Hello and welcome to TheologyWeb – theology debate with a serious dose of fun! It has been our goal to create one of the best and most innovative discussion sites on the Net. Please visit our forums where we debate and discuss everything from religion, politics, lifestyle, pop culture, to who is the coolest member of the moderating team. Register now and join in the fun, its free, easy, and makes Dee Dee Warren happy.
*This site is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox with a minimum display resolution of 1024x768.
You say “The Father, Son, and Spirit are the one God” in the face of Jesus telling you His Father is His God. In Trinitarian thought, how is it possible for Jesus to have a God and yet be God without there being two Gods? In Trinitarian thought, is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost each a third of your Trititarian thought “One God”?
No. You're assuming God is one person. Jesus can be subordinate to the Father and refer to him as "My God." (Jesus is not an atheist after all.) We can see the problem some if we looked at polytheism. If we had three separate and distinct individual gods. Let's suppose each of these, as would be the case in talking about God biblically, possessed all perfections. (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.) How do these three differ?
In no way? Then there can be no difference between them and they would all be the same being?
On the other hand, if we have one God in three persons, we can easily say how the persons differ. They don't differ in nature, but in relationship to each other. The Father is seen as the source and fount of divinity passing on his nature in its fullness to the Son who is begotten. The Spirit proceeds from the two of them. Thus, we have one who is begetting and a begotten. Two who have the Spirit proceeding from them and the Spirit proceeding from two. These were the four notions Aquinas spoke of.
In Trinitarian thought, was Jesus still considered “eternally begotten from the Father” while His Father forsook Him on the cross? In Trinitarian thought, is it possible to be “eternally begotten” and yet forsaken? In Trinitarian thought, does “eternally begotten” mean once He is begotten He lives for eternity independent of the one who begot him or is one "eternally begotten" eternally dependent?
He is dependent. He says he is because the Father is. The relationship cannot be shattered nor do I believe it ever was. It could help to consider what Psalm he quoted. It was Psalm 22. This is a Psalm that describes crucifixion centuries in advance. It begins with shame and disgrace and ends with vindication, meaning Christ is pointing to his being vindicated of God in the end, which he was.
If I have interpreted your “yes” correctly, then according to Trinitarian thought Jesus is not God but the Son of God… right?
No. The Son of God when used in John by Jesus refers to one who does possess the full nature of God. An example of this is in John 19:7 and John 10:30-37. It can also be seen in what he said on trial before Caiaphas in the other gospels.
Then obviously making the Father greater than the Son in Trinitarian thought… right?!
Greater in what way?
In Trinitarian thought, why is it necessary for Jesus to be eternally begotten of the Father when scripture states the Father has given to the Son to have life in himself?
In Trinitarian thought, is that another reason the Father is greater than the Son inasmuch as the Father gave the Son “to have life in himself?” That must be an undeniable example of the Father being greater than the Son… right? In Trinitarian thought, the Father must be greater than the Holy Ghost as well as there is no mention of the Son receiving life or knowledge from the Holy Ghost… right?
Again, greater in what way? This is why defining your terms is so important. I hold to Jesus being the wisdom of God. By that, The Son is because of the Father. That's why it says he has given the Son to have life in himself.
In Trinitarian thought, why then is Jesus called the Son of God? Scripture states the Father sent His son so apparently, according to scripture; Jesus was the Son of God in Heaven prior to coming to earth.
Correct. You are assuming the begetting of the Son is temporal. It isn't.
In Trinitarian thought, when and how did Jesus become the Son of God noting He was the Son of the Father in Heaven? In Trinitarian thought, were there two Gods in Heaven and a judgment made to determine which one would be the Son? Jesus has declared that the Father is God and in Trinitarian thought we have Jesus is God so in Trinitarian thought, how was it determined which distinct person God would be the Son?
I urge you to really listen to what is being said because I believe I am repeating myself. The Son is begotten from the Father. He is the Wisdom of the Father. On that basis, he is Son.
[quote] In Trinitarian thought, is the strong bond between Jesus and God His Father …love? If the strong bond is not love, then what? [quote]
The same bond extends to the Spirit. It's love.
In Trinitarian thought, if one “truly knows the Father” then can one see Him?
See does not mean physical sight, such as one seeing the truth of a proposition for instance. When you "came to see the BOM is true" (Which I disagree with of course) did that involve physical sight? No. 1 Tim. 6:15-16 answers the question for us.
Matthew 11:27 says Jesus can reveal the Father to those He chooses to; “and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” Why in Trinitarian thought, wouldn’t that mean the Father is visible and able to be revealed with the caveat of “whomsoever the Son will reveal him?”
See above.
In Matthew 11:27, Jesus seems to think that once we get to know him we will know the Father due to how close He resembles the Father in all ways. The Apostles spent 3 years with Jesus under all circumstances and Jesus expected them to know the Father as a result of their knowledge of Him.
Jesus states if you have seen Him you have seen the Father and I’m sure Jesus didn’t expect them to infer by His statement that Jesus was in fact the Father and when they were looking at Him they were actually looking at His God and Father.
Partially. They were seeing what the Father is like by seeing the Son who is the exact representation of the Father.
You say “a cloud or smoke or mist still has composition”. God does not. He has no parts. He is pure actuality” and yet Jesus has composition and parts and will have for all eternity. In Trinitarian thought, how do you deny Jesus’ God and Father has “composition” and “parts” when Jesus is telling His Apostles that His Father has “composition” and “parts just like Him?”
Because you are assuming the likeness is physical and I have repeatedly stated that the body of Jesus is not God. The body of Jesus is not essential to his nature as deity. The body is an aspect of his humanity.
How does Trinitarian thought interpret “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him?” If you get to Heaven and God is something without composition and parts then Jesus lied to His Apostles and subsequently to the rest of the world!
No. You're assuming it's something physical again. If you want to know what the Father is like, you look to the way the Son is. It is not asking about a physical nature.
In Trinitarian thought, why does Jesus call Himself “the Son of man?”
Good question! It was a reference actually to Daniel 7 and the approaching of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days. The Son of man is seen as a figure of deity in that passage. This should also indicate how the ancients could understand the phrase "Son of." It did not always mean physical birth. The Son of Man in Daniel was not born of man. (In fact, the earliest prophecy speaks of Jesus being the seed of woman.)
In Trinitarian thought, how does one see a God without composition, without parts, who is “pure actuality” with full comprehension?
Answered above.
When I used the term autonomous I meant they were independent beings of one another. In Trinitarian thought can the Father show Jesus greater works and teach Him without them being independent beings and if so, how, seeing as the Father is in Heaven and the Son is on the earth? In Trinitarian thought, did the Son receive revelations from God His Father and that is how Jesus was shown the “greater works” His Father wanted Him to do?
They are distinct persons. One person shows another. In the incarnation, we do see Jesus praying for wisdom to make the decisions that he has to make. He played the game as it were with two hands tied behind his back from a human perspective.
Yes there is:
My bad on that.
[quote] The scripture in John 5:20 clearly states “and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel” which is definitely something here about showing the Son greater works that Trinitarian thought must agree with…right! [/QUOTE
Correct.
I’ll ask again; How is it possible in Trinitarian thought for God to teach His Son and show His Son “greater works” and the Father and the Son not be separate and distinct individual beings independent of one another?The Son did not know how to do the “greater works” until His God and Father showed Him.
This was also Jesus speaking in the incarnation on a temporal level and Philippians 2 tells us that he lowered himself, not of deity of course, but I would say of the divine prerogative. He had to live with God revealing truth to him in the temporal realm in some way. As said above also, this was one person showing something to another person.
Also, in Trinitarian thought, is it possible for one distinct person to literally be the God and Father of another distinct person? I ask because in Trinitarian thought, you continue to change individual being which is apparently unacceptable into a distinct person which obviously in Trinitarian thought does not mean the same. Why?
Being refers to a nature. Person refers to one who possesses a nature. We want to be strict with our terms and avoid polytheism. Also, it is possible for the Father to be the God and Father of Jesus, but this does not mean "literally the Father" in that we're not speaking of a physical relationship.
In Trinitarian thought, is not a distinct person an independent distinct thinker? If the teacher and student are not independent and distinct thinkers, is not the teacher teaching himself?
No. They are distinct thinkers, but there is one person relating to another and the latter is not independent of the former.
You agreed that Jesus had free will! If the Son could not have disobeyed the Father according to Trinitarian thought then how is it that the Son glorifies the Father?
I think you answered your question. He does it by living the way that we ought.
In Trinitarian thought, is Jesus some type of pre-programmed robot? If the Son “could not have disobeyed the Father” then isn’t the Father glorifying Himself and just using Jesus in the effort? Lucifer, son of the morning, who had spent perhaps eons with Jesus and His Father before being cast out with a third of the host of heaven to earth certainly thought Jesus could disobey His God and Father with all his tempting. After all, Lucifer, son of the morning, did!
And Lucifer is not omniscient. He had pride remember and that pride kicks in at times. (As he still has it.) No. The Son is not a robot. He does all things freely, but that freedom is also built into his knowledge of God.
In Trinitarian thought, who or what is physical in their nature if not God? In Trinitarian thought, how is it that “pure actuality” without “composition”is teaching and showing His Son greater works?
This is a person with pure actuality, not some abstract idea. Who or what is physical in their nature? Anything that is material, and God is not material.
In Trinitarian thought, now that Jesus has been resurrected, is Jesus a visual physical being for the rest of eternity?
Yes.
In Trinitarian thought, when you say “each person would fully bear the nature of God,” are there three independent natures being born or one? Wasn’t Jesus nature being developed by God His Father while Jesus was in Heaven learning from God His Father?
No. Jesus as a human was learning and growing. Jesus as God was not.
Just as Jesus is now with His God and Father… right?
That is how Jesus exists as a human. He also exists as deity however so our existence is not a one-to-one correspondence as I will never exist as deity.
In Trinitarian thought, in what way is Jesus’ Father greater than Him? You say Jesus is “eternally begotten” from the Father so the Father must be greater than Jesus because the Father is the one doing the eternally begetting and Jesus is on the receiving end of being “eternally begotten”…right?
In what way is your boss if you work at a place where you have one greater than you?
Trinitarian thought must teach that without the Father eternally begetting Jesus, Jesus would not exist without being eternally begotten of the Father… right? Is that the way the Father is greater than Jesus in Trinitarian thought? If not, then how?
That sounds like an accurate way of putting it. If there was no Father, there would be no Son. (Of course, there would be no us to have this convo either.)
Inasmuch as scripture states Jesus’ Father taught Him, His Father must have been greater in knowledge and intelligence. Especially when you take into consideration that in Trinitarian thought Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father and not vice-versa.[
Jesus freely admits His Father taught and showed Him things before His God and Father sent Him to earth to be our Savior and Redeemer and His Father showed Him greater things He was to perform while on earth so God His Father must be greater in intelligence.
What work was Jesus talking about in that chapter? He was speaking about healing the paralytic. Jesus is saying greater works than that are coming, which will have Lazarus and finally his own resurrection.
This was your answer:
If in Trinitarian thought all the sins of the world were cast on Him by God His Father, does not your statement alone prove they are completely separate and distinct individual beings independent of one another for that event to transpire.
No. It shows they are distinct persons.
In Trinitarian thought, was Jesus without His deity while on earth in His humanity?
In Trinitarian thought, is it possible to separate Jesus in His humanity from His deity seeing how Jesus is not His body in Trinitarian thought? If so, how is His humanity separated Him from His deity?
Jesus was fully God on Earth and always will be. Jesus's humanity is not his deity however and his deity is not his humanity. There is also not a human person and a divine person together but one person who has a divine nature and a human nature.
Now that Jesus’ spirit is forever encased within His body due to His resurrection, is not His humanity and deity now combined for the rest of eternity? In Trinitarian thought, does resurrection mean the uniting to the body the spirit which gave life to the body for the rest of eternity?
Correct on our resurrection, but Jesus also had a fully human soul and a human body. Those were not deity. He will always have such and he will not have humanity to the exclusion of deity or vice-versa.
In Trinitarian thought, what is the difference between distinct persons and individual distinct beings and why is it important that you make that distinction? When God cast all the sins of the world onto His Son wasn’t His son on the cross an individual separate and distinct being?
Person was used at the time and I'll do some more checking but it generally referred to an entity capable of making its own decisions which could be a business or a person. Some today think it would be best to speak of centers of conciousness. The nature is not a person as this would get us into modalism and other doctrinal problems as we would have three natures interacting with each other, which is not the case. Just as if you and I and Trout got together, we would have three persons interacting, but not three human natures. There is only one human nature.
In Trinitarian thought, how is it possible for the Son to suffer for the sins of the world and not be a separate and distinct individual being? Wasn’t Jesus the only one who suffered for the sins of the world or in Trinitarian thought did the Father and the Holy Ghost take part in the suffering as well as according to Trinitarian thought they are one?
No. God is impassible. He is incapable of suffering. Jesus in his humanity did suffer.
According to John 10:17 Jesus was not eternally begotten of the Father. According to Trinitarian thought, how is it possible for Jesus to be eternally begotten of the Father and yet lay down His life and take again? Would not the act of Jesus laying down His life and taking it again interrupt the Trinitarian thought of Jesus being eternally begotten of the Father? If not, why not?
It would not because this was in his humanity. The Son did not cease to exist as Paul would imply in Col. 1:15-18. It also does not say Jesus is not eternally begotten of the Father in that passage.
What I said was; your interpretation was wrong when you used the term “taken by death” when in fact scripture stated Jesus “gave up the ghost”…right?
Jesus voluntarily giving up the ghost gives clear indication that He was in charge of His spirit and life and death instead of your interpretation of Him being a victim of death as if death had some control over him. Do you still have no problem with what I just said?
Yes. No problem. He wilingly lay down his life. He could have called angels to save him and he did no such thing.
In Trinitarian thought, what is the difference between a distinct person and a distinct being? Why make the distinction when synonyms for person are being, self, individual, one, someone, and personality? In Trinitarian thought are not grown son’s separate and distinct individual beings independent of their fathers? I know mine is!
Yes. But you are looking at the type. Christ and the Father are the archetype. You are saying "I am a father with a son and I guess that's how God and his Son are." Reverse it. "God has a Son, and I guess my relationship is like that with mine." Yours is not exact. God's relationship is eternal and it is an eternal event. Yours is temporal. I've explained the language in an earlier answer. I'll simply add on that we are using modern ideas of personhood and individual, something that's not necessarily what the ancients had in mind.
The Son is called Lord, God, Son of God, Messiah, the I AM, and other titles that show theat He is God the Son.
3. I cannot find the title "God the Spirit".
The Spirit is God, therefore, He is God the Spirit. One need not find a title in the Bible to believe in the concept behind it.
I have found the titles "God the Father," "the Son of God," and "the Spirit of God" a total of a hundred times or more; but “God the Son” and “God the Spirit” are not there.
And... The word monotheism isn't in there either, nor is atheism, or incarnation. Are you suggesting that the incarnation didn't happen because the word isn't there?
That makes me believe that the Holy Spirit deliberately avoided using those titles, and I will avoid them too.
Then I don't ever want to see you talk of the incarnation in your posts.
Like any true son, he is the image of his Father. In him dwells all the fullness of deity (Col. 2:9). He shares with God Almighty that eternity of being which is an attribute of deity (compare Rev. 21:6, 22:13).
He also shares with God Almighty the worship of every creature (Rev. 5:13). In fact, it is God’s intention that ALL shall honor the Son, just as they honor the Father (John 5:23). At the name of Jesus, every knee is going to bow (Philippians 2:10).
But he is also the obedient Son, who said what his Father commanded him to say (John 12:49), and did what his Father gave him to do (John 17:4). His desire was to do, not his own will, but the will of the Father who sent him (John 5:30).
Hence the functional subordination among the members of the trinity.
This perfect Son, who perfectly revealed God, also perfectly obeyed God. That fills me with longing. I want to be like him.
In His humanity, that's a noble goal, and one that I share. But in His Divinity, we can never truly be like Him, as the eternal God.
All that being said, I have the word of Paul (1 Co. 8:9) and of Jesus himself (John 17:3) that the one God, the only true God, is the Father.
Yes, meaning that there is no polytheism. But this does not exclude the Son and Spirit from sharing the same nature as the Father. All 3 are the only true God.
SO FAR, I have not found anything in the Bible that contradicts what they said.
Nor have I, when properly understood with other verses in the Bible.
Let's clarify the original statement. I cannot find a verse in the Bible in which the title "God" refers to a plurality. If God is actually three persons, surely there should be ONE verse in which the word is used that way. I can't find one, and you haven't given one.
God's Son and God's Spirit are "of God" and therefore are "God" in essence. But the one God is the Father, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Son was sent by God. The Spirit was sent by God. To deal with either is to deal with the God who sent him. Agreed. But the only true God is the Father.
Take a look at the Greek text for John 1:1. The Word was with (the) God. That identifies WHO the Word was with.
And the Word was God (no article). That describes the Word. It does not make the Word and the God he was with the same entity.
In any case, the Lord Jesus made it quite clear that the only true God is the Father. That is too explicit to be ignored. Jesus Christ was SENT BY the only true God, who was HIS God.
Let's clarify the original statement. I cannot find a verse in the Bible in which the title "God" refers to a plurality. If God is actually three persons, surely there should be ONE verse in which the word is used that way. I can't find one, and you haven't given one.
God's Son and God's Spirit are "of God" and therefore are "God" in essence. But the one God is the Father, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Son was sent by God. The Spirit was sent by God. To deal with either is to deal with the God who sent him. Agreed. But the only true God is the Father.
Take a look at the Greek text for John 1:1. The Word was with (the) God. That identifies WHO the Word was with.
And the Word was God (no article). That describes the Word. It does not make the Word and the God he was with the same entity.
In any case, the Lord Jesus made it quite clear that the only true God is the Father. That is too explicit to be ignored. Jesus Christ was SENT BY the only true God, who was HIS God.
Is it true that you understand the argument for the orthodox version of the trinity, that you do know what we mean by it, and our arguments for it, but that you deliberately reject the doctrine as false?
You see I am having a discussion with someone who keeps claiming that you are just like children who just can't understand the trinity and you are not rejecting it but merely ignorant of it. I said no, they actually have been taught what the trinity is, and what the arguments are from the bible but they still reject it knowingly and deliberately.
God is the Father. He alone (the God of our Lord Jesus Christ) does all things according to the counsel of his own will. He alone commands, but is never commanded. He alone sends, but is never sent. He is the only one who is supreme above all.
The only true God is the Father. I have the word of the Lord Jesus himself for that, and I believe him.
A three-personed God is not in any Bible translation that I own. It is in the Athanasian Creed, I admit; but I am not compelled to accept the Athanasian Creed.
However, if you feel the need to do so, that is your choice.
Let me try again. Whenever the title "God" is used, it refers to ONE PERSON, not three.
Really. So when we go to the OT, every time we see God show up, it refers to just one person? And you know this how?
Second, in the NT, I'm not surprised that God usually refers to the Father. In fact, that's what I expect. The writers were working out what it meant for Jesus to share in the divine identity.
Um. Here's a shocker. I as a Trinitarian agree with all of that. The Father is distinct from the Son and Spirit and can be spoken of as God.
God is the Father. He alone (the God of our Lord Jesus Christ) does all things according to the counsel of his own will. He alone commands, but is never commanded. He alone sends, but is never sent. He is the only one who is supreme above all.
No problem there.
The only true God is the Father. I have the word of the Lord Jesus himself for that, and I believe him.
No demonstration however that the divine identity is limited to one person.
A three-personed God is not in any Bible translation that I own. It is in the Athanasian Creed, I admit; but I am not compelled to accept the Athanasian Creed.
However, if you feel the need to do so, that is your choice.
I'm compelled to accept the testimony of Scripture. The creed just happens to agree.
Really. So when we go to the OT, every time we see God show up, it refers to just one person? And you know this how?
This is a statement that is easier to prove wrong than to prove right. So - give me the examples that prove the statement is wrong. I am willing to learn.
This is a statement that is easier to prove wrong than to prove right. So - give me the examples that prove the statement is wrong. I am willing to learn.
Apparently there is NO such example in the NT.
You're the one who made the claim. It's up to you to demonstrate it.
God is the Father. He alone (the God of our Lord Jesus Christ) does all things according to the counsel of his own will. He alone commands, but is never commanded. He alone sends, but is never sent. He is the only one who is supreme above all.
The only true God is the Father. I have the word of the Lord Jesus himself for that, and I believe him.
A three-personed God is not in any Bible translation that I own. It is in the Athanasian Creed, I admit; but I am not compelled to accept the Athanasian Creed.
However, if you feel the need to do so, that is your choice.
Could you answer my question with a number please? How many gods are there?
You're the one who made the claim. It's up to you to demonstrate it.
The word "God" occurs something like 2500 times in the OT and another thousand or more in the NT. I am saying that in ALL of those occurrences the word refers to a single person, not three.
I have given you several examples, and could give you hundreds more if you want them.
All YOU need to prove me wrong is one counter-example. Clearly, you can’t think of one in the NT. Can you think of one in the OT?
Paul has already answered that, but I will quote him again: “For us there is one God – THE FATHER.”
So the Son is not God?
Heb 1:8 But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth
Php 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
The word "God" occurs something like 2500 times in the OT and another thousand or more in the NT. I am saying that in ALL of those occurrences the word refers to a single person, not three.
I have given you several examples, and could give you hundreds more if you want them.
All YOU need to prove me wrong is one counter-example. Clearly, you can’t think of one in the NT. Can you think of one in the OT?
If you can’t, then my claim stands.
No. You've made the assertion. I'm asking you how you know it refers to a unipersonal being rather than a tri-personal being. All you've done is repeat your assertion that that's the case.
Heb 1:8 But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
The Bible is clear here that the Son is God.
I hope you don’t mind if we look at these one at a time.
You didn't finish the quotation in Hebrews. The rest is:
"You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."
The Son’s God calls his Son, “God,” giving him an everlasting throne and anointing him with the oil of joy BEYOND HIS COMPANIONS.
So – who were the Son’s companions?
God called the judges/leaders in Israel “gods” (John 10:34; Psalm 82:6). God made Moses a god (Ex. 7:1) And the Hebrew word translated “judges” in Exodus 21:6 and Ex. 22:8-9, is “elohim” (gods).
Peter tells us in Acts 2:36 that “God has made this same Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ (the anointed)”. He anointed him with “the oil of gladness beyond his companions,” because he loved righteousness and hated iniquity – something that all those other gods never did.
Jesus has been MADE both Lord and Christ. All authority has been GIVEN to him (Mt. 28:18). Who gave it to him? HIS GOD – the “one God” whom Paul and Jesus and Peter all identify as the Father.
The word monotheism isn't in there either, nor is atheism, or incarnation. Are you suggesting that the incarnation didn't happen because the word isn't there?
