1. Probably the most succinct explanation of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit's relationship within the Trinity that I've seen within scripture is contained within John 14-16.
Jhn 14:7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him."
Jhn 14:8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied."
Jhn 14:9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
Jhn 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,
Jhn 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.
Jhn 14:26 But the Counselor, 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 have said to you.
Jhn 15:26 But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;
Jhn 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Clearly within the verses quoted, the "personhood" of the Holy Spirit is shown.
We can clearly see from John 14:26 and 15:26 that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
The Nicene Creed, as used in the Western Church, states: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who Proceeds from the Father and the Son..."
That last phrase, known in theological circles as the "filoque" (Latin for "and the Son"), coincidentally, is the primary theological area of dispute between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Churches. The original Creed of Constantinople-Nicea says: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who Proceeds from the Father"
Although I am a Latin, I have to say that I think the Orthodox side of the argument is the correct view on this argument.
Probably the most extensive description of the Trinity in the form of a Creed is the Athanasian Creed, developed around the same time as the Nicene Creed (at a regional synod overseen by St. Athanasius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt). It's "official" dating is 381 AD (but there is some controversy surrounding that date, so I don't want to call the dating "authoritative")
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
Thanks Cynic. Actually that does help. For me then, the next question that arises is what of the baptism of the Holy Spirit? (BTW, I jettisoned the impersonal object "holyspirit™" long ago).
You also raise the soteriological point:
What comes about or is reborn in man at regeneration is part of man, and is to be continually renewed through the work of the Holy Spirit into the image of the Lord whom man beholds. In a new, or perhaps reconstituted nature, Christians can partake of the communicable attributes of God, but remain creatures who are in no ontological sense what God is.
I like that, though a few difficulties spring immediately to mind.
The Wierwillology of "holyspirit" is just too weird for me for the very points you raise.
Mark, "and the Son" seems to be supported by scripture if memory serves. But I have no time to look it up for the moment. I remember seeing that in the Creed at some point.
You may want to note that there may be no person hood of holy spirit without a person involved.
places where 'holy spirit' is used-
KJV: Ps 51:11
11Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
KJV: Is 63:10
10But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.
KJV: Is 63:11
11Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?
KJV: Lk 11:13
13If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
KJV: Eph 1:13
13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
KJV: Eph 4:30
30And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
KJV: 1 Th 4:8
8He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
Thanks Mark, for emphasizing the role of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity per John 14-16. Most Trinitarian discussions I've been in tend to focus on Jesus – to the exclusion of the other two – especially the Holy Spirit. Speaking for myself – that's someone I know very little about. Some of that may be my fear of any residual TWIt-brain assumptions creeping up when reading any Holy Spirit passages. Some old habits are hard to break. When I spoke about "a reductionism process" earlier this is one of the things I had in mind.
One of the dictionary definitions of reductionism is a procedure or theory that reduces complex data or phenomena to simple terms. In science reductionism is the explanation of complex life-science processes in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. I don't think that is a bad thing necessarily – as long as I'm aware I'm doing that and don't assume that every thing will lend itself to this way of processing data. I come across this in systematic theologies and like I said before TWI takes it to the extreme. TWI reduced God the Father to fit into a manageable box as one to be manipulated by the law-of-believing, our prayers, and good works. The Holy Sprit was de-capitalized and converted into a Sears Die-Hard Battery in each believer – YOUR power source for the more abundant life. Jesus was reduced to window dressing at the front end of the PFAL Class to give the appearance of a Christian organization.
I think we may all have some tendency towards reductionism sorting out complicated issues. Invisible Dan's, and Sir Guess a Lot's posts got me thinking about how we process the raw data. In my TWI days I'd read verses like Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me" – and think "yup – 'other gods' includes Jesus too." Or read Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols" and thought that Jesus would certainly be "another." Yes – that is one way of looking at those passages. But now – being on the other side of this issue – my brain considers another option – if Christ was pre-existent [which I believe He was as John 1:1,2 suggests] then He was already spoken for in those verses – and is not considered an idol.
I was raised Southern Baptist and I hated it when they started spewing the anti-trinitarian crap and talking about what trinitarians believed because they were sooooo wrong! I wasn't taught one dadgum thing they said trinitarians believed.... and being a "good" Southern Baptist, I was at the church every time the doors were opened.
Farggin' liars! That reason alone, imo, is a good reason for a person to really look into what folks truly believe about the trinity and to consider the merits of the belief, even if one THEN comes to the conclusion that they don't believe it. At least they'll then know what they believe or don't believe.
my question isn't "what is the trinity" or some biblical proof of 3 in 1.
my question is how, and why? the why is very important. if God needed a man to redeem mankind, why did he have to come to earth himself in the flesh? the only reason I can think of is that no one could do a better job than the guy who sold us down the river, Adam. so, if the job could only be done by God, why did he wait so long? ah yes... now I understand the significance of the Mother of God thing, and why some christian sects worship her... man's redemption hinged on the existence of one woman. however, I can't remember reading that our redeemer had to be divine, only that he had to be a man. the explanation that he simply chose not to be omniscient seems like trying to squeeze him into the role of God in the flesh, literally, rather than God in the flesh, figuratively.
when you need Jesus to be God, there are all kinds of ways to force his divinity. you can explain God's lack of omniscience in Jesus by making omniscience a choice. Jesus' death becomes something other than death in fact. those points make no sense in the whole, so as a whole, the idea of Jesus as God doesn't make sense to me.
Great questions, Potato – and I'm not going to try to answer any of them. But I will share some passages that come to mind about them. Like I was saying earlier – I try to be aware of reductionism thinking on my part – at times I think it's necessary to at least start organizing how one is to address a subject. But I really dislike reductionism as a quick and easy way to provide a pat answer for someone. So – I really don't have any answers for you – just some questions I've had along the same line as yours.
When it comes to thinking about things that are joined together or somehow so constituted as to appear as one thing – I think about people. The Bible says we're made in the likeness of God. How do I pin down that quality? What's it weigh? How is that connected to my flesh and bones? How do you separate it? Very mysterious…
Hebrews 4:12 NASB
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Well…according to that verse soul and spirit can be separated. How can there be such a being as a God/Man? How is God and man joined together? Very mysterious…I don't know…And why…WHY…WHY did God have to come to earth to redeem man? I don't know all the divine reasoning behind that BIG plan! But how that hits my little pea brain is that God must have really loved us – enough to personally get involved – that He is not some remote and aloof being who has no idea what physical or emotional pain feels like.
Philippians 2:3-12 NASB
3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;
4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
While He walked this earth Jesus never took advantage of His position, power or authority – never did anything for a selfish reason. He could have changed a stone into bread when He was starving in the wilderness – but He chose not to. But He did miraculously feed over 5,000 hungry people with just a few fish and loaves of bread. He could have thrown Himself off the pinnacle of the Temple and wow the crowd – but He chose not to. He did walk on water to the rescue of His disciples on their storm tossed boat…For very unselfish reasons [our redemption and providing an example of lifestyle] He emptied Himself of all priviledges!
…I'm not gonna explain anything about the Trinity…I try to take it in with the way it puts things in Scripture…God the Father is not Jesus the Son…So I think things like – "I have a son – he's human too. He's a lot like me. He came from me." If a divine being has a child – is the child divine? If a divine being ...uhmmm...can't think of a better way to put it..."mates" with a human – is the child divine/human? So many passages talk about how the Son comes from the Father…I wonder without being overly simplistic – if we're supposed to have a much simpler approach to understanding this stuff.
T-bone, thanks. I love questions. they give me things to consider and your questions are very, very good. I think I like questions better than answers right now. an answer is something you arrive at after many questions, not just one or two.
Mark, "and the Son" seems to be supported by scripture if memory serves. But I have no time to look it up for the moment. I remember seeing that in the Creed at some point.
I would be very interested in seeing that.
I have, on another board, had some extensive discussions with some Orthodox brothers...and that conversation made me seriously examine the topic a while back.
One thing to keep in mind is the original construction of the Creed, vice the construction with the filoque (a relatively modern addition...added in the west somewhere in the 800s)
The traditional Western depiction of the relationship is an inverted pyramid.
The traditional Eastern depiction is a pyramid, right side up.
I think the most important aspect of the relationship is the triangle...far more than
The issue comes down to if there is support in scripture for the Son directly sending the Paraclete...or if the Father does so at the Son's request.
This is actually a very serious area of discussion between Benedict and Bartholomew, for what it's worth. And, for the first time in a thousand years, there appears to be some progress.
Thanks Mark, for emphasizing the role of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity per John 14-16. Most Trinitarian discussions I've been in tend to focus on Jesus – to the exclusion of the other two – especially the Holy Spirit. Speaking for myself – that's someone I know very little about. Some of that may be my fear of any residual TWIt-brain assumptions creeping up when reading any Holy Spirit passages. Some old habits are hard to break. When I spoke about "a reductionism process" earlier this is one of the things I had in mind.
One of the dictionary definitions of reductionism is a procedure or theory that reduces complex data or phenomena to simple terms. In science reductionism is the explanation of complex life-science processes in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. I don't think that is a bad thing necessarily – as long as I'm aware I'm doing that and don't assume that every thing will lend itself to this way of processing data. I come across this in systematic theologies and like I said before TWI takes it to the extreme. TWI reduced God the Father to fit into a manageable box as one to be manipulated by the law-of-believing, our prayers, and good works. The Holy Sprit was de-capitalized and converted into a Sears Die-Hard Battery in each believer – YOUR power source for the more abundant life. Jesus was reduced to window dressing at the front end of the PFAL Class to give the appearance of a Christian organization.
I think we may all have some tendency towards reductionism sorting out complicated issues. Invisible Dan's, and Sir Guess a Lot's posts got me thinking about how we process the raw data. In my TWI days I'd read verses like Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me" – and think "yup – 'other gods' includes Jesus too." Or read Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols" and thought that Jesus would certainly be "another." Yes – that is one way of looking at those passages. But now – being on the other side of this issue – my brain considers another option – if Christ was pre-existent [which I believe He was as John 1:1,2 suggests] then He was already spoken for in those verses – and is not considered an idol.
You bring up some good points, as always, T-bone. But I think it is actually far simpler than that (reductionism ;))
Remember Wierwille's influencers: some of which included the Benny Hinn-type Charlatans who had the arrogance to convince others that they had a power to command God how to act. Merge this with his embracing of Arianism. The only result can be the Gel-Cell battery...
I love questions too, Potato. Didn't always like them…In TWI – taking on a question was a big responsibility! Because your answer better agree with TWI's body of doctrine…But the freedom to explore now is…exhilarating! As I was saying back in post # 13 - systematic theology is a handy framework – perhaps a necessary tool for sorting out things – a place to hang an idea unless a more appropriate spot comes along. I think part of how our mind learns is by questioning, by looking for details, comparing, contrasting, categorizing, noting relationships, similarities, and differences.
I think systematic theology can be a helpful interpretive tool of the Bible – as long as I remember it's a tool, a process, a way to organize data. I view the doctrine of the Trinity as that – a framework of thought – a way to organize all the scriptural data on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I'm of the opinion the Bible doesn't explain the Trinity - it doesn't say, "there is a Trinity." But I think the doctrine of the Trinity tries to explain the dynamic relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by acknowledging the entire body of Scripture .
I don't think we can cram what God is all about in a short, crisp creed or 10 Scripture references. How can we quantify or describe a being that is so big He exists in eternity [Isaiah 57:15]? I wonder what the panorama of redemptive history looks like from heaven? You asked "why did God wait so long?" I don't have an answer for that one either – only more puzzling verses like,
Revelation 13:8 NIV
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast — all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
Some people [and I'm one of them] believe the Book of Revelation deals with events that are still future. Isn't this weird? The verse mentions the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world – the cross of Christ is pictured as a timeless event – or maybe a time-full event – frozen in eternity - or is it spanning all of history?
With a renewed interest in the Holy Spirit since Mark's post # 77 - I enjoy taking in the bigger picture – seeing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit work as one on our behalf:
Hebrews 9:14 NIV
How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast — all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
...The verse mentions the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world – the cross of Christ is pictured as a timeless event – or maybe a time-full event – frozen in eternity - or is it spanning all of history?
T-Bone,
I don’t read Greek, but there is another rendering of Revelation 13:8 appearing in some English Bible versions. That rendering would seem to parallel language used in Revelation 17:8.
Good eye, Cynic - and I think you have something there! Here's those two verses from the NET Bible along with a footnote from it on the prepositional phrase "since the foundation of the world."
Revelation 13:8 NET
and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed.
"The prepositional phrase "since the foundation of the world" is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, "the Lamb who was killed" (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase "since the foundation of the world" modifies the verb "written" (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase "written in the book of life since the foundation of the world" occurs with no ambiguity" [textual note from NET Bible]
Revelation 17:8 NET
The beast you saw was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss and then go to destruction. The inhabitants of the earth—all those whose names have not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world—will be astounded when they see that the beast was, and is not, but is to come.
But I also want to add a quote from The Commentary on the New testament: The Interpretation of Revelation by R.C.H. Lenski, referring to this prepositional phrase on page 400:
"…Commentators debate as to whether they should construe, 'having been slain from the foundation of the world,' leaving together what the text places together, or, 'has been written…from the foundation of the world,' placing the phrase across all that intervenes. Appeal is made to 17:8 where the phrase does modify 'has been written." But the many, like the American Committee of the R.V., settle the matter in this manner, they overlook the fact that 17:8 has only 'the Book of the Life' and not also the genitive, 'of the Lamb, the one having been slain.' Moreover, there is I Peter 1:19,20: the precious blood of the Lamb 'who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world'; compare John 17:24. To this add Ephesians 1:4; God 'elected us in connection with him [in Christ] before the foundation of the world.' Stop and think a little…How could there be the Lamb's book of Life so that the name of any of the blessed might be written therein 'from the foundation of the world,' if the Lamb and his having been slain did not extend back before and 'from the foundation of the world'? The old exegetes were right: the Lamb has been slain from the world's foundation. In eternity [timelessness], when God had the names of the blessed written into the Lamb's Book, his Son already then constituted that Book, his Son's sacrificial blood the ink for that writing [if we may venture to say so], the efficacy of his Son's death extended backward as also forward from that day on Calvary…"
End of excerpt.
I liked the NIV translation of Revelation 13:8 – guess all those years of reading sci-fi and watching The Outer Limits as a kid have really taken their toll ! Seriously, I think Lenski's comments may justify NIV's rendering as another option – but I think you're right in terms of the phrasing of 13:8 matching 17:8 – being in the same book by the same writer. I think it flows better that way and makes better sense – and now I prefer the NET translation on it. Thanks for bringing that up, Cynic!
I love questions too, Potato. Didn't always like them…In TWI – taking on a question was a big responsibility! Because your answer better agree with TWI's body of doctrine…But the freedom to explore now is…exhilarating! As I was saying back in post # 13 - systematic theology is a handy framework – perhaps a necessary tool for sorting out things – a place to hang an idea unless a more appropriate spot comes along. I think part of how our mind learns is by questioning, by looking for details, comparing, contrasting, categorizing, noting relationships, similarities, and differences.
it is great, isn't it? the best part is that I don't have to justify my questions to anyone. they're mine
I love the points you bring up. I put a lot of thought into this yesterday/last night/this morning, and came up with a couple topics of study that unfortunately sound way too deep for my life at the moment, so it will be extremely slow going:
what is the meaning of the word Logos in cultural/philosophical context?
what did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob believe about God and the messiah? God has not changed, so there are keys to this puzzle in what came before, as someone already pointed out.
no disrespect, but truth is assumed on both sides. most of us choose to believe things based on whether they're sensible, not necessarily whether someone says they're true.
Entire books have been written on the topic, I believe.
uh... yeah, I know. now that I've identified the question, there is a wealth of opinion to sift through.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
26
25
34
Popular Days
Jan 27
30
Jan 22
27
Jan 23
26
Jan 26
25
Top Posters In This Topic
T-Bone 26 posts
potato 26 posts
cman 25 posts
sonofarthur 34 posts
Popular Days
Jan 27 2007
30 posts
Jan 22 2007
27 posts
Jan 23 2007
26 posts
Jan 26 2007
25 posts
Posted Images
markomalley
Two points to bring up on the discussion:
1. Probably the most succinct explanation of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit's relationship within the Trinity that I've seen within scripture is contained within John 14-16.
Clearly within the verses quoted, the "personhood" of the Holy Spirit is shown.
We can clearly see from John 14:26 and 15:26 that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
The Nicene Creed, as used in the Western Church, states: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who Proceeds from the Father and the Son..."
That last phrase, known in theological circles as the "filoque" (Latin for "and the Son"), coincidentally, is the primary theological area of dispute between the Latin Church and the Orthodox Churches. The original Creed of Constantinople-Nicea says: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who Proceeds from the Father"
Although I am a Latin, I have to say that I think the Orthodox side of the argument is the correct view on this argument.
Probably the most extensive description of the Trinity in the form of a Creed is the Athanasian Creed, developed around the same time as the Nicene Creed (at a regional synod overseen by St. Athanasius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt). It's "official" dating is 381 AD (but there is some controversy surrounding that date, so I don't want to call the dating "authoritative")
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Thanks Cynic. Actually that does help. For me then, the next question that arises is what of the baptism of the Holy Spirit? (BTW, I jettisoned the impersonal object "holyspirit™" long ago).
You also raise the soteriological point:
I like that, though a few difficulties spring immediately to mind.
The Wierwillology of "holyspirit" is just too weird for me for the very points you raise.
Mark, "and the Son" seems to be supported by scripture if memory serves. But I have no time to look it up for the moment. I remember seeing that in the Creed at some point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Mark,
You may want to note that there may be no person hood of holy spirit without a person involved.
places where 'holy spirit' is used-
KJV: Ps 51:11
11Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
KJV: Is 63:10
10But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.
KJV: Is 63:11
11Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?
KJV: Lk 11:13
13If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
KJV: Eph 1:13
13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
KJV: Eph 4:30
30And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
KJV: 1 Th 4:8
8He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks Mark, for emphasizing the role of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity per John 14-16. Most Trinitarian discussions I've been in tend to focus on Jesus – to the exclusion of the other two – especially the Holy Spirit. Speaking for myself – that's someone I know very little about. Some of that may be my fear of any residual TWIt-brain assumptions creeping up when reading any Holy Spirit passages. Some old habits are hard to break. When I spoke about "a reductionism process" earlier this is one of the things I had in mind.
One of the dictionary definitions of reductionism is a procedure or theory that reduces complex data or phenomena to simple terms. In science reductionism is the explanation of complex life-science processes in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. I don't think that is a bad thing necessarily – as long as I'm aware I'm doing that and don't assume that every thing will lend itself to this way of processing data. I come across this in systematic theologies and like I said before TWI takes it to the extreme. TWI reduced God the Father to fit into a manageable box as one to be manipulated by the law-of-believing, our prayers, and good works. The Holy Sprit was de-capitalized and converted into a Sears Die-Hard Battery in each believer – YOUR power source for the more abundant life. Jesus was reduced to window dressing at the front end of the PFAL Class to give the appearance of a Christian organization.
I think we may all have some tendency towards reductionism sorting out complicated issues. Invisible Dan's, and Sir Guess a Lot's posts got me thinking about how we process the raw data. In my TWI days I'd read verses like Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me" – and think "yup – 'other gods' includes Jesus too." Or read Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols" and thought that Jesus would certainly be "another." Yes – that is one way of looking at those passages. But now – being on the other side of this issue – my brain considers another option – if Christ was pre-existent [which I believe He was as John 1:1,2 suggests] then He was already spoken for in those verses – and is not considered an idol.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
SonofArthur said "where do we begin?"
How bout with a song????????????
Great topic by the way..............
Personally I think this song demonstrates ALL of what xway believers deal with in terms of changing their beliefs.
It is ridiculous how twisted we learned about the trinity. Whether it is true or not, no matter, we were taught wrong about their beliefs!
As I was reading all these posts, I was humming this tune, although I don't agree with it now.
All these questions sound logical, but if the trinitarians don't believe it either, than there is no arguement.
We (I) was convinced that these were true.
I am a 85% trinitarian now. Only been out almost 2 years...................
Your Holy Spirit info is what I need to go over.
:) thanks.
So, here is the song, maybe we should break it down, since that is what Wayfers argue about?
It is really funny too (and heretical???)
(Chorus)
Somebody lied
Cuz God never died
He didn't bleed
On Calvary's tree
If that were true
As many have said
Then who raised him
from the dead.
If we just get logical I am sure that we'd agree
That God is God and Christ is Christ and one's not really three
If someone knows the answer than please explain to me
Who was Jesus talking to when he was on the tree
chorus (ohhhohhhhohh)
After Jesus Christ was baptized, he turned his eyes above
saw the spirit of God descend upon him like a dove
If it really happend like some of us have heard
You got a God on the ground and God up in heaven "giving him the bird''
chorus (oohwaaaooo)
Christ said we surely do greater works than these
but only if we know the truth can we be truly free
so understand we've been redeemed, lord Jesus was the Christ
for those that think he is God are of the antichrist!
chorus
God is the Father and the son is Christ that's what my bible said! {Bob Stanley, blessed be his name}
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Exactly, Bliss.
I was raised Southern Baptist and I hated it when they started spewing the anti-trinitarian crap and talking about what trinitarians believed because they were sooooo wrong! I wasn't taught one dadgum thing they said trinitarians believed.... and being a "good" Southern Baptist, I was at the church every time the doors were opened.
Farggin' liars! That reason alone, imo, is a good reason for a person to really look into what folks truly believe about the trinity and to consider the merits of the belief, even if one THEN comes to the conclusion that they don't believe it. At least they'll then know what they believe or don't believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
According to my understanding, here's my reply to this song.
Somebody lied
Cuz God never died
No one said He did. Jesus, taking the sins of the world (past, present and future) paid the ultimate sacrifice, but his eternal nature did not die.
He didn't bleed
On Calvary's tree
If that were true
As many have said
Then who raised him
from the dead.
Jesus had to bleed and who raised Him? The father.
If we just get logical I am sure that we'd agree
That God is God and Christ is Christ and one's not really three
That's the thing about the trinity. The father is the father and the son is the son and the spirit is the spirt. Three Persons=One God.
If someone knows the answer than please explain to me
Who was Jesus talking to when he was on the tree
He was talking to the Father.
chorus (ohhhohhhhohh)
After Jesus Christ was baptized, he turned his eyes above
saw the spirit of God descend upon him like a dove
If it really happend like some of us have heard
You got a God on the ground and God up in heaven "giving him the bird''
chorus (oohwaaaooo)
Blasphemy alert. Again we see the trinity here, Father son and spirit.
Christ said we surely do greater works than these
Because he went to the Father and sent the spirit.
but only if we know the truth can we be truly free
Truth is liberating.
so understand we've been redeemed, lord Jesus was the Christ
for those that think he is God are of the antichrist!
I think they got this backward.
chorus
God is the Father and the son is Christ that's what my bible said! {Bob Stanley, blessed be his name}
so does mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Bob's song reflects the gross misunderstanding of the Trinity propagated in Der Veg. def answered the points well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Thanks Evan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
my question isn't "what is the trinity" or some biblical proof of 3 in 1.
my question is how, and why? the why is very important. if God needed a man to redeem mankind, why did he have to come to earth himself in the flesh? the only reason I can think of is that no one could do a better job than the guy who sold us down the river, Adam. so, if the job could only be done by God, why did he wait so long? ah yes... now I understand the significance of the Mother of God thing, and why some christian sects worship her... man's redemption hinged on the existence of one woman. however, I can't remember reading that our redeemer had to be divine, only that he had to be a man. the explanation that he simply chose not to be omniscient seems like trying to squeeze him into the role of God in the flesh, literally, rather than God in the flesh, figuratively.
when you need Jesus to be God, there are all kinds of ways to force his divinity. you can explain God's lack of omniscience in Jesus by making omniscience a choice. Jesus' death becomes something other than death in fact. those points make no sense in the whole, so as a whole, the idea of Jesus as God doesn't make sense to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great questions, Potato – and I'm not going to try to answer any of them. But I will share some passages that come to mind about them. Like I was saying earlier – I try to be aware of reductionism thinking on my part – at times I think it's necessary to at least start organizing how one is to address a subject. But I really dislike reductionism as a quick and easy way to provide a pat answer for someone. So – I really don't have any answers for you – just some questions I've had along the same line as yours.
When it comes to thinking about things that are joined together or somehow so constituted as to appear as one thing – I think about people. The Bible says we're made in the likeness of God. How do I pin down that quality? What's it weigh? How is that connected to my flesh and bones? How do you separate it? Very mysterious…
Hebrews 4:12 NASB
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Well…according to that verse soul and spirit can be separated. How can there be such a being as a God/Man? How is God and man joined together? Very mysterious…I don't know…And why…WHY…WHY did God have to come to earth to redeem man? I don't know all the divine reasoning behind that BIG plan! But how that hits my little pea brain is that God must have really loved us – enough to personally get involved – that He is not some remote and aloof being who has no idea what physical or emotional pain feels like.
Philippians 2:3-12 NASB
3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;
4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
While He walked this earth Jesus never took advantage of His position, power or authority – never did anything for a selfish reason. He could have changed a stone into bread when He was starving in the wilderness – but He chose not to. But He did miraculously feed over 5,000 hungry people with just a few fish and loaves of bread. He could have thrown Himself off the pinnacle of the Temple and wow the crowd – but He chose not to. He did walk on water to the rescue of His disciples on their storm tossed boat…For very unselfish reasons [our redemption and providing an example of lifestyle] He emptied Himself of all priviledges!
…I'm not gonna explain anything about the Trinity…I try to take it in with the way it puts things in Scripture…God the Father is not Jesus the Son…So I think things like – "I have a son – he's human too. He's a lot like me. He came from me." If a divine being has a child – is the child divine? If a divine being ...uhmmm...can't think of a better way to put it..."mates" with a human – is the child divine/human? So many passages talk about how the Son comes from the Father…I wonder without being overly simplistic – if we're supposed to have a much simpler approach to understanding this stuff.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
T-bone, thanks. I love questions. they give me things to consider and your questions are very, very good. I think I like questions better than answers right now. an answer is something you arrive at after many questions, not just one or two.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I would be very interested in seeing that.
I have, on another board, had some extensive discussions with some Orthodox brothers...and that conversation made me seriously examine the topic a while back.
One thing to keep in mind is the original construction of the Creed, vice the construction with the filoque (a relatively modern addition...added in the west somewhere in the 800s)
The traditional Western depiction of the relationship is an inverted pyramid.
The traditional Eastern depiction is a pyramid, right side up.
I think the most important aspect of the relationship is the triangle...far more than
The issue comes down to if there is support in scripture for the Son directly sending the Paraclete...or if the Father does so at the Son's request.
This is actually a very serious area of discussion between Benedict and Bartholomew, for what it's worth. And, for the first time in a thousand years, there appears to be some progress.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
That makes complete sense, Clay. Particularly considering how He acts.
After all, one could go back all the way to Genesis 1 to see that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
You bring up some good points, as always, T-bone. But I think it is actually far simpler than that (reductionism ;))
Remember Wierwille's influencers: some of which included the Benny Hinn-type Charlatans who had the arrogance to convince others that they had a power to command God how to act. Merge this with his embracing of Arianism. The only result can be the Gel-Cell battery...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I love questions too, Potato. Didn't always like them…In TWI – taking on a question was a big responsibility! Because your answer better agree with TWI's body of doctrine…But the freedom to explore now is…exhilarating! As I was saying back in post # 13 - systematic theology is a handy framework – perhaps a necessary tool for sorting out things – a place to hang an idea unless a more appropriate spot comes along. I think part of how our mind learns is by questioning, by looking for details, comparing, contrasting, categorizing, noting relationships, similarities, and differences.
I think systematic theology can be a helpful interpretive tool of the Bible – as long as I remember it's a tool, a process, a way to organize data. I view the doctrine of the Trinity as that – a framework of thought – a way to organize all the scriptural data on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I'm of the opinion the Bible doesn't explain the Trinity - it doesn't say, "there is a Trinity." But I think the doctrine of the Trinity tries to explain the dynamic relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by acknowledging the entire body of Scripture .
I don't think we can cram what God is all about in a short, crisp creed or 10 Scripture references. How can we quantify or describe a being that is so big He exists in eternity [Isaiah 57:15]? I wonder what the panorama of redemptive history looks like from heaven? You asked "why did God wait so long?" I don't have an answer for that one either – only more puzzling verses like,
Revelation 13:8 NIV
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast — all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.
Some people [and I'm one of them] believe the Book of Revelation deals with events that are still future. Isn't this weird? The verse mentions the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world – the cross of Christ is pictured as a timeless event – or maybe a time-full event – frozen in eternity - or is it spanning all of history?
With a renewed interest in the Holy Spirit since Mark's post # 77 - I enjoy taking in the bigger picture – seeing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit work as one on our behalf:
Hebrews 9:14 NIV
How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
T-Bone,
I don’t read Greek, but there is another rendering of Revelation 13:8 appearing in some English Bible versions. That rendering would seem to parallel language used in Revelation 17:8.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Good eye, Cynic - and I think you have something there! Here's those two verses from the NET Bible along with a footnote from it on the prepositional phrase "since the foundation of the world."
Revelation 13:8 NET
and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed.
"The prepositional phrase "since the foundation of the world" is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, "the Lamb who was killed" (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase "since the foundation of the world" modifies the verb "written" (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase "written in the book of life since the foundation of the world" occurs with no ambiguity" [textual note from NET Bible]
Revelation 17:8 NET
The beast you saw was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss and then go to destruction. The inhabitants of the earth—all those whose names have not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world—will be astounded when they see that the beast was, and is not, but is to come.
But I also want to add a quote from The Commentary on the New testament: The Interpretation of Revelation by R.C.H. Lenski, referring to this prepositional phrase on page 400:
"…Commentators debate as to whether they should construe, 'having been slain from the foundation of the world,' leaving together what the text places together, or, 'has been written…from the foundation of the world,' placing the phrase across all that intervenes. Appeal is made to 17:8 where the phrase does modify 'has been written." But the many, like the American Committee of the R.V., settle the matter in this manner, they overlook the fact that 17:8 has only 'the Book of the Life' and not also the genitive, 'of the Lamb, the one having been slain.' Moreover, there is I Peter 1:19,20: the precious blood of the Lamb 'who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world'; compare John 17:24. To this add Ephesians 1:4; God 'elected us in connection with him [in Christ] before the foundation of the world.' Stop and think a little…How could there be the Lamb's book of Life so that the name of any of the blessed might be written therein 'from the foundation of the world,' if the Lamb and his having been slain did not extend back before and 'from the foundation of the world'? The old exegetes were right: the Lamb has been slain from the world's foundation. In eternity [timelessness], when God had the names of the blessed written into the Lamb's Book, his Son already then constituted that Book, his Son's sacrificial blood the ink for that writing [if we may venture to say so], the efficacy of his Son's death extended backward as also forward from that day on Calvary…"
End of excerpt.
I liked the NIV translation of Revelation 13:8 – guess all those years of reading sci-fi and watching The Outer Limits as a kid have really taken their toll
! Seriously, I think Lenski's comments may justify NIV's rendering as another option – but I think you're right in terms of the phrasing of 13:8 matching 17:8 – being in the same book by the same writer. I think it flows better that way and makes better sense – and now I prefer the NET translation on it. Thanks for bringing that up, Cynic!
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
it is great, isn't it? the best part is that I don't have to justify my questions to anyone. they're mine
I love the points you bring up. I put a lot of thought into this yesterday/last night/this morning, and came up with a couple topics of study that unfortunately sound way too deep for my life at the moment, so it will be extremely slow going:
what is the meaning of the word Logos in cultural/philosophical context?
what did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob believe about God and the messiah? God has not changed, so there are keys to this puzzle in what came before, as someone already pointed out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
jesus is not god he is the son...
when jesus was being baptized god said this is my son the beloved whom
i have approved.
your saying god is wrong?
also didnt god say that know one sees him and lives..
they all work together but are seperate...
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Entire books have been written on the topic, I believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
no disrespect, but truth is assumed on both sides. most of us choose to believe things based on whether they're sensible, not necessarily whether someone says they're true.
uh... yeah, I know. now that I've identified the question, there is a wealth of opinion to sift through.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.