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
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
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.


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.


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...

[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'.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/21 15:57Profile
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2758
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

Quote:
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


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2008/11/21 17:47Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Bog,

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


Love does not seek its own in the sense of sinful selfishness. It is wrong to serve yourself according to your sinful nature and to never share. But, it is not wrong to love yourself in a good way. When you get married you are loving yourself. When you feed yourself you are loving yourself. When you receive salvation you are loving your soul and so forth. God does seek His own but not in a sinful way and that is what this is talking about. God is God centered. Everything is unto Him and it is He who has made it this way.


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


The name and title of Jesus the Christ was in a prophetically foreseen and promised way always around. But, it was not always actually around in present existence. For why would the name or title be unless that which was being named and titled existed. The Logos has always existed but He did not take on humanity as Jesus the Son until He was born of a virgin. Both of these verse posted at the bottom are both post death and resurrection. His name was above every name after He was exalted and after His death and resurrection and ascenscion. Not that the Logos was not always exalted as God or that Jesus was not perfect but He just was not yet exalted at the right hand in His completed and rewarded commission.

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,


Quote:
which means the Godhead changed.


God did not change only the fact that He took on the form of a man. If this were true then every time that God does something new He is changing. The Logos did not change but only took on the form of a man. When one puts on a coat He does not change only what He is wearing does. The Logos still has His relation to God as His word. And now God has a new relationship to His humanity but His Deity has not changed.

 2008/12/1 21:08Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
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.


I can agree to disagree. The Father gave the Son... Yes, but when it says gave His Son it is not talking about before He was born but when He gave Him at the time of His death on the cross as a sacrifice.


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


Well in analogy as I see it the Father is kinda like the body. So if I say my spirit is with me as with my body then it is with me. So when the word is with the God and the Spirit is with God then it is like saying my word is with me my thoughts are with me. They are in me but they are also with me. There is a distinction with me. Though I am one my spirit and soul can be divided by a double edged sword. So the soul and spirit arent totally the same and so can be with each other.

 2008/12/1 21:15Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Quote:
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.


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.

 2008/12/1 21:18Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

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.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/12/3 16:37Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
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 think that people during this thread have held up tradition and such too much. I think it has weight but not complete. There was misunderstanding and heresy in the Church from the very outstart and the main focus should be on the writings of the original Apostles if we do this there is no need to quote others since there writings are complete.


Quote:
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.


I am surprised that you are still trying to figure out what I am saying I believe especially since I have written it simply, repeatedly, and in under 3 sentences.

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.

 2008/12/3 18:32Profile
boG
Member



Joined: 2008/5/21
Posts: 349
Las Vegas, NV

 Re: The Triunity (my slightly differing view/ understanding)

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


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 and offense against God. I was a lover of self and the wrath of God abided upon me.
If you honestly think "love" is feeding yourself and keeping warm, etc. I must ask, where on your list does it say "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"?

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
for God this is okay He is love itself


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:

[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.

Quote:
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.


This is quite the contrary, for Love to be Love, God must Love another, otherwise He fails Himself to be Love.

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.


_________________
Jordan

 2008/12/4 16:47Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Bog,

Quote:
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 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.


Quote:
"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"?


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. Also no one has lived up to the call of being absolutely denying to all things God has different amounts of extremities in callings for us and gives different amounts of grace.


Quote:
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.


Once again in this instance the flesh here is not specifically speaking about our sinful flesh with sin mixed in. For if it were then when it speaks that we are to love our wives then us loving our wives flesh would be sinful but there is nothing wrong with this you must understand the difference between our normal nature and the sinful nature that is in it.


Quote:
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?


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


Quote:
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.


Well first off I have not just been saying this but answering specifics as in my last post to you. However I do not see this to be some vague cop out it has substance and is a main theological reason for my arguments.

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]

 2008/12/4 18:42Profile
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2758
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

Quote:
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


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2008/12/4 19:02Profile





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