SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The Triunity (my slightly differing view/ understanding)

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 Next Page )
PosterThread
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

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 [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:


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.



[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.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2008/11/18 9:38Profile
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re:

Quote:
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.


[url=http://www.search.com/reference/Patripassianism]Patripassianism[/url]


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2008/11/18 10:21Profile









 Re:

Guess what... no one can fully understand the Trinity because it is a mystery. Plain & simple.

Krispy

 2008/11/18 10:28
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Greenlea,

Quote:
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.


Hello Greenlea. Thank you so much. I am surprised by this. That is so cool. Thank you so much for your kind encourgagement.

 2008/11/18 11:34Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

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.


Quote:
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.


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


Quote:
You need someone else for love to be perfected


This is exactly the thing I am talking about. This is the exact things I have heard mainstream about the Triunity that I am now speaking against. I believe this to be philosophy and not Scripture not that Scripture cannot be philosophical but I do not believe this to be SCriptural. 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. In this speech I am carrying with it a bit of cynicism but it is not toward you but the concept I believe to be false.


Quote:
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.


I am not saying parts as in separate parts. It is more of an analogy then anything by which God explains Himself in comparing Himself to such a limited creation compared to Himself. Our arms and feet though different parts are not seperate but us but are one with us and are us. Whenever an analogy is used you can be technical and tear it apart but this analogy was not meant to be totally complete just as no analogy is to be totally complete but a similar comparison. 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. If I were to name this doctrine I would called it the biblical view of the Triunity.

 2008/11/18 11:46Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Robert,

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


I agree I am in no way taking this lightly and I fear God and do not desire to carry any error in the truths of God.


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


I agree but I am stating that in some senses the mainstream is at fault here to some extent. I have not begun with a bias by intellect but have taken from the Scripture's objectively what I believe it to take and it has only happened to be more reasonable. I have dealt with cults somewhat extensively and have seen many different views and reasonings.


Quote:
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.


I have studied the subject thoroughly. I have to some degree anguished over this doctrine and meditate and studied long and hard over this subject. I have studied full time for over 4 years and by full time I mean that literally. I am not saying that I am the man or something just that I am well versed in the essential concepts as I have discussed earlier that I have been fully indoctrinated with the mainstream teaching of this theology.


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


I have have said before contradiction is not my problem here. Even though I think the doctrine to be odd I would receive it if it were Scriptural but I do not believe it to be. I could see your reason in saying that it is not contradicting but the main thing is just that I do not believe it to true. I stand humbly before God on doctrine I have been broken over it before in questioning God and have received as Job though not as powerfully the words, "if you have understanding tell me were you there when I laid the foundations of the earth?". I wasn't I know nothing as I ought but God in His mercy has imparted the Scriptures to me and even upholds me continually.

 2008/11/18 11:58Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

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?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/18 12:14Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Thingsabove,

Quote:
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.


Yes this is great I encourage it brother. I am glad at least that you see it is not way different.


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


I have stated that God speaks to Himself and that it may "seem" weird. I do not believe that it is weird. What I do believe to be weird is that God has a split personality though if Scriptures taught this I would accept it.


Quote:
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.


I am somewhat surprised that you have not heard it. Just a couple posts earlier a brother posted this saying that God has to have more then one personality in order to love. Meaning if He only had one personality then He would have no one to love. This is the doctrine that I am bringing up. I am glad that you have not heard this doctrine or received it. I must admit that I was a bit cynical in using the word bored but I just meant that it is being taught that if God did not have multiple personalities then He would have no one to relate with. This is a crazy extra biblical doctrine.


Quote:
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.


I am not teaching this. I am not saying that the Spirit and the Son are not God. I am not saying that the Spirit is just an energy like the Watchtowerites. And I am not saying they are 3 seperate gods ect.


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


I do believe it can be apprehended. I think it can be apprehended fully in the sense of what I am saying but not in the sense of knowing all the depths of the revelation of the sea of the knowledge of God. I also agree that it is difficult and this is why I believe it is not comprehended by many because so many have not excercises themselves enough to grasp it.


Quote:
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.




Well no, of course not. I just believe that God can be more then one place at a time.
Quote:
David Bercot's "Dictionary of Early christian beliefs"


Thank you I believe a brother showed me this once but I have yet to get it. I do believe it is beneficial but at this point I would like to stick mainly to Scripture.


Quote:
but may not agree fully on the persons aspect?


Yes we do agree on the full Divinity of the 3. When it comes to the personalities I do have a not so majority view on it. This is how I see it. Does your spirit have a different personality then you? Do you speak to your spirit? Sure you might as David spoke to himself saying, 'why are you so down cast o my soul" but he was not speaking to one of his multiple personalities. And the same goes with Jesus "this analogy may seem crude but it is off the top of my head and gets the point across to a degree" if you put on a robot suit it would express your personality and so it is with God he took on the form of a man. And, I am not saying it was just a robot suit or a coat but God was intricately combined organically with a human body through the virgin Mary.

 2008/11/18 12:18Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Robert,

Quote:
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.


I explained this earlier. When Jesus spoke to the Father as Father and such He was speaking as a different person from His humanity. He may have had a different person because He took on the form of a man but He didn't have a different personality. He may have had a different function as the Son but He did not have a different personality. Do we ever see the God's Spirit having a conversation with the Father? He may search the deep things of God but He doesn't talk with Him as if He were a different personality like, "Hey God/Father how is it going today I love you and so forth". I guess you could say that Jesus had a different personality then the Father to some degree in his humanity but not as the eternal Logos. I was not saying that the Spirit could not be grieved or blasphemed.


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


I am not saying that Jesus was an impersonal concept. I am saying that He is personal just as God is since He is God. He was glorified with God because He was God. He was identifying with God to show that He was God Himself.


Quote:
plural unity called 'One Yachid or one Echad?"


I understand this concept. It is like a group of grapes though they are multiple they are one. I agree that God functions in different ways and parts and is still one at the same time. I cannot say that this proves that God has 3 personalities. I agree that it is possible and can be done without being contradictive but I do not believe this to be Biblical.

 2008/11/18 12:30Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Ginny,

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


I am not trying to complicate things. I think these things are somewhat intricate though simple still. The reason I bring this up and find interest in being specific about it is because it is important. It is important devotionally what we believe about God and how we relate to Him. It is important how we come off both to Christians and unbelievers alike.


Quote:
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?


I don't really think this is Biblical to tie these 2 things together. When He said make man in the image of God he only meant one. Sure he meant them both but both individually. He is not saying as there is a male and a female or as there is 2 of you so there are multiple persons/ personalities of me. I am not focused on the fact that it is not scholarly and wise sounding but the fact that it is not correct I do not believe.

 2008/11/18 12:37Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy