| Poster | Thread |
| | Trinity and TD Jakes | | I looking at another thread and this is something i didn't understand.
What is the difference between the Trinity and saying this ""...One God, but manifest in...three different ways, Father in creation, Son in redemption, Holy Spirit in regeneration."" (obviously a quote from TD Jakes).
What is the Difference between the Trinity and saying that??
I'm confused, need help... |
|  2005/6/15 18:28 | | ReceivedText
Member
Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA
| | Re: Trinity and TD Jakes | | Quote:
What is the difference between the Trinity and saying this ""...One God, but manifest in...three different ways, Father in creation, Son in redemption, Holy Spirit in regeneration."" (obviously a quote from TD Jakes).
What is the Difference between the Trinity and saying that??
There are reasonable people on both sides who when pressed to be specific and explain this end up confessing: "It is a mystery."
The term trinity was coined by Tertullian long after the apostles were gone. So the term is non-essential for saving faith in Christ.
There are NOT three Gods. We know that.
We also cannot say that the Son = the Father since Jesus said in essence: the Father > the Son. Not logically correct.
The Scriptures make no claim of "mystery" for a Trinity. The mystery of godliness has to do with God being manifest in the flesh. (1 Tim. 3:16) Ponder on THAT, and you will begin understanding the godhead better.
Listen to one of the bishops set in place by the apostles themselves:
Ignatius: A.D. 30-107
Epistle to the Trallians.
CHAPTER VI
"For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. [b]Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person[/b], and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power."
Notice that very early the apostolic teaching was against there being "one person." But our word "person" can take on a bit different connotation than the Greek. Of course this is not Scripture. But a very good witness it is indeed.
This is from Justin Martyr AD 110-165:
[b]"And Jesus the Christ, because the Jews knew not what the Father was, and what the Son, in like manner accused them; and Himself said, No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and they to whom the Son revealeth Him. Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, He that heareth Me, heareth Him that sent Me. From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people. And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here. But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, And the angel of God spake to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yet [the Jews] maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe. Whence also the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them, and says, Israel doth not know Me, my people have not understood Me. And again, Jesus, as we have already shown, while He was with them, said, No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him. [u]The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God[/u], who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. [u]For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.[/u] And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death."[/b]
RT |
| | 2005/6/15 19:48 | Profile | Compton
Member
Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732
| | Re: Form and substance | | Quote:
What is the difference between the Trinity and saying this ""...One God, but manifest in...three different ways, Father in creation, Son in redemption, Holy Spirit in regeneration."" (obviously a quote from TD Jakes).
Jakes believes in an idea that I've understood to be termed "modalism". Modalism is the idea that the same thing or person can take on different forms but never be separate forms. Modalists believe these different forms can be consecutive but never coexistant.
For instance the ice/water/steam metaphor is rather modalistic if we are talking about one glass of water becoming either ice or steam. Another darker example of modalism is found in the myth of Dracula where the count can change into a bat or even vapor. When I was growing up there were some cartoon superheroes called the "Wonder Twins." They would put their rings together and say something like "Form of a...tiger!" and transform into a tiger. ...animated modalism? :-D
Orthodox Trinitarians reject modalism because they believe in separate but equal coexistant persons. We know that Jesus was more than a mere morph of God because He said He was going back to the Father...to sit at His right hand. The fact that Jesus talked to the Father is an obvious indication of their separateness. Also, if Jesus is a only a shape-shifted manifestation of the Father, then He is in effect only a created being instead of the Lamb pre-existant with God before creation itself.
I've read many apologetics for the importance of the Trinity but most never seem to stick in my head very well. I have always sensed that the essential reason the Trinity is so important to the Gospel has something to do with the cross and the atonement. Jesus had to be perfectly and completely God to be the spotless lamb who could rise from the dead and ascend to the Throne, yet He had to be set apart from the Father in order to take upon Himself the sins of the World. There are more complete explanations but that one has always satisfied my curiosity...
MC
_________________
Mike Compton
|
| | 2005/6/15 21:24 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
Compton wrote:
Modalism is the idea that the same thing or person can take on different forms but never be separate forms. Modalists believe these different forms can be consecutive but never coexistant.
That helped me alot.
Well, so 'Oneness Pentacostals' and TD Jakes, dont believe in Omni-Presence of God (being in more than one place at once)??
Raising up the debate 'who was Jesus praying to'?
Hmm thats a co-existance..right? |
| | 2005/6/15 23:51 | | jeremyhulsey
Member
Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777
| | Re: | | To add to Compton's reply I would add that a very critical element is missing from Jakes explanation of his belief of the Godhead. You will never hear the words Co-equal, or Co-eternal. For Jakes, the Father [i]is[/i] the Son [i]is[/i] the Holy Spirit...etc.
The Trinity is the proper way to describe God because it's the truth. Deut. 6:4 which states "the Lord our God the LORD is one," contains in it a hint at a plurality in the Godhead. The Hebrew word used for "one" is echad, which is used in Hebrew to describe a group being united as one. John chapter one is the clarion passage for Trinitarians.
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and God was the Word."
In the Greek there is a definate article in front of the first rendering of Theos (God). The second reference to Theos identifing Him as also being the Word is missing the definate article. This is significant in that it identifies two distinct persons BOTH called God. If the definate article were present in the second renderring then this passage would only be talking about one person and modalists would be right.
This is an important doctrine because the root of almost all heresy begins in a misunderstanding of the identity of God. Without the trinity there is no Son to sacrifice, and no Father to receive the sacrifice. The prayers of Christ make no sense...etc.
Hope this helps,
In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey
_________________
Jeremy Hulsey
|
| | 2005/6/16 0:07 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | RT writes:
Quote:
Listen to one of the bishops set in place by the apostles themselves:
Ignatius: A.D. 30-107
Speculation. There is no record of the apostles having done this and Ignatius' view of 'monarchical bishops' is certainly not shared by Paul and Peter.
Here's a one page devotion on [url=http://www.biblebased.co.uk/ftp/RonBailey/trinity.pdf]Trinity[/url] that I wrote for a catholic school assembly!
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2005/6/16 3:45 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | A way that has helped me apprehend the Trinity is by observation of the creation concerning His eternal power and Godhead.
All of our universe boils down to 3 things:
1) Space
2) Matter
3) Time
This is a Trinity
1) Space exists as L x W x H
This is a Trinity.
Length is not width. Width is not height. Height is not length but they are ALL [b]SPACE[/b]
2) Matter exists as:
a) solid
b) liquid
c) gas
This is a Trinity.
Solid is not liquid. liquid is not gas. Gas is not solid. But they are all [b]MATTER[/b]
3) Time exists as:
a) Past
b) Present
c) Future
This is a Trinity. Past is not the present. Present is not the future. Future is not the past. But they are all [b]TIME[/b].
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2005/6/16 9:12 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
RobertW wrote:
This is a Trinity.
Solid is not liquid. liquid is not gas. Gas is not solid. But they are all [b]MATTER[/b]
This is a Trinity. Past is not the present. Present is not the future. Future is not the past. But they are all [b]TIME[/b].
This sounds in error. Even though that what you said is true, but when you apply it to the Trinity its void.
The Father IS NOT the Son, The Son IS NOT the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit IS NOT the Father. Is the way you are pertraying this.
Okay. So TD Jakes and Oneness Pentacostals believe WHAT contray to us. (i guess trinty ppl..)
We(me 2) believe the Trinity is... 'Co-equal, Co-existant, Co-eternal'.
Now, what is TD/Oneness believe that they are ...what? that differ them from us.
I know they believe 'you must speak in tounges to go to heaven'..and that crap.
But about the Trinity. What's the difference between what TD Jakes said...and what we say
"...One God, but manifest in...three different ways, Father in creation, Son in redemption, Holy Spirit in regeneration" TD Jakes
"Father/Son/Holy Spirit are all Co-existant, Co-equal, Co-eternal" Us (trinity people)
My question, *i like straight forward answers..and a parable might help..if possible..lol*
Is.. What is the difference between those to statements. |
| | 2005/6/16 10:21 | | couch
Member
Joined: 2003/10/29
Posts: 62
College Station, TX
| | Re: | | Yshua,
I believe what Robert was highlighting in those examples (thank you for those brother!) was the clear difference as stated here:
Modalists reject the idea that although God is one in nature, He is three in personage. They would maintain that God is one being who morphs back and forth between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, depending on the situation - but is never all three existing at the same time in full, equal existence.
In other words we believe there are three "whos" and one "what". One God, co-equal and co-existing in three personages who are altogether unique yet altogether one.
Modalists would say that three do not exist simultaneously, only one exists at a time, yet is fully God. We reject this because God can not be "fully God" unless He is shown as the complete "us" as is in Genesis: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, together as three persons in one Godhead.
Hope this helps...
_________________
Ryan Couch
|
| | 2005/6/16 10:26 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
couch wrote:
Modalists reject the idea that although God is one in nature, He is three in personage. They would maintain that God is one being who morphs back and forth between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, depending on the situation - but is never all three existing at the same time in full, equal existence.
Hope this helps...
This DID help.
So, again no one said 'Yes, Oneness/TD both believe that their is no Co-existance'.
I understand now. Finally... (sometimes i need to be beat over the head with something).
Here is another question, same topic. Can God use TD Jakes? If he believes such lies? This is a bit of a weird question now, but it seems like God is getting the glory..right? or is he like benny hinn but in a different way.
Meaning, 'alot of show', and some Glory to God. |
| | 2005/6/16 10:47 | |
|
