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
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7472
Mississippi

 Re:

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

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2008/11/18 22:04Profile
boG
Member



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

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

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?


_________________
Jordan

 2008/11/19 0:45Profile
Greenlea
Member



Joined: 2008/11/5
Posts: 28


 Re: The Triunity (my slightly differing view/ understanding

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

 2008/11/19 2:26Profile
boG
Member



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

 Re: The Triunity (my slightly differing view/ understanding

Quote:
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.


However, the church has consistently and overwhelmingly agreed on the core doctrine of the Trinity, namely, One God in Three co-equal Persons.

[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]


_________________
Jordan

 2008/11/19 4:21Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Ben,

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


When Jesus died on the cross He died in His humanity. It is impossible for God to die that is why He had to take on human flesh in order to do this.

 2008/11/19 5:18Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Inthelight,

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


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.

 2008/11/19 5:30Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

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


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.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/19 5:47Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Ginny,

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


I am not denying that God is not 3 only that He does not have 3 personalities.

 2008/11/19 5:51Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 This is Not a Tennis Match... Lets Slow things Down

Quote:
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.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/11/19 5:59Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Bog,

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


Bog, this claim is unfair and incomplete as I said earlier. When you make such a statement you must back it with reason. You should not just make statements without reason even if you think you have a reason you should as least explain what that is. To be sound, scholarly, and wise you should do this. So far I have yet to read one singular reason why I am wrong. I have time after time corrected my critics. Most of which have not even thought this doctrine through but come offensively at me because it does not sound traditional. But tradition is no complete reason to take a certain stance. If you read throughout the posts correctly you will see that you claim that I have already been discredited is insufficient. 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. Put something substantial on the table and then make these statements because they are serious statements they are accusatory in essence and so must be said responsibly with proofs.


Quote:
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 must admit at the out start here that I have been challenged at times but am confident and clear that I have answered these challenges in general. Even here I am challenged in the details because much of this I have not thought through so far. I have not delved into the philosophical realm of it all I merely began with Scripture simply and believed it and now I am progressing in thinking what are the results of such things. So these questions are fresh to me and I walk with trepidation in answering them because I am still growing in my knowledge here so I am a bit stretched.

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.

 2008/11/19 6:10Profile





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