The Triunity (my slightly differing view/ understanding)

First, here is what I don't believe. I don't believe that God has 3 different personalities. I don't believe that God has been keeping Himself company throughout all eternity by talking to His 3 personalities so that He doesn't get bored.

Secondly, here is what I do believe. I believe that the Father is called God the most and is therefore the Head in role in analogy. I believe that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God. I believe that Jesus has eternally been the Logos or the Word and Thoughts of God by which He created all things. I believe that Jesus was not always the Son until He was born in human flesh and it was said of Him, "You are my Son [b]today[/b] I have begotten you". So, as we have a head, a word, and a spirit so does God. As we have different parts and functions therefore and yet are one so is God. As my parts are different, have different roles and functions but don't have different personalities so is God.

Longer version:
First I will start with the story of my dealing on this topic. Before I was saved I didn't even know there was a Holy Spirit. And, I hadn't quite figured out Jesus Deity either. There were a lot of things I didn't know at the time. As time progressed as I was saved I learned of these things both doctrinally and experientially. I then went to Bible College and accepted the things taught to me. After a while as my discernment sharpened I began to question things. I also ran into many cults and false religions attacking the Christian view of the Triunity as I evangelized. Some of the stuff they said made some sense and some of what I was being taught at school did not. However I reckoned by faith what I believed to be the normal and right teaching of the Triunity by faith. I started to seek the Lord because I felt an uneasiness with it. I wanted the truth and clarity on the Scriptures. I almost felt as if the Scriptures just didn't elaborate on it because it was so deep, transcendent, and mysterious. However if I could receive revelation on it I would be pleased to have it as I have in other doctrine's sought God to teach me and open the Scripture's to me since I understand that it is not just a scholarly exposition which can reveal these things to you since there is a spiritual war. After time I believe I had a breakthrough and the Scripture's started to fall into place. I now have a solid peace about this and am delighted in the Triunity as it is truly taught in Scripture. It is a bit different from the normal teaching of today but I do not believe by all that much. I might even say the things of which I am about to speak are somewhat incidental however I think it beneficial to communicate both for to be criticized and to instruct toward sound doctrine on such an important doctrine that has escaped many in fullness and perplexed cults like Mormons, Watchtowerites, and Muslims. So here is my view and understanding.

Father:
He is God. The Father is called God the most. He is not more God then the Holy Spirit or Jesus but He is in analogy the Head.

Jesus:
He is God in the flesh. Jesus has eternally been the Logos or the word of God by which God created all things. He was not always the Son until God took on the form of man. One could say relationally He was as dear to the Father as a son but was not the Son in the specific sense that He became when it was said of Him, "You are my Son [b]today[/b] I have begotten you".

Holy Spirit:
He is God. He is the spirit of God. The Lord is the Spirit.

Conclusion:
So, I believe that the Father is the head. Jesus is God's word. And the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit. So just as we have a word or thought or mind, and a spirit, and a head so also does God. As we have different parts and different functions and yet are one so also is God. Now... what I do not believe is that God has 3 personalities and has been relating to Himself throughout all eternity amusing Himself so that He would not be lonely.

Ben,

I see the scripture but I didn't feel right saying that Jesus wasn't always God's son.

Jesus called God his Father rather than Joseph when he was twelve but that was 18 years before "today I have begotten you."

Jesus called God his Father rather than Joseph

I think though that this doctrine is somewhat incidental my main focus is on the fact the the Triunity is portraying God as a God with 3 personalities talking to Himself which is weird and unsound and not only confuses Christians but also turns off those outside the faith and false religions because of it's awkwardness. If this were the case that God were this way and the Bible taught it I would accept it and just say that is the way God has made but I sincerely have not come to that conclusion and have tested it often and have found no one to ever respond to it substantially and I am blessed to have understanding I think it is very helpful because this mainstream portrayal I believe has not produced edification. I think it is because of the difficulty and intricacy of this doctrine that it is so little understood.

Be encouraged davidt. You are not alone in your accessment.

Father has also spoken to my heart on this matter and gave it to me as you explained it.

I smiled when I read it.

:-) ;-)

It is currently late so I will be quick to the point.

Conclusion:
So, I believe that the Father is the head. Jesus is God's word. And the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit. So just as we have a word or thought or mind, and a spirit, and a head so also does God. As we have different parts and different functions and yet are one so also is God. Now... what I do not believe is that God has 3 personalities and has been relating to Himself throughout all eternity amusing Himself so that He would not be lonely.

What you are talking about here is not foundational Christian theology. There is a reason the Trinity, the Godhead Three in One, has withstood the test of over 1700 years with the harshest criticisms of the greatest philosophers and theologians throughout church history.

While I am not going to get into too much detail about this, I will leave you with this criticism on the concept you have presented.

God, first and foremost, loves Himself. Yet, if God was One God with three different parts then His love would not be perfect. You need someone else for love to be perfected -- example, "love does not seek its own." Eternal Love requires an Eternal Object besides oneself to love. The Trinity fulfills this requirement with Three Persons in One. This importance has at least three points: 1) imperfect love is not God 2) without at least Two Eternal Persons in One, God ceases to be Self-Sufficient. That is, the nature of God's love requires a second object to love. If that object is anything other than God Himself then God ceases to be Self-Sufficient (He becomes dependant upon something not God for His perfection). 3) Obviously God cannot love Himself as a Second Object, or Third Object, if He is One Person with varied parts.

Also, as you have explained your understanding of the triunity: if the Father is a "part" of God, the Son is a "part" of God, and the Holy Spirit is a "part" of God, then each part in and of itself is not God. To be God requires the wholeness and completeness of the infinite attributes that God is. That is, if the Father is a piece of God then He is not infinite, if the Son is a piece of God then He is not infinite, if the Spirit is a piece of God then He is not infinite. And if these three are not infinite then it is impossible to add three finites together to sum infinite.

finite + finite + finite does not equal infinite. It is impossible.

There is a name for this view of triunity, though I don't presently recall what it is.

As BoG said, the truth of the Trinity is foundational to Christianity. We need to realize up front the seriousness with which we approach it. All cults have at their foundation a [u]false[/u] view of the nature of God. This subject has been handled in these forums extensively. I would suggest doing a search and reading through the wealth of materials that have been presented. It is simply too labor intensive to go back line upon line and reestablish all of the essential points.

I would offer this resource to consider. It is Ravi Zacharias explaining how the law of non-contradiction is not violated by the doctrine of the Trinity. You will find it [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdejhQeAPUk]HERE.[/url]

As my parts are different, have different roles and functions but don't have different personalities so is God.

This is impossible because it makes nonsense of all of the conversations that take place between the Father and the Son as well as the references to the Holy Spirit as being God Himself with the capacity to be grieved and blasphemed.

I believe that Jesus was not always the Son until He was born in human flesh and it was said of Him, "You are my Son today I have begotten you".

Jesus Christ cannot be said to have been an impersonal idea that eternally existed in the mind of God and was manifest in the earth to 'become' God's Son. The incarnation of Christ brought about the [i]hypostatic union[/i] in which God became flesh and dwelled among us.

[color=000066] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (John 17) [/color]

Notice the personal pronoun 'I'- it denotes personality. He did [u]not[/u] say glorify me with the glory before 'I' was, but before the [i]world[/i] was. Clearly the 'I' here clearly existed and shared in the glory of the Father. Paul deals with how Christ 'emptied Himself' of this glory for the purpose of being made in the likeness of men:

[color=000066] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:5-8) [/color]

Key in on the portion [i]made himself of no reputation and took upom Him...[/i]; again, these a personal pronouns and not impersonal ideas eternally existing in the mind of God. This was the true fulfillment Isaiah 6:

[color=000066]Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for [u]us[/u]? Then said I, Here am I; send me. (Isaiah 6)

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; (Isaiah 61:1)

And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. (Luke 4:20, 21)
[/color]

See also this SI archived thread called
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=7893&forum=36&start=0&viewmode=flat&order=0]Godhead[/url] and this article on the Hebrew concept of plural unity called [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1993]'One Yachid or one Echad?"[/url]

There is a name for this view of trinity, though I don't presently recall what it is.

Is it called "Oneness" theology?

Sounds to me like some people like to complicate the most simple things!

God said let us make man in our own image so in the image of God created he him, male and female. Two persons: me and you. So, if God made two why not have three persons in the Godhead all working together as a unit with different functions?

Not scholarly, I'll admit ...

ginnyrose

I see the scripture but I didn't feel right saying that Jesus wasn't always God's son.

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory [u]which I had with thee before the world was.[/u]

Joh 7:29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven:

I wanted the truth and clarity on the Scriptures. I almost felt as if the Scriptures just didn't elaborate on it because it was so deep, transcendent, and mysterious.

[i]And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.[/i] 1Ti 3:16

[b]Manifest

G5319[/b]
φανερόω
phaneroō
[i]fan-er-o'-o[/i]

From G5318; [i]to render apparent[/i] (literally or figuratively): - appear, manifestly declare, (make) manifest (forth), shew (self).

Brother, I could wish for more of that halt that you mentioned above, just at that point, right at that point you had it ...

[i]"I almost felt as if the Scriptures just didn't elaborate on it ...[/i]"

Precisely. But why is that not enough for us? Now you go on to say, with the many of us ... [i]Now[/i], I believe, my view, I think, have come to this conclusion ...". Not having convictions, that is not what I am appealing to but the elaborating.

I am finding this again and again may be our very trouble in so many things. If the Lord is a mystery and is mysterious, has chosen to hide those things past our understanding, revealed that much that He has in scripture, where do we get the idea that it can be had or that we need to have this ... hidden knowledge? Sound familiar? Back in that first book ...

But moreover even the ever raging 2 man system of extrapolation, one with a C and the other with an A - Where is it that the scriptures, faith ever was to amount to some sort of trigonometry, every more and more complicated, far beyond the 'hard to understand' aspects of Paul's writing it has become [i]systems[/i] of elaborations, explanations. What was [i]meant[/i] or what this [i]means[/i] seems to be where we go all to pieces trying to unravel things far beyond our contemplation.

I wonder if it is not truly a form of pride in us that [i]must[/i] have an explanation or feels a sort of shamed facedness if we cannot give an explanation to that which is taken, simply on faith. Too embarrassing? That we might be seen as simpletons, ignorant, believing old wives tales ...

This [i]need to know[/i] business, how far reaching it is, our modern day 'prophets' full of all kinds of imaginations and future telling when it is largely and greatly keep from their sight and their minds. So it is ... [i]extrapolate[/i], parse the scriptures, comb and combine and make a great stew of it all, are they a recipe or ... a mystery? A great showing forth of the distance between us and God, who ironically is so very often ... silent on all these matters.

I am a great proponent of the word; "Perhaps". And of holding two seemingly opposing, 'contradicting' aspects in tension - I find nothing wrong and even that it is far more true and healthy, scriptural to hold things in abeyance, happy that the Lord has done precisely what He has done, keeping things to Himself.

Adam and Eve. The devil himself, how many have gone for this very thing to satisfy their craving for [i]that particular knowledge[/i] ...

Food for thought brother.

God took on the form of man called Himself His own Son since He begot Himself and then spoke and acted toward Himself He was the only one who could do it and so had to act not only for others but toward Himself as well though it seems odd I think it makes very good sense. He was the only one who could act toward Himself and fulfill His justice and so He did in this somewhat complex way.

Greenlea,

Be encouraged davidt. You are not alone in your accessment. Father has also spoken to my heart on this matter and gave it to me as you explained it. I smiled when I read it.

Bog,

I will first let it be known that in my answering I am not taking this lightly as some fun thing to be debated. I am neither speaking in any argumentative way so please do not take me as having that kind of attitude throughout this discussion and this goes out generally to all. I may be straight to the point on doctrine but that is just because there is much to answer to. I am also not being close minded.

There is a reason the Trinity, the Godhead Three in One, has withstood the test of over 1700 years with the harshest criticisms of the greatest philosophers and theologians throughout church history.

You need someone else for love to be perfected

if the Father is a "part" of God, the Son is a "part" of God, and the Holy Spirit is a "part" of God, then each part in and of itself is not God.

Robert,

the Trinity is foundational to Christianity. We need to realize up front the seriousness

All cults have at their foundation a false view of the nature of God.

I would suggest doing a search and reading through the wealth of materials that have been presented... too labor intensive to go back line upon line and reestablish all of the essential points.

explaining how the law of non-contradiction is not violated by the doctrine of the Trinity.

God does not have to have multiple personality disorder in order to keep him self company. God is God let us not forget He is very different then us. Sure He can keep Himself company but He does not need to have multiple personalities to talk to Himself.

Thingsabove,

Davidt, I agree with most of what you have written concerning the Godhead/Triunity. However for more sharpening I would like to make a few statements for us to meditate on and fine tune what you/we are saying.

1. I don't think it has to be weird for God to talk with His Word/self and His Holy Spirit.

While you may have been taught that he did it so he wouldn't "get bored" I have not heard that in my short twenty years of study.

The cults depart by saying Jesus is not eternaly God/Divine and the Holy Spirit is not eternaly God/Divine. They view this as a three Gods teaching.

While a sound understanding of the Godhead can be difficult for some it still is something that can be "apprehended" though not fully comprehended.

3. I may have misunderstood you on this point. I think you indicated that God the Father himself left His throne and descended down to earth in the form of Jesus. Help me here if I am wrong on what you said.

David Bercot's "Dictionary of Early christian beliefs"

but may not agree fully on the persons aspect?

Robert,

Quote: As my parts are different, have different roles and functions but don't have different personalities so is God.

This is impossible because it makes nonsense of all of the conversations that take place between the Father and the Son as well as the references to the Holy Spirit as being God Himself with the capacity to be grieved and blasphemed.

Jesus Christ cannot be said to have been an impersonal idea that eternally existed in the mind of God

plural unity called 'One Yachid or one Echad?"

Ginny,

Sounds to me like some people like to complicate the most simple things!

God said let us make man in our own image so in the image of God created he him, male and female. Two persons: me and you. So, if God made two why not have three persons in the Godhead all working together as a unit with different functions?

Crss,

Quote: I see the scripture but I didn't feel right saying that Jesus wasn't always God's son.

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Joh 7:29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me. Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven:

Quote: I wanted the truth and clarity on the Scriptures. I almost felt as if the Scriptures just didn't elaborate on it because it was so deep, transcendent, and mysterious.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1Ti 3:16

But why is that not enough for us?

I am finding this again and again may be our very trouble in so many things. If the Lord is a mystery and is mysterious, has chosen to hide those things past our understanding, revealed that much that He has in scripture, where do we get the idea that it can be had or that we need to have this ... hidden knowledge?

I wonder if it is not truly a form of pride in us

I am a great proponent of the word; "Perhaps". And of holding two seemingly opposing, 'contradicting' aspects in tension - I find nothing wrong and even that it is far more true and healthy, scriptural to hold things in abeyance, happy that the Lord has done precisely what He has done, keeping things to Himself.

I understand the LEVEL of difficulty with accepting something like this but I have to stand of the Scriptures and my conscience.

Sure He can keep Himself company but He does not need to have multiple personalities to talk to Himself.

If I were to name this doctrine I would called it the biblical view of the Triunity.

I am not stating that the Father, Son, and Spirit are limited but that they are eternal. If anything I am saying that they are more alike because they all share the same personality.

infinite and complete God + infinite and complete God + infinite and complete God = the Trinity, Three in One.

it is being taught that if God did not have multiple personalities then He would have no one to relate with... Yes we do agree on the full Divinity of the 3."

When He said make man in the image of God he only meant one. Sure he meant them both but both individually.

Krispy,

no one can fully understand the Trinity because it is a mystery.

Firstly, and I say this with some firmness, the Lord has not spoken to [b]any[/b] of our hearts regarding the Trinity. The Lord has spoken in Scripture, and the truth regarding the Trinity can be found there. Period.

DavidT, How do you understand this passage:

[i]Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear [b]Son[/b]: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him [b]{The Son}[/b] were all things [u]created[/u], that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:[/i] (Colossians 1:13-16)

Paul writes all things were created through the Son, and John says all things were created through the Word. Therefore, the Word and the Son are the same and have been synonymous throughout all eternity.

Philologos,

Quote: God does not have to have multiple personality disorder in order to keep him self company. God is God let us not forget He is very different then us. Sure He can keep Himself company but He does not need to have multiple personalities to talk to Himself.

This is offensive and unnecessary.

Please explain how love can function in singularity. How can there be love without a lover and a beloved?

This is not a question of "level of difficulty". Personally I find your view, as you have presented it thus far, a far too easy understanding of something that is far too difficult. Like describing a 3-d cube by defining a 2-d square.

Sure He can keep Himself company but He does not need to have multiple personalities to talk to Himself.

Personally I find your view, as you have presented it thus far, a far too easy understanding of something that is far too difficult. Like describing a 3-d cube by defining a 2-d square.

First off, "the biblical view of the Triunity" is a dangerous title for your perspective. It gives the impression that what you have stated is the absolute revelational truth of the perfect interpretation of Holy Writ. If you can claim that meaning with your idea then by all means good title.

The idea of One non-Trinitarian God displaying "multiple personalities"

Trying to compare the "similarity" of the Trinity to the different parts of spirit, soul, and body of man

Hi Davidt,

I believe that Jesus was not always the Son until He was born in human flesh and it was said of Him, "You are my Son today I have begotten you".

Acts 8:33 reads:
[i]33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.[/i]

This quote from the 2nd psalm also apears in Hebrews.
Nowhere in scripture does it say that Jesus became the Son of God when he was born in the flesh. The text in Acts rather [b]seems[/b] to indicate that Jesus became Gods Son after he was raised from the dead.

However we know from varius scriptures that Jesus was already the Son of God when he walked the earth.
So the text: 'Thou [b]art[/b] my Son, this day I have begotten thee.' explains that Jesus [b]is[/b] Gods Son and that God has begotten/raised Him from the dead on ressurection day (which obviously seems to be the 'today' that is spoken off).

According to your interpretation the text should read: 'Once You existed with me, but today You have been born in the flesh and thus You have become my Son." It does not read: 'Thou hast become my Son this day..'
It reads: Thou art My Son, this day...

Jesus was the Son of God before he came tot the earth.

Proverbs 30:4
[i]Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? [b]what is his name, and what is [u]his son's[/u] name,[/b] if thou canst tell?[/i]

I hope ths helps you

Jeppe

Taylor,

Firstly, and I say this with some firmness, the Lord has not spoken to any of our hearts regarding the Trinity. The Lord has spoken in Scripture, and the truth regarding the Trinity can be found there. Period.

Paul writes all things were created through the Son, and John says all things were created through the Word. Therefore, the Word and the Son are the same and have been synonymous throughout all eternity.

Hello Jeppe,

Nowhere in scripture does it say that Jesus became the Son of God when he was born in the flesh.

It does not read: 'Thou hast become my Son this day..' It reads: Thou art My Son, this day...

Jesus was the Son of God before he came to the earth... Proverbs 30:4 what is his name, and what is his son's name,...

Brother Davidt, you are walking down a broad road that only leads to one destination... Destruction.

Please brother, walk away from this foolishness. I beg you.

Miccah,

you are walking down a broad road that only leads to one destination... Destruction.

I think your accusation is unfair and incomplete. Many have posted reasons for disagreement but you are the first to condemn me and you did not even present any reason. I believe you have posted out of ignorance and a bit rashly. Is it because you have no reason or evidence's that you make an empty statement? Or do you have a reason for saying this? If you do I think you should prove it. Jesus always backed up his statements. Elders should be able to stand for doctrine not that you are an elder but it is an admonition.

I have come to my understanding by sincerity and scripture. So far no one has substantially discredited my view. There have been initial responses but I believe I have answered them with reason and proof and no one has yet to correct me. I do not see myself as a hard headed, argumentative, unreasonable person and am open minded. I just have to stand with my conscience and scripture. I encourage anyone with sound doctrine to prove by text that my view is false if it is. To reemphasize no one has given any proof. If so name one?

p.s. this is not written in a bad spirit.

Krispy,

I didnt view that as condemnation... I viewed that as a warning. There is a huge difference. Condemnation is given out of judgement, a warning is given out of love.

Benjoseph,

Jesus Christ is truly God and truly Man.

Do you believe that Christ is the Son only according to his humanity?

Since God is Himself love and not just one that loves or needs to be loved He is satisfied in that. It was not good for man to be alone but this does not apply to God. Man is not love itself and so cannot function solely within Himself. I don't understand all the depths of God but I know it is great to be in His presence so He must have a great time in His own presence as well. Maybe you have studied some God centered theology? In that God loves HImself God is infatuated with Himself supremely and is passionate about His glory. This may seem strange or even sinful to some to be so "selfish and proud". But when you are yourself love then to love yourself is love to glorify yourself is to glorify love.

But this does not explain the eternal fellowship between Father and Son described in John 17.

Jesus is in the flesh glorified.
The Holy Spirit is a spirit.
The Father is Totaly other than, not a Spirit or in flesh.

Robert,

But this does not explain the eternal fellowship between Father and Son described in John 17.

John 14:7-11 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him." Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? [b]Whoever has seen me has seen the Father[/b]. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 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 authority, but [b]the Father who dwells in me[/b] does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

Jesus is in the flesh glorified. The Holy Spirit is a spirit. The Father is Totaly other than, not a Spirit or in flesh.

Also, to prove a doctrine you have to be able to provide multiple text. Hermeneutically you have to interpret the Bible by the Bible. When you run into an unclear difficult verse you have to compare it to all the clear verses. So if one verses "seems" to say something if there are a multitude of verses saying different then that verse needs to be understood in light of the others.

Amen. That's why I said:

The text in Acts rather [b]seems[/b] to indicate that Jesus became Gods Son after he was raised from the dead.
[b]However we know from varius scriptures[/b] that Jesus was already the Son of God when he walked the earth.[/b]

It looks like you do not really follow your own advise when you say:

Thou art my Son this day I have begotten Thee seems to mean to me that Jesus became the Son when the Father begat Him.

Please, read Acts 13:30-33 carefuly:

30 But [b]God raised him from the dead:[/b] 31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. 32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that [b]he hath raised up Jesus again;[/b] [u]as it is also written in the second psalm[/u], [b]Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.[/b]

I doubt that it can be any clearer that 'this day I have begotten thee' is about the ressurection.

And because this verse talks about the resurrection it does not talk about his birth in the flesh. And because it does not talk about his birth in the flesh, you can't correctly use this verse to prove that Jesus became the Son of God when he came in the flesh. And because there are many verses that say Jesus is the Son of God when he was on the earth we can conclude that "Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee" has nothing to do with Jesus becoming the Son, but with Him being the Son. Paraphrase: You ARE my Son and this day, my Son, I ressurected you as a firstborn from the dead. (As prophesied in the psalms)

Just in case you think that this is one single verse in the bible that speaks of Jesus resurection as a birth, please consider this vers

Col 1:18
[i]And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, [b]the firstborn from the dead;[/b] that in all things he might have the preeminence[/i]

You are right that with the above I didn't prove that Jesus has always been the Son. But if you read carefully and honestly you must admit that your claim of Him becoming the Son when He came in the flesh is unsubstantiated.

[i]Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.[/i] Amen!

Ben,

that divides Christ.

Ben Joseph said, "Do you believe that before the Word became flesh that the Father was no Father at all?"

Well, folks, that settles it for me.

David, my brother, for four years and more you and I have discussed this issue. I will say publicly that I know you to be a compassionate, thoughtful, and ready learner. I trust you will receive correction the moment your conscience allows and that you are no lover of intellectual bobbles.

That being said, you are either a genius or a heretic. And, being against 2000 years of eminent saints, more holy and profound than yourself, it is a hard gamble to bet against the charge of heresy.

I exhort everyone to pray for David to receive an understanding, because I have known him to follow his conscience in all other areas of his life. Perhaps the Lord will grant him repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.

As well, many thanks to everyone who has posted such useful information. I feel I have a better grasp of the Trinitarian position than ever before. Your posts were well spent, as the Lord won many praises from my lips by them.

Before the foundation of the earth. As I said earlier Jesus was slain from before the foundation of the earth but not actually only certainly. So even if he were saying you have loved me as the Son He could mean that He loved Him in this way looking forward prophetically.

[color=000066] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (John 17:5)[/color]

Is the 'me' that Christ is referring to here the 'I' that shared in the glory before the world was? Is it the same [i]person[/i]?

davidt wrote:

Jesus is in the flesh glorified. The Holy Spirit is a spirit. The Father is Totaly other than, not a Spirit or in flesh.

Yes I agree. I am not so sure about that last statement though.

Jeppe,

The text in Acts rather seems to indicate that Jesus became Gods Son after he was raised from the dead.

But if you read carefully and honestly you must admit that your claim of Him becoming the Son when He came in the flesh is unsubstantiated.

Luke 1:32 He will be great and [b]will be called the Son of the Most High[/b]. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered her, "The [b]Holy Spirit will come upon you[/b], and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; [b]therefore[/b] the child to be born will be called holy--the [b]Son of God[/b].

p.s. Thanks for being scholarly and pointing out I appreciate the challenge "psalms 2/ resurrection".

Benjoseph,

Do you believe that before the Word became flesh that the Father was no Father at all?

Mike,

Ben Joseph said, "Do you believe that before the Word became flesh that the Father was no Father at all?" Well, folks, that settles it for me.

That being said, you are either a genius or a heretic. And, being against 2000 years of eminent saints, more holy and profound than yourself, it is a hard gamble to bet against the charge of heresy.

I exhort everyone to pray for David to receive an understanding,

Robert,

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
(John 17:5) Is the 'me' that Christ is referring to here the 'I' that shared in the glory before the world was? Is it the same person?

This brings up a difficult topic and I don't want to go too far in it. Sometimes it is hard to tell when Jesus is acting from His humanity and when from His Divinity. I have need to think more on this subject so only speak partially. But, I believe that when He would manifest His glory at times He was manifesting His Divinity. Or at times He would say I do not know only the Father knows at those times I would believe He is speaking from His humanity. But I really need to look into it more.

Logic,

davidt wrote: Quote: Jesus is in the flesh glorified. The Holy Spirit is a spirit. The Father is Totaly other than, not a Spirit or in flesh. Yes I agree. I am not so sure about that last statement though.

What "last statement"?

Ben,

Do you see how this sounds weird?

I'm reminded of the verse about denying the Father and the Son.

Why would the relationship between the Father and the Son depend upon flesh?

a lot more careful about speculating.

unless you have some serious scripture

p.s. I didn't really understand all of the question.

Ben,

in all respect my conversation with you has been a bit confusing. Especially compared to the other I have talked to. I have found there questions a little bit more reasonable and thought through. Sometimes you ask questions about what I believe and I already stated cleary what I believe a few times. Are you actually taking your time to read the posts and think about them? There are also things that I have already explained to you that you are still bringing up as if I hadn't. And, you have not answered the questions that I have asked you.

Do not begin to divide Christ in the way you are talking about. Absolutely forsake that train of thought. Christ is one Christ buddy! - not two. He is whole. You said yourself he is not 50/50 - well 100/100 makes 200 total which is the same as 50/50 - Please buddy forsake your human mind. Don't stumble like the greeks who wanted wisdom.

No Parts! No Parts!

Ben,

David, I've never thought about what you are saying about the Father and Son like this

Ben,

Do you understand?

Ben,

He is not speaking of his humanity as the Son but His Divinity as the Logos. When He says Me He is talking about His Divinity just as when He says I. I confess I do not understand the last part of the sentence

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (John 17:5)

Is the 'me' that Christ is referring to here the 'I' that shared in the glory before the world was? Is it the same person?

p.s. you don't have to read all the posts to know what I am saying you only have to read my first 2 posts.

Ben,

Who was the Father the Father of before everything was created?

This is where I fear you are dividing Christ as if the two natures were separate from each other and that he could act or speak from one but not from the other. But since the two natures are of one indivisible Word how can this be?

what about before men and angles?

He was Father of men and angels but not Father to the Word?

I will have to catch you later...

First, here is what I don't believe. I don't believe that God has 3 different personalities. I don't believe that God has been keeping Himself company throughout all eternity by talking to His 3 personalities so that He doesn't get bored.

David, would like to get your thought on the following from Francis Schaeffer...

The first basic need is caused by the lack of certainty regarding the reality of individual personality. Every man is in tension until he finds a satisfactory answer to the problem of who he himself is.

The biblical Christian answer takes us back first to the very beginning of everything and states that personality is intrinsic in what is; not in the pantheistic sense of the universe being the extension of the essence of God (or what is), but that a God who is personal on the high order of Trinity created all else. Within the Trinity, before the creation of anything, there was real love and real communication (John 17:24 & Gen 1:26). Following on from this statement, the Bible states that this God who is personal created man in His own image. A personal God created all things freely in a nondeterminate fashion, and man is created in a special situation - what I would call a special circle of creation. He is the image of this kind of God, and so personality is intrinsic to his makeup. God is personal, and man is personal also.

It might be helpful to illustrate the situation this way. Imagine you are in the alps, and from a high vantage point you can see three parallel ranges of mountains with two valleys between them. In one valley is a lake and the other is dry. Suddenly you begin to witness what sometimes happens in the Alps - a lake forming in the second valley where there was none before. As you se the water rising, you may wonder what the source is. If it stops at the same level of the lake in the neighboring valley then after making careful measurements you can conclude that the water probably came from the first lake. But if your measurement shows that the level is twenty feet higher than the other lake, then you can no longer consider that its source may be from the neighboring valley and you would have to seek another explanation. Personality is like that; [i]no one has ever thought of a way of deriving personality from non-personal sources.[/i]

Therefore, biblical Christianity has an adequate and reasonable explanation for the source and meaning of human personality. Its source is sufficient - the personal God on the high order of the Trinity. Without such a source men are left with personality coming from the impersonal (plus time, plus chance).

Eloheim said let US make man in OUR own image.
Plural beings: us, our. Simple. Who were they?

ginnyrose

It is safe to say this has already been settled. Davidt, your model of "triunity" does not hold water. Have you ever heard the phrase, "God is a mathematician"? He is, and I can take a guess you are not.

I believe PaulWest nailed this down:

[b]Patripassianism[/b] (from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
In Christian theology, Patripassianism is a Trinitarian heresy; that is, it is a way of understanding how the persons of God relate to one another that has been rejected by the church. In particular, Patripassianism is a form of modalism, the teaching that there is only one God, who appears in three different modes (as opposed to the orthodox teaching that there is one God, who exists in three persons).

Patripassianism comes from the Latin, and means "the father suffers." The name refers to the teaching that God the Father suffers on the cross as Son — since the two are different modes of the same person. Patripassianism is closely related to Sabellianism.

(Sabellianism
A version of Monarchianism holding that the Godhead was differentiated only into a succession of modes or operations and that the Father suffered as much as the Son.)

The Father and the Holy Spirit suffering on the cross is a necessary requirement of your model if the Son is considered a part of the whole God. Or are you going to tell us that the Father didn't suffer on the cross because that "part" of Him was still in heaven? The way you have described your triunity is clearly with the definition that the Father, Son, and Spirit are not Three Eternal Person but three eternal parts of God. You might as well say the "pinky finger" of God was crucified on the cross. Or rather "the Logos or the Word and Thoughts of God" was crucified on the cross?
What do you believe God was thinking while His thoughts were forsaken by the Father?
What do you believe happened to God when "the Logos or the Word and Thoughts of God" became sin for us?

Genesis 1 Darby Version
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

1:3 And >God saidGod saidGod saidWordWord< was with God, and the >Word< was God.

1:2 *He* was in the beginning with God.

1:3 All things received being through him, and without him not one [thing] received being which has received being.

[b]John Wesley's Notes[/b]
In the beginning - (Referring to Genesis 1:1, and Proverbs 8:23.) When all things began to be made by the Word: in the beginning of heaven and earth, and this whole frame of created beings, the Word existed, without any beginning. He was when all things began to be, whatsoever had a beginning. The Word - So termed Psalms 33:6, and frequently by the seventy, and in the Chaldee paraphrase. So that St. John did not borrow this expression from Philo, or any heathen writer. He was not yet named Jesus, or Christ. He is the Word whom the Father begat or spoke from eternity; by whom the Father speaking, maketh all things; who speaketh the Father to us. We have, in John 1:18, both a real description of the Word, and the reason why he is so called.

Darby Version St John
1:14 And the >Word< became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father)

Father has been speaking throughout eternity and when He speaks the Word is made manifest. This Word is Yeshua, whom the Jews were waiting for yet did not recognize when he came.

Davidt continue to press in, don't stop. Don't let others discourage you in your search for truth. Those who hunger and thrist for rightousness shall be filled. So shall you be. If you ask Father for bread He will not give you a stone, if you ask for a fish he will not give you a serpent.

I know there are many others on this forum who have much wisdom and knowledge, but we must remember that the eye cannot exist alone, neither can the hand or the heart. Therefore none of us know it all. As iron sharpeneth iron we help to keep each other sharp.

Therefore seeing that we do not know it all let us encourage one another in the spirit of meekness. Disagreement for me is good. It helps me to see something from someone else's point of view. Maybe I was wrong on a few issues, but sometimes it lets me see that I was right.

None of us know it all. This is proved by two thousand years of church history. There were many issues that even the church fathers disagreed on. That's one reason there were so many church councils.

We all need to learn from each other, yet be as the Bereans and search the scriptures daily to see if what we have been told are of the truth or not.

Keep seeking, keep searching, keep knocking!!

In Him

None of us know it all. This is proved by two thousand years of church history. There were many issues that even the church fathers disagreed on. That's one reason there were so many church councils.

[url=http://www.monergism.com/Edwards%2C%20Jonathan%20-%20An%20Unpublished%20Essay%20on%20the%20Tr.pdf]An Unpublished Essay on the Trinity
Jonathan Edwards[/url]

[url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm]On the Trinity (Book 1)
St Augustine[/url]

[url=http://www.monergism.com/Trinity.html]Excerpt from "Concise Theology"
J.I. Packer[/url]

[url=http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/theology/believeinthreegods]Don't Christians Believe in Three Gods?
Jews for Jesus[/url]

[url=http://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/T/Tozer%20-%20Knowledge%20Of%20The%20Holy%20(b).pdf]Knowledge of the Holy, chapter 4, The Holy Trinity
A.W. Tozer[/url]

[b]Excerpt from Knowledge of the Holy, chapter 4, The Holy Trinity[/b]:
A popular belief among Christians divide the work of God between the three Persons, giving a specific part to each, as, for instance, creation to the Father, redemption to the Son, and regeneration to the Holy Spirit. This is partly true but not wholly so, for God cannot so divide Himself that one Person works while another is inactive. In the Scriptures the three Persons are shown to act in harmonious unity in all the mighty works that are wrought throughout the universe.
In the Holy Scriptures the work of creation is attributed to the Father (Gen. 1:1), to the Son (Col. 1;16), and to the Holy Spirit (Job. 26:13 and Ps. 104:30). The incarnation is shown to have been accomplished by the three Persons in full accord (Luke 1: 35), though only the Son became flesh to dwell among us. At Christ’s baptism the Son came up out of the water, the Spirit descended upon Him and the Father’s voice spoke from heaven (Matt. 3:16, 17). Probably the most beautiful description of the work of atonement is found in Hebrews 9:14, where it is stated that Christ, through the Eternal Spirit, offered Himself without spot to God; and there we behold the three persons operating together.
The resurrection of Christ is likewise attributed variously to the Father (Acts 2:32), to the Son (John 10:17-18), and to the Holy Spirit (Rom. 1:4). The salvation of the individual man is shown by the apostle Peter to be the work of all three Persons of the Godhead (1 Pet. 1:2), and the indwelling of the Christian man’s soul is said to be by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-23). The doctrine of the Trinity, as I have said before, is truth for the heart. The fact that it cannot be satisfactorily explained, instead of being against it, is in its favor. Such a truth had to be revealed; no one could have imagined it.

"O Blessed Trinity!
O simplest Majesty! O Three in One! Thou art for ever God alone.
Holy Trinity! Blessed equal Three.
One God, we praise Thee."
[b]Frederick W. Faber[/b]

Ben,

Christ died a physical death did he die "in his humanity" or "in his divinity"?

Inthelight,

would like to get your thought on the following from Francis Schaeffer...

But when you are yourself love then to love yourself is love to glorify yourself is to glorify love.

You are mistaken love cannot exist in singularity.

Ginny,

Eloheim said let US make man in OUR own image. Plural beings: us, our. Simple. Who were they?

A man needs to love and be loved but God is love itself. God does love Himself for to love love is to love but not in the sense of talking to Himself and ect in 3 persons because the Bible does not teach 3 personalities. This philosophy was produced in order to prove to skeptics that the Triunity is true.

This is utterly false. The Trinity is a doctrine that originated as the Church began to deal with heresies that came along in the early Church. This is how most doctrine was forged and it gave rise to the age of the Apologists.

It is also important to point out that Oneness Modalist Theology originated with a misunderstanding about the way in which people are baptized. Error begets error. Long story, but if you do a search it may be in the archives. I have written extensively about it before. It is important to know that detail.

The Father did not become the Son and then the Son become the Holy Spirit. God has existed as a Trinity from the beginning.

[color=000066]And God said, Let [u]us[/u] make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [/color]

Who is the [u]us[/u] here? This is a plural pronoun. We know from Hebrews 1 that Christ is the person by whom He made the worlds. This means Christ participated as part of the 'us'. It is irrational and an abuse of language to suggest that the 'us' was called 'us' because of a prophetic ideal of a future existence. Christ "slain from the foundation of the world" does not answer this passage. It is nonsense to say that Christ participated in the creation of the world because the Father ordained Him to be born. Us was us at the point of creation and had been for all of eternity.

Bog,

It is safe to say this has already been settled. Davidt, your model of "triunity" does not hold water.

The Father and the Holy Spirit suffering on the cross is a necessary requirement of your model if the Son is considered a part of the whole God. Or are you going to tell us that the Father didn't suffer on the cross because that "part" of Him was still in heaven? The way you have described your triunity is clearly with the definition that the Father, Son, and Spirit are not Three Eternal Person but three eternal parts of God. You might as well say the "pinky finger" of God was crucified on the cross. Or rather "the Logos or the Word and Thoughts of God" was crucified on the cross? What do you believe God was thinking while His thoughts were forsaken by the Father? What do you believe happened to God when "the Logos or the Word and Thoughts of God" became sin for us?

I dont believe the Spirit and the Father suffered on the cross but Christ. Christ is the expression of God in many descriptions. He is the Word, the Glory, the express image of His person... So in a specific sense the Father and the Spirit did not suffer but generally I would say they did since they are all one. I still need to think this through more. Yes it was the Word who suffered and not the pinky finger but if one of our parts suffer they all do. The question about Jesus becoming sin for us is a whole other which I also need to think more about. I know that God cannot sin nor can He be defiled. Some would say that He only took on the guilt and punishment of our sin and not actually our sin itself I can not answer completely here this is topic all itself.

Greenlea,

Thank you for your comments. I am not sure I understand it wholly however.

Philologos,

There is a poignant question from the time that some ascetics were heading for the lonliness of deserts or the isolation of platforms on poles. When one believer heard of this trends he asked the puzzled question 'but whose feet will they wash?' You are mistaken love cannot exist in singularity.

The Spirit searches Him. And He Himself is love itself and love can be satisfied within in itself without having multiple personalities.

I guess I will have to be the one to say this but this is Satan's love. He loved himself. He has been content to heap his love upon himself. He took the love that belonged to God and gave it to himself; hence, he is the father of whoredom.

And it is because of Satan's self-love that we know experiencally self-love. The world promotes this idea. However, God's love is agape love and it is a sacrificial love that looks not to its own things but to the needs of others.

I am not saying He is not Triune only that He does not have 3 seperate personalities but one with 3 functions, expressions, parts. God is still relational with Himself as love. We cannot hang out with ourselves because we were created or love but God is uncreated as love.

The word 'personalities' is not the term for describing the historical orthodox view of the Trinity- it is 'persons'. God is not schizophrenic. The personal pronouns used in all the passages I have cited in describing God in relation to Himself denote individual persons that have personality. If I am one person with multiple personalities I would be a schizophrenic. This is not the orthodox view of God. God is one 'what' (substance) and three persons. He is Echad (one): an eternal plural indivisible unity of persons.

Philosophy has been brought to me, tradition has been brought to me, and when what matters "scripture" is brought to me I have replied with the Bible soundly

What about all of the personal pronouns that have gone virtually un-dealt with? The 'us' and 'we' the 'I' and 'thee'?

Robert,

Let me start this post by saying that the things which you said here are based on a wrong understanding of what I am saying this time.

This is utterly false. The Trinity is a doctrine that originated as the Church began to deal with heresies that came along in the early Church. This is how most doctrine was forged and it gave rise to the age of the Apologists.

It is also important to point out that Oneness Modalist Theology originated with a misunderstanding about the way in which people are baptized. Error begets error. Long story, but if you do a search it may be in the archives. I have written extensively about it before. It is important to know that detail.

The Father did not become the Son and then the Son become the Holy Spirit. God has existed as a Trinity from the beginning.

It is irrational and an abuse of language to suggest that the 'us' was called 'us' because of a prophetic ideal of a future existence. Christ "slain from the foundation of the world" does not answer this passage.

[color=000066]Go to, [u]let us go down[/u], and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. (Genesis 11)

And the [u]LORD[/u] appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, [u]three men[/u] stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, [i]and bowed himself toward the ground,[/i] And said, [u]My Lord[/u] (Adonai), if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: (Genesis 18)[/color]

You will know that angels do not accept worship. Here the LORD (YHWH) appeared as three men.

[color=000066]And [u]they[/u] said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. And [u]he[/u] said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. [/color]

Notice the plural and singular pronouns being used together. This is Echad playing out in real time. But who is the they/he that is speaking?

[color=000066]And the [u]LORD[/u] said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? (Genesis 18) [/color]

Robert,

I guess I will have to be the one to say this but this is Satan's love. He loved himself. He has been content to heap his love upon himself. He took the love that belonged to God and gave it to himself; hence, he is the father of whoredom. And it is because of Satan's self-love that we know experiencally self-love. The world promotes this idea. However, God's love is agape love and it is a sacrificial love that looks not to its own things but to the needs of others.

The word 'personalities' is not the term for describing the historical orthodox view of the Trinity- it is 'persons'.

Robert,

What about all of the personal pronouns that have gone virtually un-dealt with? The 'us' and 'we' the 'I' and 'thee'?

more plural personal pronouns

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. (Genesis 11) And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord (Adonai), if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: (Genesis 18) You will know that angels do not accept worship. Here the LORD (YHWH) appeared as three men. And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. Notice the plural and singular pronouns being used together. This is Echad playing out in real time. But who is the they/he that is speaking? And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? (Genesis 18)

I just talked about this. I said God does not have 3 person but He can talk to His Spirit and Logos.

This is like saying God talks to Himself as a man talks to himself. The difference between God and man is that if I talk to my body my body does not talk back. It is a one sided conversation. If I talk to my spirit my spirit does not talk back. The Son and the Holy Spirit have the capacity to deal individually. I have no such capability.

We have relations based on need God needs nothing but Himself.

Robert,

This is like saying God talks to Himself as a man talks to himself. The difference between God and man is that if I talk to my body my body does not talk back. It is a one sided conversation. If I talk to my spirit my spirit does not talk back. The Son and the Holy Spirit have the capacity to deal individually. I have no such capability.

I just talked about this. I said God does not have 3 person but He can talk to His Spirit and Logos. As for the John 17 passage Jesus was talking from His Deity as the Logos. It does not say in John 3, "the Son was with God and the Son was God". No, it says, "the Word was with God and the Word was God".

Phil,

This is a very human concept of 'relationship'. Dependency is not a synonym for relationship.

When you say a very human concept I dont know what you mean I think it is more of a godly concept then anything since I am raising God beyond man.

Relationship is based on need one way or the other. Either you "want" to love or you "want" to be loved. Either way even in giving you are taking.

Robert,

Oh yes, I must also add this I forgot to respond to it. When Jesus died selflessly it was ultimately the most selfish thing. In this God loved Himself the most by fulfilling His greatest desire "love". God served Himself supremely in this by loving love.

Phil,

Are you trying to say that there was a change in relationship with the incarnation in prospect so that the Word became the Son? Or that there was no Word prior to the incarnation?

Only one of these men was the Lord the others were angels. So when it says let us go down the "us" in this passage could be speaking about the Lord and the angels.

So when I quote from Isaiah 6 that God is HOLY, HOLY, HOLY are two of the Holy's for two of the angels also? How many three's will I have to demonstrate to make the point? God has always revealed Himself as a Trinity; that is in three Persons. In fact the eternal power and Godhead are revealed in the creation as a trinity of trinities. I gave this illustration from a scientist friend of mine some years ago.

God created the universe in the form of a trinity. Our visible reality is experienced as

Space
Matter
Time

This is a trinity.

Space exists as

Length X Width X Height

This is also a trinity. Length is not width and width is not height but they are all 'space'.

Matter exists as

solid, liquid and gas

solid is not a gas and gas is not a liquid but they are all matter.

Time exists as

Past, present and future.

Past is not the future and the present is not the past, etc.; but they are all time.

Again, here we see the concept of trinity even in the creation. The important thing to focus on is the clear distinctions within the unit. And in the Trinity we have to see the persons within the Godhead.

Phil,

This might be true of finite beings in that they are all creations and therefore by definitions dependent. But relationship does not demand dependency and the relationship within the Godhead certainly does not demand dependency.

Oh yes, I must also add this I forgot to respond to it. When Jesus died selflessly it was ultimately the most selfish thing. In this God loved Himself the most by fulfilling His greatest desire "love". God served Himself supremely in this by loving love.

Robert,

So when I quote from Isaiah 6 that God is HOLY, HOLY, HOLY are two of the Holy's for two of the angels also? How many three's will I have to demonstrate to make the point?

As to how many 3's must you mention. I said that there are 3 the Word, Spirit, and Father but these are not 3 persons but 3 parts. You probably ask, "well then why would God speak to His parts as Us?". I don't know. Maybe because they each have such significant roles. I dont know maybe the human analogy that He has used is not complete and there are other things about Him that are not fully expressed within this limited analogy. And once again maybe He is speaking about Him and the angels as He did when He was about to destroy Sodom.

Thank you for the illustration but that is all it is is an illustration. I am not being cynical.

I was saying that Jesus was not always the Son until he was begotten as a man by God. I was saying that He was always and eternally the Word. I was using John 3 as a proof text that He was not always the Son but was always the Logos. I said in John 3 it does not say He was the Son eternally but it does say He was the Logos.

Phil,

To 'love love' would be to worship a virtue which is in itself idolatry.

God is love. All the virtues which we have stem from God. Just as we have life but God is life so it is with love. God is the source of life. As the sun is the source of heat God is the source of love. The sun made out of fire and God is made out of love "I know the sun is gas". So love is not merely a virtue in the deepest sense of the word but it is God. However there is love that is separate from God and has only originated from Him just as there is life that is separate from Him. He who is love said let there be love and creates it as He created man.

I can part answer my own question from a more recent answer of yours. So you believe that a 'part' of God became the Son in incarnation. God is One, without parts. This is the ancient revelation trusted to the Jews. God has no parts. Anyone who thinks he has does not understand the teaching of Trinity.

Phil,

So what was the nature of the 'thing' which became the 'Son'. Was the Word a conscious being or an aspect of another being? That is, was 'the Word God' or was the word 'an aspect of God'?

Phil,

There is so much philosophical speculation in this that I hardly know where to start. God is 'made' out of anything, not even love. God is love but not made out of it. God is also Light but he is not made out of that either.

1John 4:16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. [b]God is love[/b], and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

1Jn 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that [b]God is light[/b], and in him is no darkness at all.

God is One, without parts. This is the ancient revelation trusted to the Jews. God has no parts. Anyone who thinks he has does not understand the teaching of Trinity.

The Word is not a thing the Word is God. I would not call God a thing but a person. So the word is a person the same person that the Father is. I have explained this before. Jesus is the expression of God. He is the exact express image of His person, He is the glory of God, He is the expressed thoughts of God in that He is the word of God, when you behold His face you see the glory of God,...

In the thread on 'Godhead' I tried to show how carefully the Greek expresses the separate identity of the Word. The Word communes with God; this is only possible if there are, at least, two separate consciousnesses. Please take a look... I prefer not to post sections of it here. Here is the original thread...

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=7893&forum=36&start=0&viewmode=flat&order=0]The Godhead[/url]

Well I am trying to keep it simple but in order to answer your questions I have to be specific and speak these philosophical things though I believe my philosophy to be derived from Scripture.

Phil,

I can express myself but my expression of myself does not talk to me.

My character can have no separate life of its own as an emanation

the separate identity of the Word...The Word communes with God...this is only possible if there are, at least, two separate consciousnesses...

The Word communes with God. God is therefore communing with Himself. You don't have to have another person in order to commune. God loves Himself. For an example though surely not the best you you can bless your belly by giving it food. You can speak truth to yourself and encourage yourself.

Phil,

Do you think I would derive my philosophy from any other source?

The Word communes with God. God is therefore communing with Himself. You don't have to have another person in order to commune. God loves Himself. For an example though surely not the best you you can bless your belly by giving it food. You can speak truth to yourself and encourage yourself.

You can talk to yourself. David talked to Himself.

When I speak to myself I don't wait for an answer. I know fully well that I am acting out a metaphor. I have never been under the delusion that another me was talking back to me.

Did you read the Godhead thread?

Phil,

Of course you have to have two for communion. That is what the word means 'a common union'. Singularity cannot have communion. If there is no separate consciousness within the Godhead there is no communion, no fellowship.

David spoke to his own soul in meditation.

When I speak to myself I don't wait for an answer. I know fully well that I am acting out a metaphor. I have never been under the delusion that another me was talking back to me.

Did you read "godhead"?

Phil,

Father:
Is called God the most and is the Head from which the Spirit and the Son come forth.

Spirit:
God is spirit therefore Gods Spirit is synonymous with God as the Father since the Father is God and is the Spirit.

Logos:
The Logos is the word of God/ Father. He is the expression of God. He is God. Now that He has been born a man He is the Son of God.

Conclusion:
What is so hard about that. It is Scriptural. Can you challenge that by Scripture? Can you show by Scripture that God has 3 personalities? Can you show by scripture that Jesus was always the Son?

I know your response to the personality question. You say that God talks to Himself therefore He has to have 3 consciousness and personalities. Where does God talk to Himself? When does the Spirit talk to the Father? Jesus speaks to the Father from His humanity. And at times He speaks from His divinity but many times it is more so that the people around will hear. Other times he is making statements. And he does sometimes talk to Him communingly but God can do that. God can be at more then one place at a time. God can talk to Himself just as He can relate to Himself. Saying that God cannot talk to Himself does not prove anything. You have to show by Scripture. All you are doing is questioning Scripture because I have shown by Scripture that the things I say are true this is not meant with offense.

I am having a hard time bringing clarity here. I think the teaching that Jesus did not become the Son til He was born has been established and everything else. I think the only thing that has not yet been cleared up with you is this question of how can God talk to Himself. You say your spirit cannot talk to you but it can you can council yourself. You say you word cannot talk to itself but Jesus is more generally the expression of God. So generally you can talk to yourself. You can love yourself. You can act toward yourself. I am trying to break confusion here please try to reason with me.

I looked over it. I am not ignorant to the mainstream teaching of the Triunity I am well versed in it. I would rather you point me to what you are trying to say.

That is what we have been doing, but it is becoming an exercise in futility. But I (for one) and I'm sure the others also, continue in the dialogue because there might be impressionable minds reading these things that are under the similar impression that essential Christian doctrine is somehow up for grabs. This is how heresy and cults get started. Starting this thread now seems more to be the propagation than a discussion.

Robert/ Phil,

That is what we have been doing,

but it is becoming an exercise in futility.

But I (for one) and I'm sure the others also, continue in the dialogue because there might be impressionable minds reading these things that are under the similar impression that essential Christian doctrine is somehow up for grabs. This is how heresy and cults get started. Starting this thread now seems more to be the propagation than a discussion.

Robert,

I don't think that these things are becoming futile. It is not as if we have gone over the same things repeatedly we have been making progress. I think that the last couple posts have become a bit unclear and that is why I am trying to sharpen them. I do think though that this thread is coming to an end in that I have answered all the question that there are to answer. I feel as if you saying that is not fair. I think that I have given correct and satisfying answers scripturally to your questions and now I feel as if you are making this statement with no reason behind it. Maybe because you dont have any thing else to argue within reason.

p.s. this is not written in animosity.

Show me the Bible.

The order of the words in Biblical Greek is not primarily to convey meaning but emphasis. So e.g. in our illustration if the full story was 'a boy and a girl were playing with a dog; the boy bit the dog'. If the case ending showed that 'the dog' was the subject then this would have the effect of saying "both were playing with the dog, but the dog bit the boy".??However in a sentence like 'god was the word' something else gives us the meaning. In these "equation" statements e.g. "the dog is an animal" the same case ending would be used for both; the nominative. This would make it impossible to know who bit whom, but the Greeks had a way around that too. The subject noun would be given the definite article 'the'. Now the word order of the sentence can be used to give the required emphasis but we can still identify the subject.

The Greek for John 1:1 is "and god was the word". This is an "equation sentence" so how can we know which is the subject? Easy, the subject has the definite article. So why not write "the word was God"? Simply because the writer wants to emphasize something else. It is a way of saying "what God was, the Word was". Everything that God was, the Word was. The lack of the definite article stops us from confusing the identify and person of 'the Word'(Jesus) with the identity and person of 'God' (the Father). The word order tells us that the Word has all the divine attributes of the Father; the word order tells us that the 'the Word' is not 'the Father'. Martin Luther once wrote that the lack of the definite article disproves Sabellianism and the word order disproves Arianism. Here's a little more Bible algebra. If it had said

"and the Word was the God" -> Sabellianism (Jesus-Only/Oneness)
"and the Word was a god" -> Arianism, hierarchical trinitarians (and JWs etc)
"and god was the Word" -> orthodox trinitarian.

So to have used the Greek word order ‘the word was the God’ would have said something quite different. It would have said that there was no difference between the Word and God which is an error still taught by some religious groups. To say the Word was a god would have indicated that the Word was less a ‘god’ than God was. To say, as the Greek order does, says exactly what John wanted to say. There is no confusion of identities, no setting of one above another; and yet perfect union. And to eliminate any possible of an ordered hierarchy we have the final statement. The same was in the beginning with God.

In these two sentences we have distinct identity, eternal fellowship, perfect union. As the old creeds used to say One God in Three Persons – Trinity.

edit: the phrase 'was with God' is "John 1:1 En archeœÇ eœn ho logos, kai ho logos eœn [u]pros ton theon[/u], kai theos eœn ho logos. "

We might have expected 'meta' here but we have 'eis' which is a preposition of movement and can be translated 'towards' or 'into'. In the pre-incarnation era we have here a clear intimation of 'towardsness' fellowship.

Phil,

I am not sure what you mean. The language is a bit difficult. I believe that the Word was God. Can you clarify/ sum up more simply? I believe that all 3 are equal. I do believe though that the Son is under the Father or at least on the right hand since He ultimately hands over the Kingdom and other things.

Phil,

Maybe you mean...

In these two sentences we have distinct identity, eternal fellowship, perfect union. As the old creeds used to say One God in Three Persons – Trinity.

I believe they had eternal fellowship as you have with you parts. You are intimately related to your arms and legs.

Perfect union is agreed upon.

We might have expected 'meta' here but we have 'eis' which is a preposition of movement and can be translated 'towards' or 'into'. In the pre-incarnation era we have here a clear intimation of 'towardsness' fellowship.

I think that I have given correct and satisfying answers scripturally to your questions and now I feel as if you are making this statement with no reason behind it. Maybe because you dont have any thing else to argue within reason.

A cursory search should confirm that the above is not true. It has become evident to me that no amount of evidence no matter how persuasive will alter your view. You then take the additional step of suggesting I am befuddled. At this point I am mainly concerned for those who may not have a firm grasp of the issues.

I believe they had eternal fellowship as you have with you parts. You are intimately related to your arms and legs.

Arms and legs do not have consciousness. I would never say to my arms and legs, "Let us make ______ in our own image."

Robert,

A cursory search should confirm that the above is not true. It has become evident to me that no amount of evidence no matter how persuasive will alter your view. You then take the additional step of suggesting I am befuddled. At this point I am mainly concerned for those who may not have a firm grasp of the issues.

Robert,

Arms and legs do not have consciousness.

davidt wrote:
Logic,

davidt wrote: Quote: Jesus is in the flesh glorified. The Holy Spirit is a spirit. The Father is Totaly other than, not a Spirit or in flesh. Yes I agree. I am not so sure about that last statement though.

What "last statement"?

When you said the Father is wholly other then and not a spirit. I say this because Scripture says that God is spirit. So I must say that the Father is spirit.

Tell me:
If The Fathather is [b]A[/b] Spirit & the Holy spirit is [b]A[/b] Spirit also, wouldn't there be two Holy Spirits?
Therefore, I say the Father is totally other that flesh or spirit.

Since when does towardsness mean fellowship. I am not saying that there is no relation between the 2. Is that the best verse you can come up with "not sarcastically"?

I say specifically to you though that you brought some questions to me and then I answered them and then you had nothing to say and so I figure that you have nothing else to say to prove that I was wrong.

In the beginning Eloy[u]im[/u] created the Heavens and the earth.

Your answer to the pronoun question is unacceptable. When God said, "Let [u]us[/u] make man in [u]our[/u] image and in [u]our[/u] likeness," He was not talking to a unique equivalent of His arms and legs. Arms and legs do not have personal characteristics that allow for conscious and intelligent dialogue.

There are many personal pronouns also in John 16 concerning the Holy Spirit.

[color=000066]Howbeit when [u]he[/u], the Spirit of truth, is come, [u]he[/u] will guide you into all truth: for [u]he[/u] shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever [u]he[/u] shall hear, that shall [u]he[/u] speak: and [u]he[/u] will shew you things to come. [u]He[/u] shall glorify [u]me[/u]: for [u]he[/u] shall receive of [u]mine[/u], and shall shew it unto [u]you[/u]. All things that the Father hath are [i]mine[/i]: therefore said I, that [u]he[/u] shall take of [i]mine[/i], and shall shew it unto [u]you[/u].[/color]

These are all personal pronouns describing the Holy Spirit. If the 'I' and 'you' are understood to be persons how can one rationally think that 'He' is not a person?

Logic on 2008/11/19 17:15:47
Scripture says that God is spirit. Not is A Spirit There is a diference

davidt on 2008/11/19 16:10:02
I believe distinct identity in the sense that there is distinction between the Word, Father, and Spirit just as my arm is different then my leg. But, I dont see this identity as being a distinct person.

[color=0000FF] Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Phil 2:5-8 NKJV [/color]

It was the Word who 'emptied himself' and 'took the form of a servant'. These were independent choices otherwise there is no virtue in the action.

This is only a partial analogy that should be obvious and apparent. You making this statement seems to me that this is the only argument that you have left. (not written in anymosity)

Are you having fun?

Logic,

You stated that the Father was wholly other then. I said I am not sure about that because I think that the Father is spirit. So I was not able to separate Him from the Spirit. This is a hard thing and I have not really delved in this far. I dont really understand this fully. If the Father is wholly other then what is He? I know there is a bit of a difference but cant really clarify the specifics at this point.

Phil,

It is one of the fundamental expressions of the Godhead in the scripture. If you know of a verse which is more comprehensive please let me know. As regards 'towardsness' the word clearly implies that the relationship is not static but fluid. This is a dynamic relationship and not a spacial one.

davidt on 2008/11/19 17:39:04
I just want to stick to what is clear.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Wordsworth]Christopher Wordsworth[/url], has this comment

[color=009900]o logos En pros ton theon - The Word was with God. He says 'pros' not 'en', [i]with[/i] God, not [i]in[/i]; showing the Word's Eternity, and that the Son was not circumscribed by any limits of space; and that He was without time, but never without God. Hence we may refute Sabellius, who said that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are merely one Person, who showed himself in various modes; for the Evangelist clearly distinguishes between the Person of God the Father and the Person of God the Son.[/color]

The word "God" is actually a simplified way of saying "Godhead".
When you here the word "God" think of the Godhead.
God is 1x1x1=1
Not
1+1+1=1

In order to understand how Jesus is the "Son of the Father", we need to define the word "son" as it relates to the Father & Son in the Godhead.
Son:
The Son is to uphold the Father's name, image & character.

The Son is who follows in the "footsteps of the Father?"

The Son is to do the work & say the Word(s) of the Father.

The Son is to represent the Father.

All of the Trinity has the same mind, purpose, attitude and goal; they are one (as unified).
However, each of them may have different thoughts (without departing from the unified mind)

Before Jesus was incarnate, all we have to go by is how Jesus is now, after the resurrection & how He was in the Old Testament.
Before Jesus was incarnate, He had glorified flesh.
Jesus may bee seen in several ways before and after the resurrection.

He may be seen as an Angel who would be indiscernible from another men, as He was on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24
I would assume that this is the form He came as in the Old Testament.

Jesus may be seen as John saw Him in Revelation 1:14-16

Jesus may bee seen as He was seen in Matthew 17:2 on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Logic on 2008/11/19 18:03:39

Before Jesus was incarnate, He had glorified flesh.

philologos wrote:

Logic on 2008/11/19 18:03:39

Before Jesus was incarnate, He had glorified flesh.

what!?!
the scripture says very specifically that the 'Word [i]became[/i] flesh'. This is a distinct event not part of Christ's pre-incarnation character.

visited Abraham with the two other angels(Gen 18:1)?

When He wrestled with Jacob(Gen 32:24-)?

With the three men in the furnace of Daniel(Dan 3:25)?

When all the times when He appeared as an "Angel of the LORD" in the Old testament?

Were all these instances [b]not[/b] glorified flesh?
Why or how would it be any different than these instances? John 20:19,26, John 21:4
Or Luke 24:36?

Was Jesus in the form of something else instead of glorified flesh in the old testament in the Scriptures I presented?
If not, then what?

what!?!
the scripture says very specifically that the 'Word became flesh'. This is a distinct event not part of Christ's pre-incarnation character.

Davidt, I have already presented you with criticisms, it was the very first reply to your post. It is reasonable and sound and is based from Scripture. I also gave you several links, including St Augustine "On the Trinity", Jonathan Edwards "Unpublished Essays on the Trinity", A.W. Tozer "The Holy Trinity", etc. Indeed it was a scholarly reply with substantial information.

How can God be personal if He did not have a couple of friends to talk to from all eternity? Well I am not saying that God does not relate with Himself. The Word is the expression of Him. The Spirit searches Him. And He Himself is love itself and love can be satisfied within in itself without having multiple personalities. A man needs to love and be loved but God is love itself. God does love Himself for to love love is to love but not in the sense of talking to Himself and ect in 3 persons because the Bible does not teach 3 personalities. This philosophy was produced in order to prove to skeptics that the Triunity is true. Saying God is Triune if He werent He would be lonely this was their apologetic. God is Triune if He werent He couldnt be personal they say. I am not saying He is not Triune only that He does not have 3 seperate personalities but one with 3 functions, expressions, parts. God is still relational with Himself as love. We cannot hang out with ourselves because we were created or love but God is uncreated as love.

This is very simple. You are trying to define God, with what appears to be a proper description of His divinity, but you continue to keep trying to fit Him into a weak and irrational model.

And He Himself is love itself and love can be satisfied within in itself without having multiple personalities.

head: "I love you arm."
arm: "I love you too, head."

However, the arm and the head had no thoughts or expressions of their own design. They are nothing of themselves. They both spoke from the same center of consciousness. So you might as well say God has 3 mouths whereby one brain speaks with at different times. But it is no different than if He spoke from one and the same mouth each time -- what you have been describing is true schizophrenia. Thus, you are wrongly speaking of multiple personalities because you are describing three persons from one consciousness. The doctrine of the Trinity defines God as having Three distinct Persons -- this is not multiple personalities as one might be schizophrenic; this is multiple personalities as you might find between 3 different family members. However, they each share the same substance and essence of Deity.

God does love Himself for to love love is to love but not in the sense of talking to Himself and ect in 3 persons because the Bible does not teach 3 personalities.

My hands have specific expressions and functions however my hands are nothing without my conscious ability to use them. My hands and feet and expressive abilities, we may even conclude the brain to be the same as my hands and feet (if we believe man's center of consciousness is his soul) then this body is like a puppet's shell. The Father, Son, and Spirit would also be a puppet's shell because none of them are God in and of themselves but rather are expressions of God. Just as my mouth, eyes, hands, feet, voice are not myself but ways in which I function and express myself.

This philosophy was produced in order to prove to skeptics that the Triunity is true.

Saying God is Triune if He werent He would be lonely this was their apologetic.

God is still relational with Himself as love. We cannot hang out with ourselves because we were created or love but God is uncreated as love.

Was Jesus in the form of something else instead of glorified flesh in the old testament in the Scriptures I presented? If not, then what?

These revelations/manifestations of God were always of the one we call the Son.

[color=0000FF] “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.” Mic 5:2 NKJV[/color]

These 'goings forth' as this verse makes clear were long before his arrival in 'flesh' in Bethlehem.

The term 'flesh' in this sense really conveys 'humanness'. He did not 'appear' as a man in the incarnation, He 'became' a man. We must keep these differences in mind.

philologos wrote:

Was Jesus in the form of something else instead of glorified flesh in the old testament in the Scriptures I presented? If not, then what?

Traditionally these have been referred to as 'theophanies'. Theophanies are 'pre-incarnation manifestations of the Word'.

Angels do not 'have bodies' but that does not prevent them from 'appearing' and behaving as human. The Word did not 'have flesh' until the Word became flesh.

The term 'flesh' in this sense really conveys 'humanness'. He did not 'appear' as a man in the incarnation, He 'became' a man. We must keep these differences in mind.

Logic on 2008/11/19 21:50:58
pLEASE define "the Word" Because, when I think of "the Word",it is not some intangible verbage that God utters, I see "it" as Jesus before He was called Jesus.

Quote: Angels do not 'have bodies' but that does not prevent them from 'appearing' and behaving as human. The Word did not 'have flesh' until the Word became flesh.

Are you implying that when He ate with Abraham, He didn't have glorified flesh, but something else than when He ate with the disciples after His resurection?

Do you think that jesus a "man" still, now that He is resurrected and in heaven? Do you think that He still all human & all God or all man & all God?

davidt

I am still awaiting an answer to my questions regarding the Philippian passage in my post of "philologos on 2008/11/19 17:25:57"

There are, to my mind, 4 supreme passages which bear special witness to this subject.

John 1:1-18
2 Cor 8:9
Phil 2:5-11
Col 1:15-18

When we have discussed Philippians 2 we can move onto the Corinthian and Colossian passages... probably after the Revival Conference in Scotland...

Phil,

It is one of the fundamental expressions of the Godhead in the scripture. If you know of a verse which is more comprehensive please let me know.

As regards 'towardsness' the word clearly implies that the relationship is not static but fluid. This is a dynamic relationship and not a spacial one.

Well, in regards to the topic we were talking about I didn't really see the relevance. It was hard to know what you were talking about as well so I am not sure I got it.

Now,don't go off on the rabbit trail of your legs and arms again. I do not have fellowship with my arms and legs and neither do you. You tell them what to do and they do it. They are not self-conscious and have no means of self-expression or choice. Self-consciousness, self-expression and choice are elements of personality; a personality which was clearly in existence before the incarnation.

Robert,

Thank you for replying to this. I just was not clear about it I thought I had answered it satisfactorily.

These are all personal pronouns describing the Holy Spirit. If the 'I' and 'you' are understood to be persons how can one rationally think that 'He' is not a person?

p.s. for a minute do not question me but answer me and do not answer me with a question. Allow me to turn it around and ask, "does your word and spirit have a separate personality? I don't think so and since God's other expressions are His word and spirit and words and spirit don't have personalities you can say that they do not have distinct personalities but one together as yourself. I think that once you prove that the Son has not always been the Son but only the Word that the conception of a distinct personality is erased. For a Son may have a distinct personality but a word does not.

Phil,

my leg has no independent power of action.

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Phil 2:5-8 NKJV

It was the Word who 'emptied himself' and 'took the form of a servant'.

Robert,

This is only a partial analogy that should be obvious and apparent. You making this statement seems to me that this is the only argument that you have left. (not written in anymosity)

Are you having fun?

Ben,

Are there any hard feelings from yesterday?

Who died on the cross for you?

Phil,

He says 'pros' not 'en', with God, not in; showing the Word's Eternity,

Logic,

glorified flesh

Bog,

Davidt, I have already presented you with criticisms, it was the very first reply to your post. It is reasonable and sound and is based from Scripture.

I also gave you several links, including St Augustine "On the Trinity", Jonathan Edwards "Unpublished Essays on the Trinity", A.W. Tozer "The Holy Trinity", etc. Indeed it was a scholarly reply with substantial information.

This is very simple. You are trying to define God, with what appears to be a proper description of His divinity, but you continue to keep trying to fit Him into a weak and irrational model.

And He Himself is love itself and love can be satisfied within in itself without having multiple personalities.

If this is true, then listen: The Father has no center of consciousness (Person) of His own, the Son has no center of consciousness , the Spirit has no center of consciousness. Therefore, what you are saying is like this,

how does God's love fulfill "love does not seek its own".

God is still relational with Himself as love. We cannot hang out with ourselves because we were created or love but God is uncreated as love.

Ah, that explains everything, so, which scripture revealed this to you?

Ben,

the Word

I don't think trying to imagine what it is like to be God and talking about personalities has been very fruitful.

You were talking about God loving himself and ideas about what God does and doesn't do "with" or "to" or "for" himself have been popping up throughout but I can't think of any scripture that encourages us to attempt to fathom the trinity through such ideas, phrases, etc. Ben

Phil,

I am still awaiting an answer to my questions regarding the Philippian passage in my post of "philologos on 2008/11/19 17:25:57"

davidt on 2008/11/20 14:09:01
It does not say "being in the form of the 2nd person of the Trinity" it says being in the form of God.

The point Paul is making is that the one that we know as Christ Jesus was distinctively 'equal' with God. He was in the 'form of God'; later he took the 'form of a slave'.

The Word and God are no different essentially. The word is the glory of God. Gods glory is not another person.

This is the essence of Trinitarian teaching that Christ is both 'with God' and 'is God' and yet these two statements are not tautology.

Phil,

Now,don't go off on the rabbit trail of your legs and arms again. I do not have fellowship with my arms and legs and neither do you.

fellowship proves persons

God
does not speak to the Spirit
does not speak to the Logos

Logos
does not speak to God
does not speak to the Spirit

Spirit
does not speak to God
does not speak to the Logos

Son
this is the only exception and that is because of the form as man

Conclusion
The times though when God does speak to Himself it is because of this. God is spirit and so can be 2 places at once and so can talk to himself. He can have 2 mouths.

Phil,

The point Paul is making is that the one that we know as Christ Jesus was distinctively 'equal' with God.

The point Paul is making is that the one that we know as Christ Jesus

This won't become true just because you
keep saying it.

This is the essence of Trinitarian teaching that Christ is both 'with God' and 'is God' and yet these two statements are not tautology.

God, the Spirit, and the Logos are all the same.

The Spirit is the same because the Spirit is God's spirit and God is spirit so there is no difference. The only difference is that the Spirit goes out into the world and searches the deep things of God while God sits on the throne. God on the throne has taken on form since spirit can do this. These are the only differences.

The Logos is the glory of God, the express image of His person, the word of God. Your word and such does not carry another personality the same goes with your spirit.

God is the Spirit and the Logos. The Lord is the Spirit as it says in Corinthians. And the Logos in human form said I and my Father are one if you have seen me you have seen the Father.

Deep,

I have many things to think of concerning the nature of Jesus as well. I like a few of the things you wrote on being stripped and so forth. Good luck with trying to read all that has been posted :). I would just read the first couple of posts and some of my more recent one. Also the disagreements I just dont know how much time I would spend on all the intricacies as somethings have been repeated, misunderstood, and so forth.

But remember the "trinity" is embedded into peoples minds down through the centuries and it's a subject that is "case sensitive" to those that hold to it's tradition of belief.

Please do not patronise those who view things differently from yourself. If you have some thoughts share them and lets examine them together.

davidt on 2008/11/20 15:11:38
Yes, the reason Paul was trying to show that Jesus was equal with God was to show that He was God and there was no difference. If there was a difference in person then it would be noted but it is not. It is not clearly taught anywhere.

The reason He uses the word Christ is to denote that the only distinction is His humanity as the Christ not that He is different in His Divinity.

This is the essence of Trinitarian teaching that Christ is both 'with God' and 'is God' and yet these two statements are not tautology.

I have already responded to this. God as a spirit can take on multiple and distinct forms but that does not mean He has multiple personalities. As in the throne room vision in Revelation. The Father was on the Throne, the Lamb was in its midst, and the 7 spirits are before the throne. These 3 are separate in form because God as spirit can do that but it does not mean that they have 3 personalities that are different just 3 functions.

Phil,

You are confusing equivalence with identity.

You have created a god who is multi-part and who divided himself up

then has conversations with his 'separated' part

Have you tried to apply your conclusions to the Holy Spirit? Is he still 'part' of the 'integrated' God or has He too now become a separate entity?

The Spirit is the same because the Spirit is God's spirit and God is spirit so there is no difference. The only difference is that the Spirit goes out into the world and searches the deep things of God while God sits on the throne. God on the throne has taken on form since spirit can do this. These are the only differences.

The Logos is the glory of God, the express image of His person, the word of God. Your word and such does not carry another personality the same goes with your spirit.

God is the Spirit and the Logos. The Lord is the Spirit as it says in Corinthians. And the Logos in human form said I and my Father are one if you have seen me you have seen the Father.

Am I right in thinking that you are now saying that Father, Son and Spirit are now 'functions' of Godhead?

p.s. I have chosen not to answer all your questions because I feel I have answered them and dont want to go too deep into semantics and there are so many topics that simplicity is best.

I had previously not gone that deep I had merely begun with Scripture and accepted it and had not chased down every thought as far as on this post so some of what I was saying was in alpha form and not beta.

The reason why we have chased these things out is because beliefs have consequences. In previous discussions of the Trinity we have asked, in effect, if it is possible to grasp other essential Christian truths with an improper understanding of God. I think the answer is clearly 'no'.

As we have had this discussion I have had in the back of my mind the effect this unorthodox view has on Penal Substitution theory? I think it is worth noticing that so many aberrational doctrinal views end up effecting their understanding of what was accomplished on the Cross.

I'll be out a while in the UK so won't be able to participate.

I am just saying that Paul calls Jesus God because He is. There is no mention of a second person. If I were in the form of you I would be you I would not have another personality. Jesus is in the form of God and so does not have another personality and is one with Him.

I have recently written more on this topic and in general: God, the Spirit, and the Logos are all the same.

Am I right in thinking that you are now saying that Father, Son and Spirit are now 'functions' of Godhead?

Why not? I am not understanding. The Godhead is just God summed up or His entirety and that is what the Logos, Spirit, and God are.

Robert,

The reason why we have chased these things out is because beliefs have consequences.

edit:have a good time at the conference.

Phil,

I am just saying that Paul calls Jesus God because He is. There is no mention of a second person. If I were in the form of you I would be you I would not have another personality. Jesus is in the form of God and so does not have another personality and is one with Him. No, you would not.

So the Father sent Himself in the creation and again Himself at Pentecost? That the Son should 'go' and the Spirit should 'come'

Then you are into full-blown modalism.

God, the Spirit, and the Logos are all the same.

The Spirit is the same because the Spirit is God's spirit and God is spirit so there is no difference. The only difference is that the Spirit goes out into the world and searches the deep things of God while God sits on the throne. God on the throne has taken on form since spirit can do this. These are the only differences.

The Logos is the glory of God, the express image of His person, the word of God. Your word and such does not carry another personality the same goes with your spirit.

God is the Spirit and the Logos. The Lord is the Spirit as it says in Corinthians. And the Logos in human form said I and my Father are one if you have seen me you have seen the Father.

So, as there is no difference from you your spirit and your word so there is no difference with God's spirit and word. Simply.

Davidt, honestly, no. You are stuck in your pride sir. I am sorry that you have spent some 4 years "extensively" studying the "Triunity", as you say, and yet it doesn't take but 4 seconds to see that it doesn't stand. You have done a fine job of reading scriptures but you have shown yourself incapable of apprehending the Godhead because you don't seem to be able to put two thoughts together and see that they contradict.

Forgive me if I am being disrespectful, but the only ones that will believe this doctrine you are trying to promote are the same people who think that "The Shack" is good theology. Fortunately for you there seems to be a lot of those people, just not here on SI.

If you were to try to present this to secular intellectuals, besides the fact that they hate God, you will only convince them further that there is no God when you present to them a God that is clearly formed of your own imagination. As they will not be distracted by many scripture references but will rather analyze the content of your doctrine. I say this for your own protection but perhaps it is the very thing that needs to happen before you will take a look at the things you believe.

If you say you are in the form of something it is pretty simple to understand that you are that thing. If I am in the form of a banana then I am an banana. Jesus was in the form of God and therefore was God. He is God. God's glory does not have its own personality!

"He is God" = "God's glory does not have its own personality!"

What a definition! If this is true then apparently God doesn't have His own personality.

The Logos is the glory of God, the express image of His person, the word of God. Your word and such does not carry another personality the same goes with your spirit.

You will notice in John's gospel,
[b]John 17
4.[/b] I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
([b]Note:[/b] the glory with which Jesus glorified the Father was this: "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.")

[b]5.[/b] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
([b]Note:[/b] "[b]glorify thou me [u]with thine own self[/u][/b]", what a strange request for "God's glory" to say to the Father!)

Question: [b]how does God's love fulfill "love does not seek its own".[/b]

This is in context to loving you sinful nature. Or the kind of self love that neglects others. But when God loves Himself in that He loves others for when He loves Himself He loves love and therefore will love others since love loves others.

I wonder if you even begin to grasp what you have written here.

1) "This is in context to loving you sinful nature. Or the kind of self love that neglects others."
You have just said here that God loves sin.

2) "But when God loves Himself in that He loves others"
Again, I will say it again because you didn't understand the first time; if you even thought about this the first time. God has existed from eternity past before the creation of men. THAT MEANS! He existed before we sinful creatures existed. THAT MEANS (according to your theology)! That before man came into actual existence God's love was not perfect because His love had no one else to love. At the very most, you might say that God's love looked forward to a time when He might actually love His creation. And at the very least, you have just made God dependent upon His creation to perfect love. THAT MEANS! God is not Self-Sufficient in your doctrine because without His creatures He cannot "love others". THAT MEANS! When "He loves Himself He loves love" in vain "since love loves others" who don't yet exist.

The foreknowledge of God concerning creation does not fulfill the requirements of perfect love because, again, it makes God eternally and infinitely dependent, contingent, reliant, conditional upon something that is not God, namely, His creatures. Does this not move you at all? Honestly brother, you say you are merely reading the bible and this is the doctrine it teaches, but you know very well you are using your own eisegesis. To what end and purpose, I wonder?

Bog,

You are stuck in your pride sir.

"The Shack"

If you were to try to present this to secular intellectuals,

What a definition! If this is true then apparently God doesn't have His own personality.

(Note: "glorify thou me with thine own self", what a strange request for "God's glory" to say to the Father!)

1) "This is in context to loving you sinful nature. Or the kind of self love that neglects others." You have just said here that God loves sin.

THAT MEANS (according to your theology)! That before man came into actual existence God's love was not perfect because His love had no one else to love.

He loved Himself and that is love indeed. And loving Himself is a good thing since He is love.

Circular logic of "love" and "love loves" and "loves Himself" and "is love" without any substance of meaning. Perhaps you ought to enroll yourself into a Christian morals & ethics course; yea, Professors love reading stuff like this.

Davidt you have said that you are searching the scriptures without and preconceived notions of the Godhead but how I wish you did!

You are like the blind leading the blind: without any expectation of "what you believe to be true" you cannot see where and when the scriptures shatter your own construction. You continue to completely miss what "love" is. Have you really read the scriptures that describe love?

[b]Galatians 6
2.[/b] Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.

Tell me, how does God fulfill this law? I mean, which God? Do I mean God's glory? Do I mean His Spirit? Or do I mean the Father? Is the Father God? Or is God just a form of the true God?

You have made this very difficult to discuss because you have made God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit to be forms and expressions and shadows of a substance which you have not defined. Or, did you define God by combining the Father, Son, and Spirit together as One? By combining three modes of expression do we define the source? Or... was God defined as God's thoughts? Or... maybe God is love and love is God and love is love loves Himself is loves others because that is good? Why is that good? because God is love...

Is God God or is God a part of God or is God the essence of God?

Does God loving Himself as love satisfy the requirement of "loving others"?

How does God fulfill the Law of Christ, how does He "bear one another's burdens" without having another individual?

Is God infinite and complete God or is God a particular finite portion of God?

Is God a schizophrenic "three-faced" being or is God Trinity?

It is evident that you are far gone from "slightly differing". Please, make up your mind and put an end to all of this slippery nonsense.

Hello Inthelight, I have touched on this issue a couple times. I have read the passage you provided and here is what I have to say. Francis and C.S. were mainly philosopher's. In my original post I talked of how I received the teaching of eternal relation of the 3 person from all eternity for companionship. Much of the reason my school taught this and others was because of the comments by Lewis and probably Francis as well. I am not downing Philosophy but a lot of the time it is empty with good sounding words or extra biblical. How can God be personal if He did not have a couple of friends to talk to from all eternity? Well I am not saying that God does not relate with Himself. The Word is the expression of Him. The Spirit searches Him. And He Himself is love itself and love can be satisfied within in itself without having multiple personalities. A man needs to love and be loved but God is love itself. God does love Himself for to love love is to love but not in the sense of talking to Himself and ect in 3 persons because the Bible does not teach 3 personalities. This philosophy was produced in order to prove to skeptics that the Triunity is true. Saying God is Triune if He werent He would be lonely this was their apologetic. God is Triune if He werent He couldnt be personal they say. I am not saying He is not Triune only that He does not have 3 seperate personalities but one with 3 functions, expressions, parts. God is still relational with Himself as love. We cannot hang out with ourselves because we were created or love but God is uncreated as love.

Sorry I haven't been able to get back to this for a couple of days but I would like to address your reply to my question.

It is true that there is much empty philosophy out there however, we should not abandon philosophy. Just as every parent would be disappointed if their child never asked "why?", so God must be concerned when men attempt to stifle the built-in philosophical urge which He has put in each of us. Take the philosopher out of man and he ceases to be the one God created. In other words, destroy his sense of destiny and purpose and he soon becomes nothing more than a beast.

Therefore what is needed is a God centered philosophy in which we see life steadily and as a whole. Adequate universals are needed and the Christian has such universals including what we know about the Trinity. The Christian philosophy was not invented, as you suggest, as an apologetic to defend the Trinity, it is simply the only real answer to the question of man's destiny and purpose which can consistently be lived by.

For example, in your philosophy the existance of love as we know it in our makeup can only have its origin in chance. But the Christian philosophy of the existance of love in the makeup of man has its origin in that which has always been - love between the persons of the Trinity from before the foundation of the world.

I can know something truly of what it means when the Bible tells me that God the Father loves God the Son. When I see a young couple together obviously showing love I don't know all that they feel for one another and yet I too love my wife and so I don't look at them as an animal would look at them without understanding. It's not exhaustive understanding but it is true understanding. And when I talk about love existing between God the Father and God the Son I'm not just talking nonsense. Though I am only scratching the surface of love in the Godhead, yet the word love has real meaning for me, meaning that I can consistently live by.

In Christ,

Ron

Bog,

All I have done is state simply what I believe in 4 to 5 sentences. Then you asked me a whole bunch of questions and made a whole bunch of statements and so I replied to them. I have not tried to write confusingly. I think much of the confusion is based on you not understanding what I am saying. Your earlier posts had accusations in them of my character and doctrine, it had quotes from men, it had philosophies, and other things. So I had to respond to all this. I have not written anything confusing. Here is what I have written in short multiple times:

[b]God, the Spirit, and the Logos are all the same.

The Spirit is the same because the Spirit is God's spirit and God is spirit so there is no difference. The only difference is that the Spirit goes out into the world and searches the deep things of God while God sits on the throne. God on the throne has taken on form since spirit can do this. These are the only differences.

The Logos is the glory of God, the express image of His person, the word of God. Your word and such does not carry another personality the same goes with your spirit.

God is the Spirit and the Logos. The Lord is the Spirit as it says in Corinthians. And the Logos in human form said I and my Father are one if you have seen me you have seen the Father.[/b]

Now what is it that you disagree with me on? Please do not reference men or philosophy or make accusations just give me Scripture in simplicity. When you question my doctrine it is mainly in these things like how can this make sense and that and then I have to correct you and explain it and show you what I really mean. I am not sure you are taking the time to understand what I am saying. As an exhortation the Scriptures say he who is slow to anger is great in understanding so before you go and call me things at least give me a chance to answer your questions. So far I have answered your question. I will once again try to. If I leave something out please systematically point out the things that you disagree with me on so that I can respond to them.

The only thing I can think of now is the philosophy that God cant exist without multiple persons because He can neither show love to another nor relate and so cant be loving or relational. I have already stated that God can love Himself and is sufficient in that. Have you never heard of God centered theology? Why do you act like this is a big thing? Many Christians even here on this forum understand this concept. The Christian world has lost the center of Christianity and that is God. God is the sun in which all things orbit around. As I said all things are through Him and to Him and for Him. Do you not believe that God desires to glorify Himself? So why is it so hard to believe that God wants to love Himself? This is simple and sure doctrine that the mass of Christians hold to. Go ahead and check out desiringgod.com by John Piper on the front page you will see an article called God loves Himself. If you do not understand God centered theology then you are missing the most central and main teaching in Christian doctrine. If God is not the center then who is. Once again I want to promote edification and progressive debate so please systematically let me know what you disagree with so we can have a clear and reasonable discussion on this.

Inthelight,

It is true that there is much empty philosophy out there however, we should not abandon philosophy.

The Christian philosophy was not invented, as you suggest, as an apologetic to defend the Trinity

I can know something truly of what it means when the Bible tells me that God the Father loves God the Son.

For example, in your philosophy the existance of love as we know it in our makeup can only have its origin in chance. But the Christian philosophy of the existance of love in the makeup of man has its origin in that which has always been - love between the persons of the Trinity from before the foundation of the world.

[b]God, the Spirit, and the Logos are all the same.

The Spirit is the same because the Spirit is God's spirit and God is spirit so there is no difference. The only difference is that the Spirit goes out into the world and searches the deep things of God while God sits on the throne. God on the throne has taken on form since spirit can do this. These are the only differences.

The Logos is the glory of God, the express image of His person, the word of God. Your word and such does not carry another personality the same goes with your spirit.

God is the Spirit and the Logos. The Lord is the Spirit as it says in Corinthians. And the Logos in human form said I and my Father are one if you have seen me you have seen the Father.[/b]

Deepthinker,

I was only pointing out the aspects of "traditions" and how deeply entrenched they can be. If I have offended you or anyone, please forgive me. As a token of my sincerity I'll refrain from adding more to this thread.

[b][color=FF0000]2 questions to everyone in general:[/color][/b]

The 2 things that I mainly believe differently about the Triunity are this. One, I do not believe that God has 3 multiple personalities. Two, I do not believe that the Logos has always been the Son.

[b]Can anyone prove that the Logos was eternally the Son?[/b] Because no one has and it seems after my initial responses no one has tried and I suspect and believe it is because no one can. The topics of the person has been brought up though and on that I will also question.

[b]Does you word and spirit have a different personality?[/b]I believe the answer is no but I still want you to answer. So why do you say that God's word and spirit have distinct personalities and therefore claim that God has 3 different personalities. If He did then you would have 3 personalities.

Can anyone prove that the Logos was eternally the Son?

How ironic that you would ask for facts when your theology gives no basis for verifiable facts and knowing. In your view a word such as love can have no meaning or value beyond your own limited realm.

You said that you didn't understand what I meant by "chance" in my last post. How can your understanding of love be anything but a product of chance if it doesn't have its fulfillment in what has always been? How can love have validity and meaning without the reality of that love always existing between the Father and Son in the Trinity?

The Father loved the Son from before creation. God also loves us and we are to love God. The word and act of love have crossed into mankind. Finally I am commanded by God to love my wife, children, and neighbors, here on earth. Together these facts give true meaningfulness and value to me when I say that I love.

In Christ,

Ron

Inthelight,

How ironic that you would ask for facts when your theology gives no basis for verifiable facts and knowing. In your view a word such as love can have no meaning or value beyond your own limited realm.

You said that you didn't understand what I meant by "chance" in my last post. How can your understanding of love be anything but a product of chance if it doesn't have its fulfillment in what has always been? How can love have validity and meaning without the reality of that love always existing between the Father and Son in the Trinity?

This is not meant with any attitude but you have not answered my question. You only make more personal accusations and statements that I have already replied to. This is usually what people do when they feel insecure and threatened they respond not with reason but defensively. Please as I have asked just a minute ago reason with me. If there is something that you dont agree with list it one by one and I will try to ask you clearly without a smorgasborg of things going on. And please answer my questions and dont answers a question with another question.

Bro. David,

I have read a lot in this thread. You seem to have a lot of wisdom from the Lord and to be very candid in your writings. I believe you are sincere. I may be wrong but I believe you have come to this area of understanding because of your desire for the glory of God. I think you have a problem with saying trinity because it is not in the bible and because it makes it seem like God is 3 Gods in unity, when the scriptures make it clear that God is one and that there is none else. There are several verses besides Isaiah 45:22 (KJV) Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else…that clearly talk about the honor of one God.

I have also experience things that I have had a problem with like worshipping the trinity when the word is not even in the bible and is not fully explain neither in the bible nor by those who believe in it. There are different views of the trinity and the one that makes God be three God’s in unity with one another I disagree with and I also believe most on SI would also disagree with this view. The trinity to most is the best way man has come up with explaining the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We Christians all must believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all God. There are so many scriptures that prove that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. I think in order to be a true Christian we all must believe this.

Here is something I have discovered concerning the Godhead and this became more real to me after I experience an infilling of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. There is an order in the Godhead. The Father is God and is first. The Son came from the Father, being God from Him, and is second. The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son, being God from the Father, and is third. I will stop for now because I won’t to see what you agree with so far.

(PS. I have written what I have written in all honesty of the things I have experienced and have had problems with, so please; don’t jump in on me over what I have stated here because I do want to see where David is coming from if He doesn’t mind answering me.)

Blessings to all!

Hm, I wonder if you are prepared to listen and consider now. I have been asking questions and criticizing based specifically on what you have written. You seem to think these are exaggerated questions that I am making up, which is why I am left with the impression that you are either not thinking or not listening.

Whatever the case, I will attempt to answer your points one by one as clearly as possible.

God, the Spirit, and the Logos are all the same.

Why the Son being baptized, and the Father's voice speaking from heaven, and the Spirit descending in bodily form as a dove? Why the Son taking His blood and offering it up through the Holy Spirit unto the Father? You say you don't believe the Father died on the cross, yet, you say there is no difference between the Father and the Son or the Spirit. You contradict yourself continuously on this point.

You say you don't believe in a God of multiple personalities, ok fine. How interesting that the Son prays to the Father to send another Comforter (the Spirit). Was Jesus of Nazaresth different from the Father and Spirit while He was walking as a man on the earth? Or is it true that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and for ever? Perhaps He may have been in a bodily vessel, so prepared by the Father by the Holy Spirit coming upon a virgin woman, but Jesus did not change. Thus, to be consistent, if we say even while Jesus was a man He was still the same as the Father and the Spirit, as you said yourself, "if you have seen me (Jesus) you have seen the Father". However, did you likewise notice when Jesus said, "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father." So, what does Jesus really mean when He says, "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him"? Listen to this, "And He (Jesus) is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power." What does this mean? Let us look to Hebrews the great revelation of Jesus our High Priest.

[b]Hebrews 1:8-9[/b]
But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."

Hm, the Son is God and He loves and hates and is compared to his companions, etc. These are personality traits. I wonder, do you think Jesus of Nazareth had a personality of His own as distinguished from the Father and the Spirit? Or do you believe Jesus, the Son, was also the Father and the Spirit in bodily flesh? We do read that in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. However, Jesus said, "not my will but Thy will be done." Did Jesus distinguish His own will from the Father's will?

"Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."

The Holy Spirit can be grieved, this is a personality trait. Also Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit. A force, or energy, or non-personal essence cannot be lied to.

Do I need to mention anything concerning the Father's display of personality? I believe these brief verses should be enough to make this point: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all display personality traits.

The Spirit is the same because the Spirit is God's spirit and God is spirit so there is no difference. The only difference is that the Spirit goes out into the world and searches the deep things of God while God sits on the throne. God on the throne has taken on form since spirit can do this. These are the only differences.

The Logos is the glory of God, the express image of His person, the word of God. Your word and such does not carry another personality the same goes with your spirit.

God is the Spirit and the Logos. The Lord is the Spirit as it says in Corinthians. And the Logos in human form said I and my Father are one if you have seen me you have seen the Father.

The 2 things that I mainly believe differently about the Triunity are this. One, I do not believe that God has 3 multiple personalities.

This is also of great consideration: Jesus said, "If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true."

"... for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish--the very works that I do (this is the witness of the Holy Spirit as declared in the reading of [b]Isaiah 61[/b] from [b]Luke 4[/b]) --testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me.
"And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form."

Here we have Jesus Himself, the Spirit, and the Father each counted as different testifiers concerning the testimony of Jesus. If we believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the Same without distinction then these are false testimonies; for then there is truly only One-Person who testifies with three different expressions and that just doesn't fly. As Jesus said, "If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true." If you would like to say this another way: God testified concerning Himself, God bore witness with signs and wonders, and God testified of God. That adds up to how many testifiers? Lets count ... God, that makes One; thus if this is what we believe then the testimony is not true.

Two, I do not believe that the Logos has always been the Son.

Can anyone prove that the Logos was eternally the Son? Because no one has and it seems after my initial responses no one has tried and I suspect and believe it is because no one can. The topics of the person has been brought up though and on that I will also question.

Does you word and spirit have a different personality? I believe the answer is no but I still want you to answer.

So why do you say that God's word and spirit have distinct personalities and therefore claim that God has 3 different personalities. If He did then you would have 3 personalities.

davidt on 2008/11/21 0:38:11
Can anyone prove that the Logos was eternally the Son? Because no one has and it seems after my initial responses no one has tried and I suspect and believe it is because no one can. The topics of the person has been brought up though and on that I will also question.

Does you word and spirit have a different personality?I believe the answer is no but I still want you to answer. So why do you say that God's word and spirit have distinct personalities and therefore claim that God has 3 different personalities. If He did then you would have 3 personalities.

If you had not introduced the idea of a multi-part God which you seem to think is more worship-worthy than a multi-person God, the conversation might have taken a different route.

Are you familiar with the language of Eternal Sonship versus Voluntary Sonship? Theologians get very twitchy about this as I have found to my own cost at times. The question could be expressed like this...

[b]Was the Word always in a Son-Father relationship or did the Word choose that Son-Father relationship at a 'time' in eternity?[/b] This is a difficult concept to get a hold of because the revelation of the Word that pertains to our creation is the revelation that we encounter as the Son of God. In other words almost all our data is coming from the 'redemption history' that we find in the Bible. This will affect every revelation statement about the Word with the exception of those that consciously reach back before the beginning of anything when 'only God was'.

Sometimes in the scripture we have a phenomena called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolepsis]prolepsis[/url]. It is the phenomena which results in references to the land of the Philistines at a time when the Philistines had not settled the land. Bible skeptics falsely think it is anachronism but it is not. If I say "the mighty Columba has flowed Oregon into the Pacific for millennia." I am using a prolepsis; Oregon has not existed for millennia, only the place that we [u]now[/u] call Oregon. This is a bit complex but I think it is important to undestand the perspective of the Bible.

I think the reason that good theologians are so suspicious of the idea of anything 'less' than Eternal Sonship is that they are trying to make sure that we do not have a 'distinct being' coming into existence at a point in 'time'. In other words they are anxious that we do not give the Word a beginning. To do so, they rightly understand, would be to diminish his worth and glory.

But if we can maintain the Eternity of the Word and see the Word making a choice to become Son in order to fulfill the purposes of redemption I think there is value in that.

Let me state my current position here carefully so that it can be understood.

The Word is an identifiable person within the Godhead and always has been. He was always 'with God' and 'was God', co-equal, co-personal, co-substantial. He is distinguishable from 'God' but not separable from 'God'. (This is where you and I disagree so fundamentally.)

...but I do believe that there is a biblical case for 'Voluntary Sonship' and that it does not diminish but enhances the wonder of God's love for his creation without lessening his essential glory. Some time ago I preached on this topic and if you are interested you can listen to it [url=http://mp3.biblebase.com/download_244.html]here.[/url]

I have provided scripture, reasons, over and over throughout all these posts. I have done my best to answer every question straightforward. I dont understand how you can say this.

I sense your frustration, forgive me if I'm not making myself clear. I say this to get you to consider that your position creates tremendous problems when it comes to fundamental philosophical questions such as the meaning of love as we know it. I am hoping to stir you to think through your philosophy and consider whether you can live consistently by it.

There is nothing contradictory by the laws of reason in the Trinity. Now we may have a hard time picturing this - is this some kind of three-headed beast? I can't picture it in my mind.

Why is it that you can't accept the truthfulness of something if you can't image it in your mind? Tell me what love looks like. Tell me what God looks like. You can't image God in your mind. In fact, you are prohibited from trying to do so. The First Commandment, by the way. You can't image God. You can't image love. You can't image justice. But we have good reason to believe they are real things and we know that. So it is not a liability because we can't image the Trinity in our mind. What we need to find out is if it is taught. And the teaching of the Trinity is there is one God and there are three Persons. And Jesus Christ is the second Person, fully human and fully divine.

So then we go to the Bible and we see in John 20 where it seems to indicate that Jesus is a human being and that He is different from the Father because He calls God "My God". I say, what's the problem with that? Well, you see, Jesus is different from the Father. He's a different Person. But is He a different Being? No, it doesn't say that. Also in John 20, there is Thomas calling Jesus God. Since there is only one God in the Bible, Jesus must be that God that is the only God. We have His divinity right there, and we have His separateness the page before. We look in the beginning of the Gospel of John and we have Jesus being identified as the Word, being called God in the very first verse. We see in the third verse that He is identified as the Creator of all things. We see in the 14th verse that this Word becomes flesh and dwells among us. That's the human being.

In Christ,

Ron

Rbanks,

I may be wrong but I believe you have come to this area of understanding because of your desire for the glory of God.

I think you have a problem with saying trinity because it is not in the bible and because it makes it seem like God is 3 Gods in unity, when the scriptures make it clear that God is one and that there is none else. I have also experience things that I have had a problem with like worshipping the trinity when the word is not even in the bible and is not fully explain neither in the bible nor by those who believe in it. There are different views of the trinity and the one that makes God be three God’s in unity with one another I disagree with and I also believe most on SI would also disagree with this view. The trinity to most is the best way man has come up with explaining the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We Christians all must believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all God. There are so many scriptures that prove that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. I think in order to be a true Christian we all must believe this.

Here is something I have discovered concerning the Godhead and this became more real to me after I experience an infilling of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. There is an order in the Godhead. The Father is God and is first. The Son came from the Father, being God from Him, and is second. The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son, being God from the Father,

p.s. It seems to me generally from this post that you think I have the classic problems with the mainstream view of the Triunity that many have. I do not mine are very different. I believe the Son became the Son when He was born as a human and before that He was always the Logos who is God. As for the multiple personalities as I originally posted at the very beginning philosophically I can accept this but it is not Biblical. And I also think the view that I hold to Biblically just happens to be more completely philosophical.

Bog, thank you very much for the order of this post. I did have problems with your questions in the sense that you did not understand much of what I was saying and on that basis you asked false questions since your premise was false. I also thought that many of your questions were more what sounds right to the mind philosophically then what the Bible says though I am not saying that you completely based you arguments solely on that.

The Bible specifically mentions Father, Son, and Spirit with exact references and distinct manifestations.

You say you don't believe in a God of multiple personalities, ok fine. How interesting that the Son prays to the Father to send another Comforter (the Spirit).

Or is it true that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and for ever?

These are personality traits.

Then does this mean that the "deep things of God" are out in the world?

These are the only differences?

Here is a question: is the Spirit 1) the Father's Spirit (Matthew 10:20) 2) the Spirit of Christ Jesus (Galatians 4:6; Philippians 1:19) or, 3) the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; Acts 2:33)?

The Logos is the glory of God, the express image of His person, the word of God. Your word and such does not carry another personality the same goes with your spirit.

This is foolish. We are created in the image and likeness of God; not an exact copy. Just because our finite human words or our spirits do not have different personalities is no bases for claiming that God does not.

both with God and is God.

Jesus also said, "Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are." Does this mean Jesus is going to make us humans One and the Same as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Shall we become part of the "triunity" ... or shall we say "quad-unity"? Or does every single person count as an individual addition to this unity (ie. 10 billion-unity)?

Ok, you say there is only One-Personality. Yet, this One-Person speaks to Himself through 3 different expressions. This is quite unnecessary and confusing if they are all the Same-Person without distinction. And as I previously mentioned, Jesus distinguished His own will from the Father's will.

Why not? What does it mean to be "the Son"? Do you also believe the Father has not always been "the Father"?

Jesus is referred to as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." And again, "Jesus Christ is also the same yesterday, today, and for ever". Truly there is a dispensational revelation to the world, a distinct difference in the way we humans relate to God, but what thing has changed in the Godhead? Nothing. The immutable God, divine, perfect, without change or deviation. So, you tell me, when did God change, that is, when was He not the Eternal Son?

That is the reason I have not been forthcoming with many scriptures; why should I give you more scriptures which you have already extensively read and yet still come to your "slightly differing" view & understanding? Would it change your mind if I repeat those scriptures you say you have already studied?

So, in conclusion I have not answered every thing you posted and I am sorry I just dont really want to write so long. Most of the things I have already spoke about on this thread multiple times. I have tried to touch on some points that I deemed important to some degree. From now on I will try to keep it short since I have already covered most of the ground. I am thankful that you wrote so thoroughly it would be great if you could write shortly and make your point concisely thought there is benefit in expounding in such a way. Lastly, I must say that there has been no proof that Jesus was the Son from eternity only questions and the comments that were made were easily answered. Also, the multiple personalities view is not substantiated. Specifically I will point out that the philosophies do not stand and the verses I have cleared up. Most specifically there was no answer to the main question of a word and a spirit not having a personality. To say that an analogy does not apply is not acceptable. Most of your arguments are based upon the analogy the Jesus is the Son so it is also hypocritical and contradictive to make such a statement.

Philologos,

First, I would like to say I appreciate your scholarship and careful thought. I am glad that there is someone who cares so much about these things.

voluntary sonship

with God and was God

Inthelight,

I have provided scripture, reasons, over and over throughout all these posts. I have done my best to answer every question straightforward. I dont understand how you can say this.

I sense your frustration,

your position creates tremendous problems when it comes to fundamental philosophical questions such as the meaning of love as we know it.

Why is it that you can't accept the truthfulness of something if you can't image it in your mind?

The First Commandment, by the way. You can't image God.

So then we go to the Bible and we see in John 20 where it seems to indicate that Jesus is a human being and that He is different from the Father because He calls God "My God". I say, what's the problem with that? Well, you see, Jesus is different from the Father. He's a different Person. But is He a different Being?

[b][color=FF0000]Note:[/color][/b] I am no longer going to answer extensively. I have already personally been satisfactorily tested. I have already stated what I believe and it should be clear I don't think anyone has to ask me. If they do need to ask or claim me to teach something that I am not then they have not read. I think there comes a point where one must say I have many things to tell you but you are not able to bear them yet and only the Lord can teach you. I will no longer answer to personal attacks or irrational questions as it is worthless and wearying. I will not dialogue in long because I have already done that. I have already answered all the questions and given all the answers. I will not answer 100 different people individually because that would be too much and they can read the posts. I will however answer those questions in discretion which are short, concise, and straight to the point since it is easier to keep order in thought and it takes less time and effort in the things I have already repeated multiple times. Here are to 2 main things that I still have to say:

[b][color=FF0000]No one has proved that Jesus was the Son before He was begotten as a man.[/color][/b]

[b][color=FF0000]Does your word and spirit have a separate personality? No. Then why do you claim that God's word and spirit have separate personalities?[/color][/b]

p.s. I may write a more thorough article with scripture proofs and a comprehensive answer list to FAQ.

Bro. David,

I have put this together with the help of Fausset Dictionary. I believe the Son was begotten from all eternity and the Love that the Father has for His Son as a daily delight was before the creation of Adam.

The Son of God is co-equal, co-eternal, co-essential (consubstantial) with the Father; by eternal generation (Colossians 1:15 (KJV) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: ), "begotten far before every creature" (Greek), therefore not a creature. So Proverbs 8:22 (KJV) The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. (Hebrew), "Jehovah begat (qananiy related to Greek gennaoo) Me in the beginning of His way (rather omit "in"; the Son Himself was "the Beginning of His way", "the Beginning of the creation of God", Re 3:14) from everlasting ... or ever the earth was ... I was by Him as One brought up with Him. I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him" (Proverbs 8:22-31 (KJV) 22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.; John 1:1-3 (KJV) 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.).

The Son was the Archetype from everlasting of that creation which was in due time to be created by Him. His distinct Personality appears in His being "by God ... brought up with God," not a mere attribute; "nursed at His side"; "the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father"; to be "honoured as the Father" (John 1:18 (KJV) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.; John 5:20 (KJV) For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.). Raised infinitely above angels; "for to which of them saith God, Thou art My Son, this day (there is no yesterday or tomorrow with God, His "today" is eternity from and to everlasting) have I begotten Thee?" and "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever" (Heb 1; Psalms 2:7 (KJV) I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.; Psalms 45:6-7 (KJV) 6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.). His divine Sonship from everlasting was openly manifested by the Father's raising Him from the dead (Acts 13:33 (KJV) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.; Romans 1:4 (KJV) And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:; Revelation 1:5 (KJV) And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,). Nebuchadnezzar called Him "the Son of God," unconsciously expressing a truth the significance of which he imperfectly comprehended (Daniel 3:25 (KJV) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. ).

What do you think of this. I believe it is dangerous to believe that the Son did not come into existence until he was born on the earth. I believe the scriptures show that he was begotten from eternity.

Rbanks,

I know that the the Word is with God and all of the things that He does. But to be with does not necessitate separateness in either personality or consciousness as my spirit is with me but not essentially different in personality or consciousness.

Also, I do not see any passages which specifically say that Jesus was the Son from eternity past. I do believe that the Logos has always existed and then took on the form of the Son and at that time became the Son of God:

Luke 1:31-32 And behold, you will [b]conceive[/b] in your womb and [b]bear[/b] a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and [b]will be[/b] called the [b]Son[/b] of the Most High.

Act 13:33 [b]this[/b] he has [b]fulfilled[/b] to us their children [b]by raising[/b] Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, "'You are my [b]Son[/b], [b]today[/b] I have [b]begotten[/b] you.'

In conclusion I am not saying that the Logos did not exist only that the Son was not until He was born. The first verse shows that He was called "Son of God" when he was born. The second verse is in context to post resurrection but I also believe applies generally. It was on that day the day of being begot or born and Jesus was not born from eternity past so it was on that day that Jesus was called the Son of God and not before. If there was a verse in your post that I missed please let me know.

God does not need multiple personalities in order to have someone to love. He is love itself and is satisfied in Himself and loves Himself. He is not like man who was made but love and is needy.

I am still waiting for the answer to this one: How does loving Himself satisfy "love does not seek its own" and "loving others"?

"God does not need multiple personalities in order to have someone to love." This is true but this is not a question of how many personalities God "needs" in order to love someone else who is not God in the first place -- but as I said previously this then makes God's love conditional upon something that is not God. Which means God does not have perfect love until there is something else "not God" for Him to fulfill His love that "loves others".

"He is not like man who was made but love and is needy" and "He loves Himself", these do not answer the question. If I say "I love myself" does that mean I am "loving others"? Ah, but God is love, so loving Himself is love indeed ... No, there must be a distinct other to love. This type of "loving love" is loving an abstract thought and is not loving the actual & realized fulfillment of that love.

He is but He didn't even exist until He was born in the sense of His humanity. The Logos always existed but the name Jesus and the title Son were not in existance specifically til He was begotten.

Ah, so the name Jesus (which is above every other name) and the title Son were not in existence in humanity. Does this mean the name and title did not exist from eternity past?

You are preaching a Oneness doctrine, this is certain. You have no problem accepting the unity of the Godhead and neither do we. You also recognize that man is created in a "likeness" of God and you have thus been trying to model God's triunity after the likeness of the creature.

The Trinity is a beautiful balance of individuality and perfect unity and harmony -- this is the perfect representation of love. The Father loves the Son and the Spirit and seeks to exalt them; the Son loves the Father and the Spirit and seeks to exalt them; the Spirit loves the Father and the Son and seeks to exalt them. This is a relational emphasis which your Oneness doctrine cannot touch.

And again, if the Logos "became the Son" then the relationship between God and the Logos changed (God changed). This is not a matter of Jesus speaking with "his humanity" as though Jesus spoke sometimes out of humanity and sometimes out of Deity (a direct denial of Jesus being wholly man and wholly God). Not to mention Jesus said He doesn't even say anything of His own initiative, everything Jesus said and did He did according to the Father's will -- does this sound like humanity speaking?

Is the relationship between God and the Logos different than the relationship between the Father and the Son? You said there is which means the Godhead changed. You are getting this idea from the perspective of humanity and not the perspective of eternal Deity. Jesus, the Son, is exalted far above every name; does this mean the Logos was not always highly exalted far above every name?

You have shown yourself adept at accepting the interpretations of words that you so choose. Jesus says He and the Father are one -- this means they are One and the Same. Jesus prays that we may be one with Him as He is One with the Father -- this means we are just going to be individual members of His family as brothers and sisters. Well, why doesn't Jesus saying He is One with the Father also imply a distinct personality of His own that is also unified in the purpose of the Father? You say the Godhead has One-personality. We say the Godhead has Three-personalities that are without quarrelling or self-seeking and united in one eternally unchangeable purpose. Is there such a scripture that stands opposed to this doctrine? It will take more than scriptures that declare the unity of God for the Trinity is founded on this very cornerstone.

I am not saying that at some point the Logos volunteered to be a Son. I am saying that the Son did not exist until He was born as a man. The only reason that He is a Son is because God gave birth to him as a man and is therefore the father. The Logos has always existed though.

I want to remark on this topic once more because I feel I have a couple more thoughts. To be with does not mean you are seperate. My spirit is with me but it is not separate.

[color=0000FF]the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, [u]for He dwells with you and will be in you[/u]. John 14:17 NKJV[/color]

your spirit is not 'with you' it is 'in you'.

God does not need multiple personalities in order to have someone to love. He is love itself and is satisfied in Himself and loves Himself. He is not like man who was made but love and is needy.

This statement I have quoted above is why I say that you have a problem when it comes to the meaning of love. You don't have an adequate universal for love so its meaning has degenerated into something very much less than the proper conception.

Let me work this out for a moment with you if I may...

If God possesses the attribute of love as the Bible says He does...Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love...So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
(1John 4:8,16)

And if God is perfect as the Bible says He is..."The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he.
(Deuteronomy 32:4)
This God--his way is perfect; the word of the LORD proves true; he is a shield for all those who take refuge in him.
(Psalm 18:30)
And by saying He is perfect that includes that He lacks nothing and is immutable..."For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.
(Malachi 3:6)
nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.
(Acts 17:25)
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
(Hebrews 13:8)
Then God must be perfectly loving.

Yet a perfectly loving Being cannot perfectly love if he is not sharing that love with at least one other, since perfect love exists between at least two distinct entities. After all, love demands a subject who loves and an object that is loved. In addition, a belief in God’s immutability and self-sufficiency requires that his love be not dependant upon the existence of creatures.

Thus, in your view of God, he would not be perfectly loving since there was a time in which this God was not expressing perfect love since there was no one for him to love.

So, the Christian concept of God as a Triune Being fits perfectly with this philosophical understanding of Divine love since there are three eternally distinct, yet inseparable Persons of God that love one another completely.

As one theologian puts it..."There is something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary divine individual. If such an individual is love, he must share, and sharing with finite beings such as humans is not sharing all of one's nature and so is imperfect sharing. A divine individual's love has to be manifested in a sharing with another divine individual, and that (to keep the divine unity) means (in some sense) within the Godhead, that is, in mutual dependence and support."

In Christ,

Ron

Bog,

How does loving Himself satisfy "love does not seek its own" and "loving others"?

Does this mean the name and title did not exist from eternity past?

Eph 1:20-21 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.

Php 2:8-9 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,

which means the Godhead changed.

Phil,

But you are saying that the Word/logos became flesh and at that point of incarnation became the Son. I think I know what you are saying and disagree with it. The Son must be prior to incarnation as the Father gave the Son and not the logos to be the Saviour of the world.

your spirit is not 'with you' it is 'in you'.

Yet a perfectly loving Being cannot perfectly love if he is not sharing that love with at least one other, since perfect love exists between at least two distinct entities.

One of the oldest pieces of Liturgy is the prayer.

"Glory by to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end, Amen"

An interesting question is what is the 'it' referred to here? The 'it', fundamentally, is the Triune Nature of God. Which is, and has been, without change from the beginning.

I have previously said that some of davidt comments are 'modalism', on reflection, I think I was mistaken. davidt's position is more aligned to Arianism and the graded trinity.

Phil,

One of the oldest pieces of Liturgy is the prayer. "Glory by to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end, Amen" An interesting question is what is the 'it' referred to here? The 'it', fundamentally, is the Triune Nature of God. Which is, and has been, without change from the beginning.

I have previously said that some of davidt comments are 'modalism', on reflection, I think I was mistaken. davidt's position is more aligned to Arianism and the graded trinity.

As of yet I have not found it needful to respond to labels nor give myself a label as I do not find it necessary. Especially since I don't take pride in any group like some Calvinist or Arminiast might but in the Bible. I will say though that I do not stand with Arian. Arian taught that the Father created the Son a long time before He was born of Mary and by Him created the world. I don't believe that I believe that the Logos has eternally existed and that the Son was begotten at the time of conception through Mary as the Logos took this nature on. Arian did not teach the difference between the Son and the Logos as I do. One reason I don't take on a label is because if I did I would have to take on the whole entire system of thinking that these labels carry with them. For instance the Oneness usually teach that the Father suffered and you have to be baptized to be saved. I don't believe this. Or if I said I were a Modalist I might be bunched in with all the others who call themselves Modalist. If it is important to some to label me though I could say to some point that I hold to modalist theology to a degree except I do not believe that the Father suffered. And I also believe that there is a distinction between God as Head, the Word, and the Spirit just not in person/ality. As for all the others I have not found a label that I fit into completely.

If you were alone you could love yourself. You could love yourself by feeding yourself, keeping yourself warm, ect.

As it says in Scripture, "what man does not love his own flesh". And then it goes on to say love your wife ect. But this is only a limited example for God is different.

for God this is okay He is love itself

[b]1 Corinthians 13:4-8[/b]
Love is patient,
Love is kind and is not jealous;
Love does not brag and is not arrogant,
Love does not act unbecomingly;
Love does not seek its own,
Love is not provoked,
Love does not take into account a wrong suffered,
Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but
Love rejoices with the truth;
Love bears all things,
Love believes all things,
Love hopes all things,
Love endures all things.
Love never fails ...

Thus, I shall ask again,
God is Love and Love does not seek its own. Therefore, how does God not seek His own?

I will tell you the only answer you can give.

He must therefore seek something [b]not[/b] God,
He must therefore seek something that is [b]not[/b] Love,
He [b]must seek[/b] His own creation -- particularly man. Therefore God becomes infinitely dependant upon the existence of His creation to love Himself as Love.
Indeed your God is different if He does not fulfill the scriptural definition of Love.

It was not good totally for man to be alone but for God this is okay He is love itself He does not "need" a companion and so forth.

Is it your common practice to dismiss all these conspicuous errors of doctrine with such sweeping theology as "God is different" and "God is love"? It would appear to be the trend.

Bog,

As a matter of fact, there was a time when I was alone, without God. I did love myself and that very love was the bitter root of my sin

"If any man come to me (Jesus), and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and [hate] his own life also, he cannot be my disciple"?

Yes, "what man does not love his own flesh", awesome quote; if I was going to describe how God loves Himself I would definitely compare it to man's love for his own flesh. Indeed I hope "God is different" than this for you.

You continue to completely miss the entire point, David. God is not some great big glob of love. Love is not some spiritual substance that God is made of. God is love, this is true; why? Well, let us look to the Scriptures, what is Love? Here is a quick reference: 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 Love is patient, Love is kind and is not jealous; Love does not brag and is not arrogant, Love does not act unbecomingly; Love does not seek its own, Love is not provoked, Love does not take into account a wrong suffered, Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but Love rejoices with the truth; Love bears all things, Love believes all things, Love hopes all things, Love endures all things. Love never fails ... Thus, I shall ask again, God is Love and Love does not seek its own. Therefore, how does God not seek His own?

Is it your common practice to dismiss all these conspicuous errors of doctrine with such sweeping theology as "God is different" and "God is love"? It would appear to be the trend.

Lastly, I would like to say this. It is God's desire to glorify Himself. Therefore it is God's desire to love Himself. Is it bad for you to glorify yourself yes it is wrong for God to no is it wrong for God to love Himself no is it wrong for you to love yourself well yes if it is before God and in a sinful way. Does God want to be worshiped yes it is okay for God to want to be worship yes should we or angels be or want to be worshipped no. If you do not understand this then you do not understand the center of Christianity and are with the mainstream who are man centered in their understanding. Maybe you are neither man centered nor God centered but love centered well then you have missed the mark in one way or another for God is love and therefore you will still unwittingly be God centered for God is love. Once again this is an established and clear scriptural doctrine accepted probably even by most on SI. At the end of this post I will provide you with scriptures that teach God desires to glorify Himself which means He desires to love Himself and some resources to further state my case:

-Verses
Jeremiah 13:11: For as the waistcloth clings to the loins of a man, so I made the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah cling to me, says the Lord, [b]that they might be for me[/b] a people, a name, a praise, and a [b]glory[/b].

Isaiah 48:11; For my own sake, for my own sake I do it, for how should my name be profaned? [b]My glory I will not give to another[/b].

Romans 11:36; "[b]All things are[/b] from him and through him and [b]to him[/b]"

Ephesians 1:11-12; In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, [b]so that we[/b] who were the first to hope in Christ [b]might be to the praise of his glory[/b].

-Resources
John Piper:
[url=http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/3/242_Is_God_for_Us_or_for_Himself/]click here[/url]

John Macarthur:
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=119]click here[/url]

If you were alone you could love yourself. You could love yourself by feeding yourself, keeping yourself warm, ect. As it says in Scripture, "what man does not love his own flesh". And then it goes on to say love your wife ect. But this is only a limited example for God is different. It was not good totally for man to be alone but for God this is okay He is love itself He does not "need" a companion and so forth.

Again I must ask, doesn't love presuppose a relationship with more than one party? Therefore, if God weren’t sharing his love with someone then he wouldn’t be perfectly loving since perfect love only exists between at least two persons.

Here's something from Williuam Lane Craig that may shed more light on the matter...In fact, I like to finish out my first contention by offering an argument for why I think it’s plausible to think that God is a Trinity. To begin with, God is by definition the greatest conceivable Being; if you could think of any thing greater than God then that would be God.

Now as the greatest conceivable being God must be perfect… if there were any imperfection in God then he would not be the greatest conceivable Being. Now a perfect Being must be a loving Being for love is a moral perfection. It is better for a person to be loving than unloving. God, therefore, must be a perfectly loving Being.

Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving, by his very nature he must be giving his love to another.

But who is that other?

It cannot be any created person since creation is the result of God’s free will, not a result of his nature. It belongs to God’s very essence to love but it does not belong to his essence to create. God is necessarily loving but he is not necessarily creating; so we can imagine a possible world in which God is perfectly loving and yet no created persons exist. So created persons cannot be the sufficient explanation of whom God loves.

Moreover, we know from science that created persons have not always existed from eternity, but God is eternally loving. So, again, created persons alone are not sufficient to explain who the other is to whom God’s love is necessarily directed. It follows, therefore, that that other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God himself.

In other words, God is not a single, isolated individual as Islam holds; rather God is a plurality of Persons as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds. On the Islamic view God is not a Triad of Persons, he is a single person who does not give himself away in love essentially to another. He is focused essentially only upon himself, and hence he cannot be the most perfect being.

But on the Christian view God is a Triad of Persons in eternal, self-giving love relationships. Thus, since God is essentially loving the doctrine of the Trinity is more plausible than any unitarian doctrine of God, such as Islam. Why? Because God is by nature a perfect Being of self-giving love.

In Christ,

Ron

Inthelight,

Again I must ask, doesn't love presuppose a relationship with more than one party? Therefore, if God weren’t sharing his love with someone then he wouldn’t be perfectly loving since perfect love only exists between at least two persons.

Secondly, I do not agree with your premise that you have to have 2 to love. I already stated that you can love yourself when you are alone therefore love can exist with one. Do you not love yourself when you feed yourself and so on as it says in Scripture what man does not love his own flesh.

Third, even if this were the case there is a difference between God and us. We were created by love and for love but God is love so God to just be with Himself is loving for love to love itself is loving.

Fourth, the scriptures don't specifically say anywhere that God had to have multiple personalities or else He would have no one to love and therefore would not be loving. If this were the case then there should be ample clear emphatic scripture on the subject and there is not even the couple passages that Bog pulled out are not appliable.

Fifth, there is a relationship but it is with Himself. And in anticipation of a response I say God is not like us in that it is not good for Him to be alone or that He could get lonely He is not a man that needs such things. Also, if God loving is based on having another person to love by necessity then is God lacking in love because He has not created an infinite amount of people or because He does not have an infinite amount of personalities?.. Though I dont want to delve deeper in philosophy.

Sixth, God is giving Himself away to Himself. As you give yourself to yourself to love your own flesh and I am not talking about your sinful nature so God is giving Himself away to Himself. This is in response to Craig.

[color=FF0000]I am not sure if anyone wants to do this but it is worth a try. I am trying to get a further understanding on this manner in a more in depth way and therefore want to ask if there are any more disagreements or bases that I have not covered or forgotten about. So far I have compiled a short list of things. I would like to make this more comprehensive so that I can think over these things more fully and also study to be more understanding. If I have left anything out or you have some new disagreements let me know.

-Personal pronouns "we, me, I, you" prove that there is more then one person
-God speaks to Himself therefore is another person
-God relates to Himself therefore is another person
-Your doctrine is Arianism, Modalism, Oneness, ect.
-God must have multiple personalities in order to love since love must by necessity give to another and cannot just love Himself
-Jesus spoke to the Father and said I was always with You therefore the Son has always been
-God does not have parts
-Tradition, Creeds, Liturgy, Christian leaders, mainstream Christianity has always held to these things therefore it is crazy to teach otherwise
-Jesus was with God therefore He is separate in person from the Father
-The Shema says that God is one yet multiple in the Hebrew therefore God has multiple personalities
-The Holy Spirit has a/His own personality therefore He has a distinct personality from the Father/God and Logos/Son
-You say the Son/Logos, Father/God, Spirit don't have their own personality therefore you are saying they don't have a personality
-You say that the Son has not always been so you are you saying Jesus is not the eternal God
-You say the Son has not always been therefore you are saying the Father has not always been and that is against 1John which speaks about denying the Father and you are also saying the Father is not eternal
-Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father have names therefore they have different personalities
-There are some verses in the OT like Isaiah 6 that are applied to Jesus in the NT that said He was around in the past so that means He has always been around as the Son
-the Son of God appeared in the fire in the book of Daniel therefore the Son was before the incarnation
-You have previous philosophical biases, systematic boxes, wrong views of God and other things that cause you to interpret scripture with bias
-the Triunity cannot be understood
-Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever and God does not change therefore the Son has always been
-In Isaiah 6 God is called holy 3 times therefore there are three personalities in God
-God doesn't talk to Himself therefore He has to have multiple personalities to talk to
-talking about these things in such depth is not edifying but can be destructive
-you are unreasonable, uneducated, and so forth
-Melchizedec was a type of the Son therefore the Son existed before the incarnation
-there were theophanies therefore the Son existed before incarnation
-God cannot love Himself because love does not seek its own
-you dont accept the mainline teaching of the Triunity because it doesnt make sense to your mind
[/color]

Hi everyone.

Hi Ron, hope you are well?

I appologise to come into this discussion abruptly. I don't want to get into the discussion but I wanted to leave a few comments and something that you wrote caught my attention.

About this,

"The Son must be prior to incarnation as the Father gave the Son and not the logos to be the Saviour of the world."

John says it was the Word of Life that was manifested(1Jn 1:1-2).

How was it seen? In a Tent(Jn 1:14).

The Lord Jesus said,

[b][color=660000] For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; [/color][/b]

Also, about this,

"Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to remark on this topic once more because I feel I have a couple more thoughts. To be with does not mean you are seperate. My spirit is with me but it is not separate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh but it does. This is the whole purpose of the switch in prepositions in the phrase...

the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. John 14:17 NKJV

your spirit is not 'with you' it is 'in you'."

According to Strong's, the word translated [i]with[/i] in John 14:17 is not the same as the word translated [i]with[/i] in John 1:1.

The latter is defined as,

G4314
πρός
pros
pros
A strengthened form of G4253; a preposition of direction; forward to, that is, toward (with the genitive case the side of, that is, pertaining to; with the dative case by the side of, that is, near to; usually with the accusative case the place, time, occasion, or respect, which is the destination of the relation, that is, whither or for which it is predicated): - about, according to, against, among, at, because of, before, between, ([where-]) by, for, X at thy house, in, for intent, nigh unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), + together, to ([you]) -ward, unto, with (-in). In compounds it denotes essentially the same applications, namely, motion towards, accession to, or nearness at.

When I read this definition tonight, and particularly where it says "a preposition of direction; forward to, that is, toward" I had the thought of the Image of God(Heb 1:3) looking back towards Him as in a reflection, that is, until He was sent into the World, so that God could be seen(Jn 1:18).

I think that the more words men use the farther away they are likely to get from what God has said.

"God must have multiple personalities in order to love since love must by necessity give to another"

This and other statements like it are philosophy(Davidt I know you didn't write this yourself just using an example).

This kind of reasoning about the scriptres and what God has said and the mulitude of words and thoughts that accompany it seems to be potentially very destructive to me.

It is nice to know you are making a list David.

First of all as I was just saying to Bog this philosophy should not be your first and main argument but the Scriptures should. ...
And yes it seems that this is your entire point and your main disagreement with me and the funny things is is that this philosophy of your is not even specifically stated in scripture.

And, I should say it is interesting that William Lane Craig reasoned the same as myself; and that without me referring to any other on this question. This concern of God fulfilling His own nature of Love stands glaringly obvious to most everyone but you, it would seem.

If you read what I stated multiple times you would understand that I said there are 2 ways we can love ourselves. We can love our sinful nature and therefore sin or we can love just our body which is neutral and not sin it is wholesome just as loving you children is wholesome. You must understand that there is a difference. We have sin in us but there is a part of us that is not sinful. It is not sinful to drink juice but it is sinful to drink wine and get drunk. It is not sinful to to have anger but it is when we do it in unrighteousness.

We have sin in us but there is a part of us that is not sinful ... you must understand the difference between our normal nature and the sinful nature that is in it ... or we can love just our body which is neutral

You seem to be misunderstanding that it is the lusts of the flesh (the body) that enslaves our depraved hearts to sin -- "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."

And, by the way, if you are referring to the commandment "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." You need be very careful. This is not two commandments joined together -- ie. "love your neighbor" and "love yourself" (you can see to the original greek on this). This is to be taken within the context of Christ's reiteration: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." In that regard, it is similar but not exact to what you have said. As you had been a lover of self in your sin, so now entrust yourself to the providence and lovingkindness of God in Christ Jesus that He shall feed you, and clothe you, and care for your needs; therefore He sends us: go and do likewise (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the afflicted, evangelize).

This is in context to the specific discipleship call. This does not mean that we are to not love our children only that we are to put Jesus first. So also not that we are to never eat or be in comfort but that we are not to put that before Christ.

This love spoken of here is not speaking of God specifically. Not everytime that love is mentioned is it talking about God. There is a love that is not God in His essence it is only that love that God has created outside of Himself just as He is not the trees so there is love that is not Him. So this verse is in context to mans love.

Nowhere does it say God had to have 3 different personalities to love or else He wouldnt be able to love.

Maybe you are neither man centered nor God centered but love centered well then you have missed the mark in one way or another for God is love and therefore you will still unwittingly be God centered for God is love. Once again this is an established and clear scriptural doctrine accepted probably even by most on SI.

At the end of this post I will provide you with scriptures that teach God desires to glorify Himself which means He desires to love Himself and some resources to further state my case

I already stated that you can love yourself when you are alone therefore love can exist with one. Do you not love yourself when you feed yourself and so on as it says in Scripture what man does not love his own flesh.

Third, even if this were the case there is a difference between God and us. We were created by love and for love but God is love so God to just be with Himself is loving for love to love itself is loving.

Fourth, the scriptures don't specifically say anywhere that God had to have multiple personalities or else He would have no one to love and therefore would not be loving. If this were the case then there should be ample clear emphatic scripture on the subject and there is not even the couple passages that Bog pulled out are not appliable.

Fifth, there is a relationship but it is with Himself. And in anticipation of a response I say God is not like us in that it is not good for Him to be alone or that He could get lonely He is not a man that needs such things. Also, if God loving is based on having another person to love by necessity then is God lacking in love because He has not created an infinite amount of people or because He does not have an infinite amount of personalities?.. Though I dont want to delve deeper in philosophy.

1) is God lacking in love because He has not created an infinite amount of people?
I have already explained that your model of the Godhead requires this exact question to be true. And we have already established that God is not dependant upon His own creation for the perfection of His Love.

2) is God lacking in love because He does not have an infinite amount of personalities?
This is unnecessary. Three is sufficient as revealed: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If there were more or less Persons given by name then we would adjust appropriately.

Sixth, God is giving Himself away to Himself. As you give yourself to yourself to love your own flesh and I am not talking about your sinful nature so God is giving Himself away to Himself. This is in response to Craig.

First of all as I was just saying to Bog this philosophy should not be your first and main argument but the Scriptures should. William Lane Craig and all those others are presuppositional apologist which means they start in the philosophical.

The doctrine of the Trinity has always had its start in Scripture, make no mistake about that. The Christian philosophy is formed by faith in what is clearly asserted in God's revelation of Himself in the Bible.

Leaving behind your inadequate meaning of love, perhaps you could consider this; if Christ is not the eternal Son then how do you deal with Old Testament Scriptures that are attributed to the Son in the New Testament? For example...

Psalm 45:6, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Applied to Christ in Hebrews 1:8, "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever."

Psalm 68:17,18, "The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the LORD is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.". Applied to the Son in Ephesians 4:8-10, "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens that he might fill all things."

Psalm 110:1, "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand." Applied to Christ by Himself, Matthew 22:44.

Psalm 102:25-27, "Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end." Applied to the Son in Hebrews 1:10-12.

Isaiah 6:1-3, "I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; With twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory." Applied to the Son in John 12:41.

In Christ,

Ron

Hi again everyone,

boG, I wonder if I could suggest something here?

"God is love because His nature and character is love. Love does not seek its own, therefore, what is your Godhead of Love seeking if not His own? Please, answer the question with that substance and main theological reasonings you have hinted to."

This seems to be the kind of thing that can be gendered by these discussions and become destructive to us?

Yes, Paul wrote that love does not seek its own. Of course it doesn't, when there are others around. But was that statement meant to propel us into an inquiry into the nature and existence of God and His being in eternity? Is that what God intended for us to understand in this passage or to draw out of it? Was it not rather how [b]we ought[/b] to love others?

But what then, should we now counter this by qouting Paul also, saying,

He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

and

For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

Or should we consider Revelation 4:11 and ask the same question asked here and suppose what that might mean about the love of God in Eternity?

Is this what God has called us to?

Hi Ron,

About some of the passages that you mentioned:

Christ means the Anointed One.

Psalm 45 goes on to say,

"Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

The nations are gathered, in Psalm 2, against the Lord, and against His anointed.

I think the verses you have qouted here, given as prophecy, center around the incarnation and ascension.

"...Applied to the Son in John 12:41."

[i]These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.[/i]

The Lord Jesus asked,

[b][color=660000]Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? [/color][/b]

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

- Hebrews 2:9

I think the verses you have qouted here, given as prophecy, center around the incarnation and ascension.

The verses I have quoted here center around the eternal Son of God. My point in quoting them is that they assert that Jesus is declared to be God, to be loved, served, worshipped, and obeyed as God. We also know that he was born, lived, and died as a man. These verses declare that He preexisted in the form of God before His incarnation, which came about by His own will and therefore couldn't be without a preexistence in another nature.

John 1: 1-3. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

John 1:14, "And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father."

John 3:13, "And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven."

John 8:57-58, "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

In Christ,

Ron

This seems to be the kind of thing that can be gendered by these discussions and become destructive to us?

Yes, Paul wrote that love does not seek its own. Of course it doesn't, when there are others around. But was that statement meant to propel us into an inquiry into the nature and existence of God and His being in eternity? Is that what God intended for us to understand in this passage or to draw out of it? Was it not rather how we ought to love others?

-- if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love."

It would be a very strange doctrine, if it was suddenly called divine love to love one's self. Love is always loving others. "Let us love one another, for love is from God." Love always leads us to not seek our own but to love others.

The bottom line is this, at the end of the day I am not concerned with a monotheistic view that strongly asserts that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are just three names of God; no different than Lord of Host, God our Righteousness, or the Great I AM. In my opinion, Modalism is fairly accurate in this respect. After asking several pointed questions concerning the Trinity itself I have altered my focus to the description and definition to the nature of Love; Why?

It is very simple. This slightly differing view of the Trinity is not merely a change of perspective but it is a redefining of Love. And if Love is redefined then the entire Christian life is altered, for without love we are nothing. David, still seems to think I am stuck on proving Three-in-One.

I fear that this discussion is leading to the conclusion that God Himself is an antinomianist. Narrowly excluding Love to be some obscure nature of God only to prove that He loves Himself is very base for a practical application of the Love of God in our own lives. God is bound by His own Law of Nature, He is Love, and Love has qualities that define it. We have such descriptions of the Law of God and the Law of Christ and the Law of the Spirit of Life revealed to us in Scripture. Therefore we cannot say God is Love if it is being said He doesn't need to fulfill the Law of Love; He just needs to love Himself as Love. Thus, if God at anytime is not actively loving someone other than Himself, there is an aspect of Love that God is failing to perform. Such an aspect that it is described as "His love is perfected in us" when we love others. It is without support and meaningless to claim that God loving Himself (in a Modalistic view) fulfills God's law of Himself as God for loving others.

[b]Revelation 4:11[/b]
"Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."
Why shouldn't we ask what this means concerning the Love of God? Did He create without love or for some purpose besides His love?

[b]Colossians 1
15.[/b] He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
[b]16.[/b] For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
[b]17.[/b] He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
[b]18.[/b] He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
[b]19.[/b] For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
[b]20.[/b] and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

In terms of God loving His creation or His bride, we must remember that God "set His love" upon the people of Israel and He likewise sets His love upon the Church today; this is not the same aspect of eternal Love we are speaking of. God has always loved His creation but His creation has not always existed. God has, however, always loved Himself and He has always existed -- loving others must fulfill this too. So to reiterate, if God's love for others is solely dependant upon there "being others to love" (ie. His creation) then the perfection of God's love becomes infinitely contingent upon something NOT God.

[b]True or False?[/b] "God is Love because He does not seek His own."

Is God bound by His Word to be the perfect representation and fulfillment of the Law of Love? Yes or No.

Chrisjd,

This seems to be the kind of thing that can be gendered by these discussions and become destructive to us?

Bog,

It is nice to know you are making a list David.

Indeed, how humorous,

Whatever is not of faith is sin.

23. but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.

This very well attends us to hate our children and family and ourselves. As Paul wrote, "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." If you truly loved your children you would love only the image of Christ formed in them.

This love spoken of here is not speaking of God specifically. Not every time that love is mentioned is it talking about God. There is a love that is not God in His essence it is only that love that God has created outside of Himself just as He is not the trees so there is love that is not Him. So this verse is in context to mans love

God is Love because He does not seek His own

Fourth, the scriptures don't specifically say anywhere that God had to have multiple personalities or else He would have no one to love and therefore would not be loving.

Where does this concept of "giving yourself to yourself" come from? I have heard of "giving yourself to do" but "giving yourself to yourself to do"?

And, again, you are fashioning the nature of God after the image of the creature.

I think if I am right a lot of the things you are saying are not well. You are saying that all normal things we do like eating are sinful. You are saying that we are to only love the born again image of Christ in our children therefore we are not to love our children if they are unsaved. I think that a lot of your posts have been written from you sinful flesh. I think that the issue is not my teaching with the Triunity specifically but with all these side doctrinal issues that you have gone to extremes in in your zeal and lack of spiritual growth and insight. A lot of what you have written are just nit picking semantics. And a whole bunch of other stuff and I think are in error in this sense and need to repent and I don't say that in a bad attitude. However I have continued to answers your questions in part just to help you with your theology on these issues. So one again I am going to by discretion discourse with you on these matters. You should be able to see that I am not the unreasonable one I am paying attention to what you and others are saying as you have seen I am writing a list. I am doing my best to straight forwardly answer questions with reason. It is true that some verses are hard and I feel that you are taking these verse and trying to use them against me. Like for instance when you debate Mormons or JW's they will pick out some difficult verses and then try to make a whole theology out of it and it is hard to reason with them.

Also Bog, I said a couple things and you did not respond to them with a direct answer but with an answer in the form of a question. So, here is the question once more or the statement that I would like for you to respond to. The Bible clearly states that God desires to glorify Himself and that is a central Christian teaching that He desires to be worshiped saying holy is He worthy of glory and honor ect. therefore since God desires to glorify Himself that means He desires to love Himself since they are one and the same. So please respond to this and the verses I have supplied.

Jeremiah 13:11: For as the waistcloth clings to the loins of a man, so I made the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah cling to me, says the Lord, [b]that they might be for me[/b] a people, a name, a praise, and a [b]glory[/b].

Isaiah 48:11; For my own sake, for my own sake I do it, for how should my name be profaned? [b]My glory I will not give to another[/b].

Romans 11:36; "[b]All things are[/b] from him and through him and [b]to him[/b]"

Ephesians 1:11-12; In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, [b]so that we[/b] who were the first to hope in Christ [b]might be to the praise of his glory[/b].

Ron,

perhaps you could consider this; if Christ is not the eternal Son then how do you deal with Old Testament Scriptures that are attributed to the Son in the New Testament? For example... Psalm 45:6, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Applied to Christ in Hebrews 1:8, "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Psalm 68:17,18, "The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the LORD is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.". Applied to the Son in Ephesians 4:8-10, "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens that he might fill all things." Psalm 110:1, "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand." Applied to Christ by Himself, Matthew 22:44. Psalm 102:25-27, "Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end." Applied to the Son in Hebrews 1:10-12. Isaiah 6:1-3, "I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; With twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory." Applied to the Son in John 12:41.

Hi boG, thank you for your time and thought in responding to me.

I wanted to suggest a few things about this if I could?

"It would be a very strange doctrine, if it was suddenly called divine love to love one's self. Love is always loving others."

Yes, but, we(our[b]selves[/b]) are not God? Not glorious or infinite or majestic...

But I thought too of how Christ, Who is called the image of God is called the beloved(Mat 3:17).

Dear boG, I hope it will be alright if I do not answer your questions near the bottom of your response to me, directly. I feel an apprehension in discussing these things. I do not want to approach them as philosophy or reasoning.

I would like to suggest again that the exhortation in Corinthians is given to us that we might know how the love of God should be expressed [b]among us[/b] and not rather to suggest to us if it was nescessary or not for there to be a mulitplicity of persons in God in order that He Himself should be love.

I think that we are given by faith the declaration that God is and was Holy before He ever created anything to be seperate from. That He is and Was Almighty before He ever created anything that was weak or either exercised His power to create. That He is and was infinite before He took on flesh. That He is and was eternal before there was time.

Because He is what He is. The "I AM that I AM".

Wish you and the others grace and peace in Christ.

[i]Edited to add the phrase 'is and' to the last two lines of the last paragraph[/i]

Also Bog, I said a couple things and you did not respond to them with a direct answer but with an answer in the form of a question. So, here is the question once more or the statement that I would like for you to respond to.

"Indeed, how humorous"

Well yes i agree of course.
I want to state that I did not mean to say "funny" in a bad attitude.

The Bible clearly states that God desires to glorify Himself and that is a central Christian teaching that He desires to be worshiped saying holy is He worthy of glory and honor ect. therefore since God desires to glorify Himself that means He desires to love Himself since they are one and the same. So please respond to this and the verses I have supplied.

If I should say that "God loves Himself" (and He does) then I do say so as a Trinitarian. Such that what I truly say is: The Trinity is a beautiful balance of perfect individuality and perfect unity in harmony -- the Godhead being the perfect representation of divine love. The Father loves the Son and the Spirit and seeks to exalt (glorify) them; the Son loves the Father and the Spirit and seeks to exalt (glorify) them; the Spirit loves the Father and the Son and seeks to exalt (glorify) them. This is a relational emphasis which your Oneness doctrine cannot touch. I mentioned this previously. For example, we read the Father glorified the Son,
[b]Philippians 2:9[/b], "For this reason also, God highly exalted Him (Jesus), and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name".
And, [b]John 8:54[/b], Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God'".
And, again, [b]John 17:1[/b], "Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, 'Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You'".
Likewise, [b]John 5:19[/b], Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
[b]John 5:30[/b], "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."
In this way, each Person in the Godhead does not seek His own but seeks to love and honor one another; in this way does God love Himself as love.
I don't recall ever saying that God "must" be Trinity or else He cannot love. But I have been specific to say that Modalism, or a Oneness doctrine, defines a Godhead that cannot love Himself with the perfection of divine love revealed in Scripture: the very representation that personifies the Godhead in Trinity.

"Whatever is not of faith is sin."

Well yes I agree of course. However unsaved people can do things that aren't sin. Like natural things like feeding yourself. You can eat in a way that is not sinful.

"but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members."

This is what I am talking about. Our members or body are neutral. A born again Christian for instance can use his body for good or for bad. So that is what I am saying your body in itself is not sinful it is when your body mixes with and obeys the sin in it.

Unsaved men can have love. They might not have love toward God but they may have it toward man. There is a love that an unsaved man can have that is love and is not sinful. If everything that is not from the born again nature and directly from the anointing of the Holy Spirit then we would be more extreme then monks we would not last a day.

God has made the creation and there is still good in it. And so good can be found in the creation apart from a specific being born again and anointed since the creation already has good in it. Note I am not saying totally apart from the Holy Spirit since He is God who was responsible for the creation of the world.

I think if I am right a lot of the things you are saying are not well. You are saying that all normal things we do like eating are sinful. You are saying that we are to only love the born again image of Christ in our children therefore we are not to love our children if they are unsaved. I think that a lot of your posts have been written from you sinful flesh.

I would like to suggest again that the exhortation in Corinthians is given to us that we might know how the love of God should be expressed among us and not rather to suggest to us if it was nescessary or not for there to be a mulitplicity of persons in God in order that He Himself should be love.

[edit: [b]John 17
21.[/b] that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
[b]22.[/b] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
[b]23.[/b] I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.]

Hi Again boG,

"Brother ChrisJD, what if I recommended you to consider how the Trinity expresses love among themselves -- the perfect representation and fulfillment of loving one another; a perfect parable for how we, as the body of Christ, should be one. Does this answer your exhortation?

[edit: John 17
21. that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.]"

[i]...what if I recommended you to consider how the Trinity expresses love among themselves[/i]

I do not, for myself, think it is very easy to take the prayers of the man Christ Jesus(1Ti 2:5, [i]EDIT I do not mean to say that He is not also God, as in 1Jn 5:20[/i]), the mediatior between God and men, and make a doctrine out of them of the nescessity of there being multiple persons in God in eternity in order that He be love.

Love does not seek [b]it's own[/b].

The Lord Jesus in the same prayer said

[b][color=660000]I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. [/color][/b]

- John 17:9-10(KJV)

[i]Edited to correct errors in spelling[/i]

Bog,

The Bible teaches that God desires to glorify Himself. Therefore God desire to love Himself. Do you deny that God desires to glorify Himself? If so then how do you deal with the verse I provided you? I am not saying that God only "deserves" to be glorified but God "desires" to be glorified. According to your reasoning then because God desires to glorify Himself then He is not loving and being selfish. I however would state that He is being selfish and loving as I have already explained. Please do not answer with a question but answer with a direct answer dealing specifically with what I have put forth. I do not believe that I have answer you merely with questions but with direct answers.

I cannot say that I have a load of clarity on the doctrine of depravity. I can say what I say though. And that is that unsaved man can do good in that they can love their children or work for the government as a police officer doing God's bidding. To say that we are not to love our children is a zealous erroneous polarization of scripture.

If I should say that "God loves Himself" (and He does)

Love does not seek it's own.

The Lord Jesus in the same prayer said

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

- John 17:9-10(KJV)

"If I should say that 'God loves Himself' (and He does)"

I am a bit wondering now. I thought you said that God does not love Himself because He does not seek His own because He is love and love does not seek His own. But now you are saying God loves Himself? Which is it? I believe you are contradicting yourself...

[b]This is how I describe God loving and glorifying Himself[/b]:
The Trinity is a beautiful balance of perfect individuality and perfect unity in harmony -- the Godhead being the perfect representation of divine love.
God the Father does not seek His own but loves the Son and the Holy Spirit and seeks to exalt (glorify) them;
God the Son does not seek His own but loves the Father and the Holy Spirit and seeks to exalt (glorify) them;
God the Holy Spirit does not seek His own but loves the Father and the Son and seeks to exalt (glorify) them.
This is a relational emphasis which your Oneness doctrine cannot touch.

I however would state that He is being selfish and loving as I have already explained.

I cannot say that I have a load of clarity on the doctrine of depravity. I can say what I say though. And that is that unsaved man can do good in that they can love their children or work for the government as a police officer doing God's bidding. To say that we are not to love our children is a zealous erroneous polarization of scripture.

1) "unsaved man can do good"
[b]Romans 3
12.[/b] ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; [b]THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD[/b], THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

2) "unsaved man ... can love"
[b]2 John 1
6.[/b] And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments [that we love one another].

I ask you sir, can an unsaved man obey the commandments of Christ Jesus? do I need to repeat [b]Romans 3:12[/b] again? How about I quote this verse instead,

[b]Romans 8
7.[/b] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
[b]8.[/b] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

The unregenerate sinner will not, can not, is not able to obey the law of Christ. And the law of Christ is to love one another -- the depraved man therefore cannot love.

David, you have settled me in this matter. You do not have a right view of the divine love or the divine wrath of God. You do not have a right view of the exceeding sinfulness of sin nor of man's depravity and condemnation. And likewise this leaves me with little wonder why you should have no confidence and no affection for the revelation of the Godhead as Trinity.

I am more than willing to take the time to instruct you in doctrine but no longer on this thread. If we shall continue this conversation I should only desire to do so on an instant-chat service because this way isn't benefitting you as I hoped it would. As I said way back in the beginning David, you are stuck in your pride. You thought this was an attack on your character. Indeed it was; however, not for the sake of slandering but for this reason: pride in its most basic definition makes us unable to discern what causes us to stumble. And indeed my brother you are stumbling.

Bog,

Selfish in a righteous sense. Since God desires to glorify Himself He is being selfish in a righteous sense. And since God desires to glorify Himself He also desires to love Himself. You still have not answered the question that I gave you directly nor responded to the verse I quoted directly. This is the 3rd time that I posted them and each time you did not directly answer them.

You also did not respond when I asked you about about Your teaching that God loves Himself since earlier you said He didn't.

And I also think you are teaching that we are not to love our children if they are not saved in an extreme polarization of interpreting scripture.

I agree to disagree with you and also do not think that it would be beneficial to continue in this conversation at this point.

Selfish in a righteous sense.

davidt:
Oh my David, the Calvinists are going to get you on this one. "See what happens when you reject the sovereignty of God in salvation," they will say, "you fall into a delusion about the Godhead."

I had some problems at one time with the trinity about 20 years ago but I found out quickly that it didn't pay. I just packed in my worm views and decided I would not give people a reason to invalidate my testimony just because I didn't follow the findings of Constantines councils.

I hold that us trying to put God in a box with a equation is like trying to teach a worm nuclear physics.

>>>No one has proved that Jesus was the Son before He was begotten as a man.

You are standing with Adam Clarke on this one the well known Wesleyan commentator.

"But in the above reasons it is demonstrated that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is absolutely irreconcilable to reason, and contradictory to itself.

Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time: Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation: therefore the rational conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas."

Adam Clarke on Act 13:33.

"But in the above reasons it is demonstrated that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is absolutely irreconcilable to reason, and contradictory to itself.

Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time: Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation: therefore the rational conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas."

Clarke is identifying the Voluntary Sonship of the Second Person of the Trinity and not suggesting that some aspect of God 'became' a person at the point of the incarnation. Clarke believed, as did all Methodists, in the Eternal Personhood of Him who we now know as the Christ.

Phil,

Selfish in a righteous sense.

You need to find another word. Sin cannot have a 'righteous sense'.

You still have not answered the question that I gave you directly nor responded to the verse I quoted directly. This is the 3rd time that I posted them and each time you did not directly answer them.

You also did not respond when I asked you about about Your teaching that God loves Himself since earlier you said He didn't.

And I also think you are teaching that we are not to love our children if they are not saved in an extreme polarization of interpreting scripture.

Tell me David, do you still believe unrepentant & unregenerate sinners can do good and can love without sin?

philologos:
I am indebted to you for this quotation. However you must understand that Clarke is not agreeing with the Arian views expressed in this thread.

I know well that Adam Clarke is not Arian but I was unaware that davidt was holding to an Arian belief if that is what you are implying.

Joe,

This is not something new, it is just the regurgitation of the heretic denial of the "Eternal Sonship" of Christ.

Also, I read through the first article you posted. 90 percent of it we have already gone over on this thread and I feel I have answered them thoroughly. As for the longer article it seems to be more historical and quoting men. And they book I did not read I would first have to see a table of contents and make sure it was not just a drawn out writing on the same subjects as have already been seen.

Bob,

Oh my David, the Calvinists are going to get you on this one. "See what happens when you reject the sovereignty of God in salvation," they will say, "you fall into a delusion about the Godhead." I had some problems at one time with the trinity about 20 years ago but I found out quickly that it didn't pay. I just packed in my worm views and decided I would not give people a reason to invalidate my testimony just because I didn't follow the findings of Constantines councils. I hold that us trying to put God in a box with a equation is like trying to teach a worm nuclear physics.

>>>No one has proved that Jesus was the Son before He was begotten as a man. You are standing with Adam Clarke on this one the well known Wesleyan commentator. "But in the above reasons it is demonstrated that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is absolutely irreconcilable to reason, and contradictory to itself. Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time: Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation: therefore the rational conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas."

Ron,

the Arian views expressed in this thread.

Arius taught that only God the Father was eternal and too pure and infinite to appear on the earth. Therefore, God produced Christ the Son out of nothing as the first and greatest creation. The Son is then the one who created the universe. Because the Son relationship of the Son to the Father is not one of nature, it is, therefore, adoptive. God adopted Christ as the Son. Though Christ was a creation, because of his great position and authority, he was to be worshipped and even looked upon as God. Some Arians even held that the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son. At Jesus' incarnation, the Arians asserted that the divine quality of the Son, the Logos, took the place of the human and spiritual aspect of Jesus, thereby denying the full and complete incarnation of God the Son, second person of the Trinity. In asserting that Christ the Son, as a created thing, was to be worshipped, the Arians were advocating idolatry.

some aspect of God 'became' a person at the point of the incarnation.

"there remaining no longer any distinction in the persons of the glorious Trinity, as acting any distinct or separate parts in either the kingdom of grace, or the kingdom of glory, and so the One infinite essence shall appear undivided and eternal."

"It will be our belief that The Creator GOD died on that Cross"

Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation: therefore the rational conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas."

Bob,

I was unaware that davidt was holding to an Arian belief if that is what you are implying.

Bog,

Scripturally God desires to glorify Himself. Therefore God desires to love Himself. Therefore God is God centered. Therefore He is self centered. Therefore He is selfish. How to you respond to this and the scriptures I previously provided?

From what I was understanding you were saying God does not love Himself since love does not seek its own. And since to love yourself is to seek your own God must not love Himself.

From what I was understanding you were saying that we cannot love our children if they are unsaved since they are completely evil if they are not born again. Maybe you mean we can love them to salvation and as our enemies but not just as our children. If this is what you are saying then I disagree because I believe we can love our children just as our children.

Unsaved people can do good and love. As I stated earlier I don't have full clarity on this matter. However even if man were completely evil and could never do good that would not compromise my understanding of the Triunity since I say that God loves Himself yet it is okay since He has a good nature. I will say though thus far the understanding that I have come to is that unsaved man can do good though there is none who does enough good or mostly good. Specifically I don't emphatically believe that unsaved man can love God though I think they can to a degree but I do think that they can love each other. Paul testified that the Jews had a zeal for God. To have zeal is to have desire for and to have desire for is to love. Fathers love their children and this is a righteous love. Police officers do good in that they serve the Lord in righteousness. Proverbs says a righteous man lay up an inheritance for his children and there are parents who lay up an inheritance for their children out of love for them.

Luke 7:4-5 And when they came to Jesus, they pleaded with him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue."

Acts 10:22 And they said, "Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation,

Acts 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God.

Luke 23:50-51 Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, who had not consented to their decision and action; and he was looking for the kingdom of God.

Proverbs 13:22 A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous.

Acts 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God.

Rom 10:2 I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God,

In light of Jesus saying that I and My Father are one.

Here is a question, when we are speaking of God as Spirit does it matter whether we call Him Father, Jesus Christ(Son), or Holy Spirit.

Here is another question. Is it possible to honor any one of the three manifestations of God more than the other. According to scripture we can not know nor honor the Father except through the Son.

Hi again everyone,

boG,

"Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Love does not seek it's own.

The Lord Jesus in the same prayer said

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

- John 17:9-10(KJV)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have just proven my point Chris. You make God dependant upon man in order to love perfectly."

But boG, I only qouted the scripture?

I think there is a tremendous difficulty in writting about things like this and trying to offer explanations for things which are not clearly revealed and [b]expressly stated[/b]. The secret things belong to the Lord.

The Lord Jesus said,

...[b][color=330000]My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, [i]whether[/i] it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
[/color][/b]

- John 7:16-18(KJV)

And yet we can easily write [b]pages upon pages[/b] trying to explain the very nature of God? For sure the scripture will be qouted, but what about all the words inbetween? Are they God's? Our own?

Just recently, I recieived as a daily devotional an item about the Trinity. In it, the author says after stating some things about the doctrine of the Trinity

"Although these truths are implicit throughout the New Testament, the doctrine of the Trinity is seldom, if ever, presented therein explicitly as a formal doctrine."

But it is presentend explicity as a formal doctrine in the words of men [b]and those words[/b] are held over others who are forced to accept and say them, except they be called heretics?

Take for instance in this thread. In a rebuke against the person that started this thread, he was sent to three men, who it was claimed could beat the heresy out of him, one of whom supposedly wrote a whole book on the subject.

The Apostle Paul, as far as I know, never wrote a whole book on the subject of 'eternal sonship' of Christ, but, he did write this:

[b][color=000000]And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifest in the flesh,

justified in the Spirit,

seen of angels,

preached unto the Gentiles,

believed on in the world,

received up into glory. [/color][/b]

- 1Timothy 3:16(KJV)

Maybe, if we should have need for a creed, or a dogma, that everyone of us must confess, this would be more suitable then the multitude of words and explanations that have been written in the centuries since then.

"Every word of God [i]is[/i] pure. He [i]is[/i] a shield to them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

- Proverbs 30:5-6(KJV)

Just offering a suggestion but you all may want to listen to Art Katz's sermon:

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=7149]That They May Be One[/url]

Rbanks,

In light of Jesus saying that I and My Father are one.

Here is a question, when we are speaking of God as Spirit does it matter whether we call Him Father, Jesus Christ(Son), or Holy Spirit.

Here is another question. Is it possible to honor any one of the three manifestations of God more than the other. According to scripture we can not know nor honor the Father except through the Son.

Also, we cannot honor one revelation of God above another since all are equally God. It does seem though yet subtle that many do exalt one above another as if one is greater then another. It is not as if one bows down to another in being lesser or worship but the Spirit and the Son do do the Fathers bidding since He is the head. Your head may tell your hands and feet to do something but that does not mean that they are less then you since they are you.

Jesus-is-God,

Thank your for your posts. I am blessed by the extensive thoughts on the matter. I have not delved in as far as possibly you and Clarke on the matter in a specific way. I have so long been alone in the matter. I have brought it up to close friends that I respected and none of them had anything to say some quietly agreed and others vaguely responded in a way that they were not yet ready to talk of such lofty subjects. Here on SI is the first time that I have had constructive conversation on the matter. And, now I hear from you and Clarke. I at first did not know who Clarke was even as Bob earlier mentioned him. I later remembered that He wrote commentaries. I am now excited to read some of his thorough treaties on this topic. I read that he has written probably the most comprehensive commentary ever written by one man.

I did hesitate at first to respond to your earlier comment because I am not sure that I understand it and may not agree with it. I think that my distinction with Clarke and probably yourself is the eternal Sonship but I also believe that The Logos, Father/God/Head, and Spirit share the same personality as we do with our word and spirit with possible exception to the Son in His humanity. I deny this multiple personality teaching in light of scripture and in that it is unsound and turns off evangelistically those who are monotheistic. So what did you mean when you said:

"When the administration of the kingdom of grace is finally closed; when there shall be no longer any state of probation, and consequently no longer need of a distinction between the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory; then the Son, as being man and Messiah, shall cease to exercise any distinct dominion and God be all in all: there remaining no longer any distinction in the persons of the glorious Trinity, as acting any distinct or separate parts in either the kingdom of grace, or the kingdom of glory, and so the One infinite essence shall appear undivided and eternal."