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


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


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/19 6:59Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Robert,

Quote:
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.


Well I am still debating within myself whether or not when God says us He means Him and the angels. As for God talking to Himself I dont know I guess He can do that. Can your spirit search your depths probably. Can you talk to your own thoughts yeah. David spoke to himself in saying, "why are thou so downcast o my soul?.

 2008/11/19 6:59Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
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".


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?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/19 7:02Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

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


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.

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.

 2008/11/19 7:03Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
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.


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.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/19 7:05Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

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.

 2008/11/19 7:06Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
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?


Uhh... no. you have to understand what I was talking to Robert about in context to our earlier conversation. 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.

 2008/11/19 7:10Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
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.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/11/19 7:12Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
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.


Some will say that God needs nothing and in a sense this is true. But, in a sense God does need to be Himself He does need to love He does need to be always according to His character and nature. I think this response you have made takes it off topic. The original point was that it was said that God has to have multiple persons or else would have no one to relate to and needs to relate in order to be relational, loving, and so forth. I responded in saying God doesnt need persons to talk to and neither does He have multiple persons within Himself. God can be sufficient without such things. And I proved this by saying God does not need love because He is love unlike man and that God does not need relations because He is not dependent.

 2008/11/19 7:17Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
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.


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


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/19 7:24Profile





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