Featured The Trinity

Analogies

Allow me an analogy. Warning, it is no doubt limited and if pushed too far will collapse, but it's a fair starting point.

The 'set of whole integers' is a mathematical term meaning all - ALL - of what us normal humans think of as 'counting numbers'; 1, 2, 3, and so forth. Obviously, it never stops, it is infinite. When one thinks one is at the end of the numbers, simply add 1 and there's the next number.

So it will come as no shock when I say one will NEVER find them ALL listed in a book. Nor can anyone (human at any rate) ever 'count' them all. They are infinite.

However, it is possible for most all humanity to become familiar enough with them to balance our check books, calculate a tip, calculate our tithe (figured I throw something in for the preachers), plan (budget) for the next month or a vacation and so forth, right?

So it is with Almighty God. God is both Infinite and Eternal (among other things, I'm not going to attempt to list them all - sort of like 'numbers'). However, we can get 'enough' knowledge of God so we can 'deal' with Him. ('Deal' in the sense of serve, honor, obey and have a basic idea of what we are to do in response to Him. At least what we OUGHT to be doing, even if we don't fully...)

We can remember that God is Three, yet God is One. I think of God as Three 'functions'; I know that isn't complete - and may not be 'correct' in some sense - but it serves and God hasn't seen fit to jerk my chain about it. (But that may be as He is jerking my chain over matter of greater import at the moment.) No doubt someone (perhaps the two monks from the video?) will come along and inform me of the 'official' nomenclature of the heresy under which that concept falls (listed in the Junior Woodchuck Manual, Chapter on "Heresy Lists"), but I rest my soul in this: I know it is a very limited view, God knows I know it is a limited view, and what I cannot do - grasp, understand, perform - God's grace takes up the slack.

Thank you, Lord and Father.

 

Pointing out error is called by some 'immature' while the same employ ad hominem middle school name calling, directed at those who expose their error.

How mature. :thumbs:

 

I think that if anyone were throwing a blanket over all the "heretics" regarding the nature of "Trinity", I would be under the blanket in the minds of most. Why? Because I have a hard time with the way in which councils of old have formulated a concept of God that is not plainly stated in scripture

But, maybe if I were to attempt to express what I know from scripture, and how I attempt to understand it, it might be easy to see how someone can affirm that the Three are One, and also say "I don't know anything about this Trinity"

I think that statement is not a denial of the scriptural teaching that the Three are One, nor is there an attempt to blend together a Modalist god who is working in limited functions. Simply to say that the way this doctrine is formulated and presented, it presses onto scripture something that is not plainly stated. And maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't work so hard at confining God into a concept which can formulated.

Which is worse? Formulating an incomprehensible concept of God that is not plainly stated in scripture, or formulating a comprehendible concept of God that is not plainly stated in scripture?

I would not pretend to know.

I do know that certain concepts presented throughout church history have departed form scripture to the point that I would consider many heretical. However, we must not only look at the Trinity as a whole, we must also consider the formulated view of each "Person", and how they stack up against scripture.


In my finite understanding, I see two concepts which are altogether different. I cannot pretend to resolve the conflict which arises from attempting to bring these two concepts together. They cannot be reconciled in my mind, but I see the two as being true at the same time.


In Genesis 1:26-27
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness... God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Now, while most will point to these two verses and say that each individual is created in the image of God, I do not see that at all. What most do not understand is that God said "Let us make mankind in Our own image". Then He made them male and female.

And, it is curious how most people think nothing of the very next verse, which says:
God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth

This must be taken into account with verses 26-27. God made Adam. Then from Adam, He made Eve. Then told THEM to multiply. It is my firm conviction that the family structure is the image of God, not individual people.

But also, the three were not created separately, they were all "in Adam" as we learn from the apostle Paul.

Paul, in 1Tomothy 6:15-16, also said
He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

Paul was clearly speaking of "God the Father" according to Trinitarian vernacular. This must be so, because God and Jesus are mentioned separately, and it is said "whom no man has seen or can see". And we know that Jesus was seen by many men. And Jesus said in John 14:10-11

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. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.

It seems that Jesus is "in" the Father, as Eve and the child were "in" Adam. This does not mean, to me, that Jesus is a created being, for mankind was made in the "image" of God, not an exact representation

I also see another concept which arises from scripture. What we see is that there is One God, His Word, and His Breath. The Greek word for Spirit is Pneuma, which can mean wind, breath, or spirit. I believe it is best rendered Breath, because God BREATHED life into Adam, and Jesus BREATHED on the disciples and said "receive the Holy Spirit" in John 20:22

If I think of my word(s) and my breath, I think it gives a pretty good concept.

If I speak, and you hear it, did you hear ME, or did you hear my WORDS? Both. If you hear my words, which come from me, then you heard me. You also did not hear me, but you heard my words. Both are true together.

Same with my breath. If I blow on you and you feel it, did you feel me, or did you feel my breath? Both. If you hear my breath, which comes from me, then you felt me. But you did not feel me, you felt my breath. Both are true together.

I believe that two concepts exist together. The image of God is first presented in scripture as a three-fold concept - Adam, Eve, child. Each having the same substance (dust).

Adam, in one sense, was there before Eve and the child came from him. But they were always there, because they were from the same substance. The others were simply "brought forth" from him.

I believe the Nicene Creed is correct with the affirmation that Jesus was "Begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father" - Begotten meaning "brought forth"


I see Father, Word, and Spirit as distinct, with each being of the same substance. I do, however, see much difficulty with the notion of three "Persons" because it treads into polytheism. And I see no scriptural wording such as "God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit"

Like I've stated before, any attempt to confine God into a formulated and defined concept is going to depart from scripture in one way or another, because we are attempting to comprehend the incomprehensible.

I take scripture for what it says, and I do not try to fully reconcile the difficulties I encounter in my finite mind

 

My main reason for agreeing with Dr. Bob is not getting banned (although it is a part of my life and would miss it), but because of this example from Scripture. Someone else already mentioned the Trinity at one place at one time at Christ's baptism. I think the first few verses of Chapter 5 Revelation totally destroys the concept of modalism.

From the Prophetic Years commentary Chapter 5 Revelation in part:

1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.

In the right hand of God is a scroll with writing on the outside and inside. This scroll was sealed with seven seals. In those days books were written on papyrus or vellum that was rolled up. If the content of the scroll was official it was sealed by the seal of the one with that authority. Only someone who met the requirements written on the outside of the scroll would be found worthy to unseal and read the scroll. When an important legal scroll was written, a portion would be written and then rolled up and sealed. Later more could be added and then it would be rolled and sealed again. This process was done to keep prying eyes out until the final seal was placed on the scroll. This scroll that Jesus will open had seven such seals.



The inside of the scroll contains the events that must occur in heaven and on earth before man can be restored to administrate the creation of God. As the scroll is unrolled it sets in motion the events that must take place for this restoration to occur. All sin from the time of Adam must be paid for and indeed has been paid for by the sacrifice that God fulfilled through the death of His Son Jesus on the cross. Those who accepted the free gift of God's sacrifice for all sin during the acceptable year of the Lord (Luk 4:19), will not experience the wrath from God that must come on the enemies of God who reject the only provision God gave to save and restore mankind. This plan of restoration comes through the second Adam (Jesus) and He must come and rule on earth in order to defeat all of the enemies of God. If Jesus did not come to save the world, the world would come to total destruction through the deception of Satan (Mat 24:22).



As this scroll is unrolled, we should keep in mind that after the outer seals are broken nothing written in an inner sealed portion can be seen. Consequently, if someone says we are now going through one of the trumpet judgments or vial judgments before the things written about at the breaking of the prior seven seals is fulfilled, do not believe them. No trumpet judgments have yet happened on the earth and none of them are now underway as of this writing. The seals, trumpets, and vials cannot run concurrently as some authors with their own agenda have speculated. They make this error because they simply do not understand the book of Revelation. They also do not understand that the first six seals must be broken before the wrath of the Lamb is even announced. The trumpet judgments are not actually carried out until after all the seals of the scroll are broken. Consequently, the trumpet judgments start after the opening of the seventh seal. (Chapter 8)



2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

The angel was looking for someone who was worthy to open the book and read it but no natural seed of man could be found in the universe to open the book. This is because all have sinned and no man is worthy (Rom 3:23). Even the strong angel would not open the book because it had to be a kinsman redeemer descended from Adam.

After Adam sinned, he was no longer worthy to manage the earth. The earth was placed under the administration of the prince of the angels (Satan). He will be in authority over the earth until a kinsman redeemer is found who fulfills the requirement to redeem it. Much of the Bible describes the effort that Satan made to stop a kinsman redeemer from descending from Adam and from leading a sinless life.

When Satan, the ruler of this world, allowed a sinless man to die and go to Hades, he violated God's law and was an accessory to the crime. He was exposed as the murderer he is. God raised this innocent man from the dead into a new creation and condemned the ruling authorities of this world. The risen Jesus has paid the purchase price to be the kinsman redeemer and all power and authority over the earth has been restored to this second Adam. Had the rulers of this world known about this plan of God to redeem the earth they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory (1 Co 2:8).

The delay from His conquering death until the unrolling of the scroll was so that many would be saved by being born into this new spiritual creation called the Body of Christ. This is the body He created and gave for all those who trust Him to cover their sins with His blood sacrifice.

The book of Ruth is a profound live play that is valuable in telling us about these truths. Ruth's role is a foreshadow of the New Covenant Church, Naomi is in the role of Israel and Boaz is the kinsman redeemer Christ figure. In the play, Boaz (Jesus) marries the Gentile Ruth (the Church) and restores Naomi to the land (Israel). Naomi's destiny is to nurse the child of Boaz and Ruth (Israel's destiny is to properly raise those born in the millennium Kingdom of God on earth) born after the great harvest (after the end time reaping).

It might be worthwhile to notice that Ruth is at the feet of Boaz during the time of the harvest threshing (a pretribulation rapture insight).



4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

By what John wrote in his other books of the New Testament he knew salvation would come through Jesus so we might wonder why John wept. While salvation through Jesus was clear to John, he understood that the restoration of earth could not come about until a worthy man was found to open the book. Until the time a worthy man was found, Satan would continue to reign and sin and death would continue on the earth. He knew that Jesus was God; that is evident in his gospel and epistles - but John must not have understood that Jesus as a man (born of the seed of a women) was qualified to fulfill the role of kinsman redeemer.

5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

One of the elders tells John not to weep. This verifies the assumption that neither John nor the apostles are part of the twenty-four elders. If the one talking to John knew about these things as an elder, then John as one of the twenty-four elders would also have known these things. In fact, it is likely that he would have known all the elders by name.

The celestial elder tells John that the Lion (King) from the tribe of Judah (Jesus was from Judah) "has the power" to open the book (the words "had prevailed" in the King James seems to give a different meaning in today's English than the author intended).

Rev 5:5 And one of the rulers said to me, Do not be sad: see, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome, and has power to undo the book and its seven stamps. BBE



Verse four says no man was worthy but this verse says there is one worthy. This sounds like a contradiction but it is not, because Jesus was not born from the seed of a man. He was born of God but He also qualifies to be a kinsman redeemer because His human blood lines came from His mother. He was born a man from the seed of the woman.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.



He is the root of David because His royal blood line is from David. The fleshly genealogy from Eve to David to Mary is given in the gospel of Luke while the genealogy that gives Jesus the authority to be king of Israel is given in the genealogy of Matthew. Jesus in the end will also fulfill the role of the avenger of blood (the person in the Old Testament that legally sought out and killed the murderer of his brethren). Jesus will put down all authority of the angel who through his deception brought sin and death into the world and He will cast him and his followers into the place of final death (the Lake of Fire).

 

6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

The Lamb that was slain was Jesus. Jesus is standing in the midst of the throne. There is also a person that is sitting on the throne that Jesus took the book from. Jesus, before now, was sitting with the Father but now John sees him standing to take the book out of the Father's hand. When He takes the book and unrolls the scroll, the events written within will happen.

The Lamb contains seven eyes and seven horns. The seven horns speak of complete power and the seven eyes or Spirits sent forth means He will rule over all of the earth in the complete fullness of God.

The Lamb takes the book out of the right hand of Him that sat upon the throne. If Jesus is the Father like some teach, Jesus is taking the book out of the right hand of Himself. This of course is not the case because God is triune. Once again we see the trinity on or at the throne as the seven-fold Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son.



8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Jesus takes the book out of the right hand of the Father and is worshiped by the heavenly host. Only God is worshiped. Jesus is therefore God.

The text in this passage in the King James is misleading - it would imply that the twenty-four are of the redeemed. The American Standard Version is a better translation of this passage. .

9 And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, 10 and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they reign upon earth.



Notice the difference between this version and the King James. The King James indicates that the twenty-four elders were including themselves in the redeemed men and being made kings and priests. However, the American Standard says they are singing about the redeemed, not about themselves. In this case, I believe the American Standard is a more exact translation of this Greek passage, although others may still disagree (because early manuscripts differ). In any case, this passage is questionable enough that it should not be used to build the case that the twenty-four elders are redeemed men as some who use only the King James translation assert.

The text in this passage indicates that the elders have vials that contain fragrances and that the fragrances in them are the prayers of the saints. The prayers of the saints are being stored. All unanswered prayer will be answered. The passage goes on and tells us that by the blood of the Lamb men have been redeemed. They are redeemed from every tribe, tongue, people and nation to become kings and priests that will reign on the earth. This passage speaks of those that Jesus purchased with His own blood. Notice that these kings and priests will reign on earth. Jesus is not coming back just to take everyone up into heaven for eternity as some teach.

The Father handed the scroll to the Son, (or will, tenses are tough in eternity). That for me answers the question. That is in addition to the other posters that pointed out the Trinity all together at Christ's Baptism.

In addition, in one passage when the apostles ask Jesus about the end times and His return, He says no one knows, not even the Son, but the Father.

Bottom line, there are three distinct separate entities each with Their own function, each equal, that for one Godhead. I agree with OR, I do not know how, and doubt anyone else does either. One God does not slip in and out of three roles perpetually.

 

Finally a point we agree on. Too bad though, if you could get Calvin to join the Trinity, you could call it the quad squad.

 

S/N

I believe Revelation 4 & 5 clearly show the Triune nature of God!

 

Dispense with your blasphemy.

 

1Jo 5:5-8
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood:and these three agree in one.

I believe this.

 

SN,

I am almost certain that someone will find something "insert H word adjective" about this, but "I" do most certainly understand your sentiment here.

 

Deu 6:4
4 Hear, O Israel:The Lord our God is one Lord:

And this.

 

What is sad, is that i'll be called a heretic, and threatened, like so many Baptists before me, for being unwilling to rubber stamp a Cathaholic term.
But some know-it-all can deny the Comma, and get a pass.
As usual, your majesty, you're burning the wrong person at the stake.

 

Prophet,

I don't toss around the "h bomb". I clearly have trouble understanding MANY things within the domain of theology. You made an observation that I have personally noted on many occasions, but never mentioned. It is this. There is grand "dislike" of all things catholic often on this board, but yet, many seem to be OK with contributions from catholics particularly in the area of defining heresies. It seems at times to me to approach cognitive dissonance. I have read a little about the 5 primary "heresies" regarding issues surrounding the trinity and still come away with mystery.

 

Agreed, and it has me fuming. They butchered us. And we carry their water.

 

Do you come from a catholic background? I do not. I have always thought of myself as being a "protestant" (baptist). But as a result of another thread, I guess that should be problematic as well.

 

Ok so you think because you have tied the word "Trinity" to Catholicism that you can defend your view? And then use that to defend against those who call you on your heresy?


Really?

 

No RCC in my background, only martyrs.

 

In all the years I have been on this board I believe that is the most I have ever seen you post at one time. You must be getting a hand cramp. :laugh:

 

I agree for the most part.

I do believe there is such a thing as a heretic, mostly in regard to those who teach that the Word of God was created, or that He is the product of a sexual union between a celestial father and mother, or those who deny the personal attributes of the Breath of God, or that God merely "operates" in 3 modes at different times.

But when I look at some of the "heresies" which were condemned, some seem to have more biblical merit than a mystical Hypostatic Union that produced a 200% double guy - 100% God and 100% man. How many percent can there be in One ??

If we believe that God is Spirit, and that the Word of God pitched His tent in our midst, and we accept the apostolic teaching that our tent is a mere outer garb in which our inner man is clothed, and we believe that He was made like His brethren in all things, then we should have a hard time with an ambiguous Hypostatic Union that makes Christ unlike us

 

What heresy? I believe the Word of God.
If I said that the Jesus became a man, putting aside His Godhood, you could call me a heretic.
If i said that the written word was inferior to the incarnate Word, sure.

When i say this:
Col 2:9
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

There should be no issue.