not God, he can't really pay for our sins. Only God could do what Jesus did. The beauty of the divine love is that God the Son took on himself on the cross the price that we could not pay. God did not punish another aspect of creation. The Son paid the price.

I'd also stress that this shows the relationality of God as well. God is love because God has been in an active relationship of love in the Trinity for all eternity. If there is no Trinity, you have the problem of the lonely God who creates because he needs someone to love. Love requires a lover, someone to love, and a spirit of love. All three exist in the Trinity. Because God is relational, we should be as well.

If you're wanting more information on this, I can recommend some resources and if you have further questions, all you need to do is ask. I'd recommend for learning what the Trinity is, James White's "The Forgotten Trinity." For seeing it throughout the Bible, I recommend the lengthy Robert Morey's "The Trinity: Evidence and Issues." For the difference it makes in a more devotional sense, Roderick Leupp's "Knowing the Name of God." I also suggest going to STR.org, the Stand To Reason website, where you can find some audio files in cassette or CD format on the Trinity.

Hope this helps!
ApologiaNick

[andiwashere]

I apologize for any delay. Sunday isn't the day I do the most work online.

Hey, no problem. If I'm impatient, that's on me, not you. I feel kinda silly, you posting your response only moments after I gave up. And, did you notice we have the same join date? Kinda freaky.

the Trinity was not a response to a heresy. A heresy was a response to the Trinity.

Along with Xavier's post in Unorthodox...understood and appreciated.

What difference does it make? Well if he's not God, he can't really pay for our sins. Only God could do what Jesus did. The beauty of the divine love is that God the Son took on himself on the cross the price that we could not pay. God did not punish another aspect of creation. The Son paid the price.

What part of that thought, if any part of that thought, includes seeing Jesus as a sacrifice, along the lines of OT animal sacrifices? (not to suggest they were the exact same, but in principal, wasn't the greater sacrifice symbolic of the lesser sacrifices?).

I'd also stress that this shows the relationality of God as well. God is love because God has been in an active relationship of love in the Trinity for all eternity. If there is no Trinity, you have the problem of the lonely God who creates because he needs someone to love. Love requires a lover, someone to love, and a spirit of love. All three exist in the Trinity. Because God is relational, we should be as well.

I like that. Just one question comes to mind; isn't the second greatest commandment to 'love thy neighbor as thyself'? Doesn't that suggest that 'loving thyself' is possible, desired, and maybe even an attribute of God?

If you're wanting more information on this, I can recommend some resources....

Umm...I do love to read...but...I tend to dissect words to the point of insanity. It's much better, for me, if the author can suffer with me and answer questions as I go.

Thanks, in advance, for your suffering! :blush:
Andi

[John from Ebla]

Hi,

l Undestand Ancient Israel started to follow pagan monotheisms by sacrificing humans just like the nations around them: “and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal- to which God said "I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; (Jer. 19:3-5) (Jer. 7:30-31) (2 Kgs. 21:6, 2 Chron. 33:6) (2 Kgs. 16:1-3)

So, if human sacrfice was never part of Gods mind or plan, could this be the very reason why Jesus had to be God in the flesh.It could be true in light of what is written in 1 Cor 1:23-24. (A God crucifed is nonsense and absurd to those outside of Christianity)

Kind Regards
John from Ebla

[andiwashere]

Hi John from Ebla,

....I have found myself battling the urge to debate - simply for the joy of debate . :pray:

I think I'll take tonight off in order to pray, read my bible, and consider your, and others, words.

Thank you so much,
Andi

[The Other Guy]

Hi,

l Undestand Ancient Israel started to follow pagan monotheisms by sacrificing humans just like the nations around them: “and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal- to which God said "I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; (Jer. 19:3-5) (Jer. 7:30-31) (2 Kgs. 21:6, 2 Chron. 33:6) (2 Kgs. 16:1-3)

So, if human sacrfice was never part of Gods mind or plan, could this be the very reason why Jesus had to be God in the flesh.It could be true in light of what is written in 1 Cor 1:23-24. (A God crucifed is nonsense and absurd to those outside of Christianity)

Kind Regards
John from Ebla



Very quickly, these verse talk about sons, daughters, and children being sacrificed involutarily to a foreign god. These references are to children who had no choice in the matter. Basically, it was both idolatry and murder, which is why it was an abomination.

Jesus, however, was a grown man who went through what he did voluntarily.

Jn:10:17-18: "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order that I may take it again. Nobody can take it away from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again; I received this commandment from my Father." (my translation)

It's an old analogy, but it's like a someone taking a bullet for someone else. We generally praise such action. Also, I think the argument from 1 Cor 1:18ff actually is the opposite of what you're arguing for. Paul has in mind the Jewish wisdom tradition here in his thinking about Christ in this passage. He pictures Christ as the embodiment of God's wisdom. Wisdom was personified in the wisdom tradition, and was a cocreator with God in the beginning. God's wisdom thus was with God from the beginning, knowing what he was going to do. Thus, if the Christ on the cross is God's wisdom, this is an implicit argument that God planned it from the start. I'm obviously not doing this subject justice in such a short post, but I hope the few thoughts here help.

:flaming: I just wanted to use this smiley!

The Other Guy