SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : godhead

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 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 Next Page )
PosterThread
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Re:

Dear Philologos,

The Athanasian Creed states, "Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance."

You quoted from Augustus Strongs' Systematic Theology:

4. This tripersonality is not tritheism; for while there are three persons, there is but one essence.

Key word: essence

You said...

This is Jehovah, the name shared by Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Some 'names' are not shared, others are. The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. The Spirit is not the Son nor the Father. This is not independence but individuality.

The key word here is individuality.

The Son offers Himself, within the Godhead, to 'go for us'.

This quote makes me think council. Within the council, Jesus offered to go.

'I and my Father' and 'we' show separate consciousness of being, key elements of 'personhood'.

Don't you see, Ron, what is going on here. I am trying to tell you that the Trinity, as a doctrine, is a poor attempt at explaining God.

You should not use the word "person" in order to establish the difference that exists between the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit.

And personally, I cannot accept that God is made up of three seperate consciousness's either. You are saying that God has three minds. If God has three seperate minds, then He is three seperate people. If God is three seperate people, then it is no different than you, Robert, and me being unified on this message board. You are dividing God into three individuals, three parts.

If God is three seperate consciousness's, then how is God unified?

The word person connotes individuality. This word alone divides God into three parts.

If you say that God is not three individuals, and you say God is three persons, then you are saying God is just three faces or personas. You are accepting modalism.

Obviously, there has been much debate over the word "person" and because this word was used, modalism was born as a theology, for a great debate waged early on in the Church as to the meaning of this word. That is what I have been trying to show you. However, you refuse to listen.

The Athanasian Creed establishes that God is three persons, unified by one "substance." This word also brings about much debate. What do they mean by substance? Obviously, they do not mean God is made up of matter. Rather, the application of this word means "essence" or "nature." God has one nature and one essence. He is one being. That is what it means by saying "substance."

I can agree with that part of the creed. However, I cannot agree with the part of the Trinity that seperates God into three persons.

And if you are saying "Jesus is God and the father is God", then how can you also say, "Jesus is not the father." This makes no sense.

I have to run, but I'll write more later.

We are on the same side you know.

In love,
Blake


_________________
Blake Kidney

 2005/11/8 18:35Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
Don't you see, Ron, what is going on here. I am trying to tell you that the Trinity, as a doctrine, is a poor attempt at explaining God.

There is a famous Winston Churchill comment that the only thing democracy has in its favour is that all the other methods are worse! Trinity is not the last word about God; it is only the best we have been able to do which does justice to all the data that we have. Your alternative does not do justice to the data we have and so must be rejected.

Quote:
4. This tripersonality is not tritheism; for while there are three persons, there is but one essence.??Key word: essence

Your earlier statement said they were 'united [u]by[/u] one essence. This is a complete misrepresentation of Trinitarian teaching. I am not even sure whether you can see the difference between these two statements.

Quote:
This quote makes me think council.

It may make [u]you[/u] think council, but Jehovah is not the name of the council. Jehovah is the name of God; Jehovah is the name of the Father; Jehovah is the name of the Son and Jehovah is the name of the Spirit.

Quote:
And personally, I cannot accept that God is made up of three seperate consciousness's either.

God is not 'made up of' anything. You are seeing the Trinitarian explanation as a tripartite being. God is not 'made up of' parts. God is one; indivisibly one. Your view makes God a composite, not a unity.

Quote:
Obviously, there has been much debate over the word "person" and because this word was used, modalism was born as a theology, for a great debate waged early on in the Church as to the meaning of this word. That is what I have been trying to show you. However, you refuse to listen.

I am not refusing to listen. I would not have spent the time on the thread if I was refusing to listen. But I utterly reject the words with which you describe your version of the godhead, and am increasingly convinced that you are locked into 'god in little boxes' and then complaining that you can't fit all the boxes into another box which is also called god. Your view of what Trinitarians believe is entirely mechanistic and two dimensional.

Quote:
nd if you are saying "Jesus is God and the father is God", then how can you also say, "Jesus is not the father." This makes no sense.

and this is the rock on which your thesis founders. You berate me for using 'logic and reason' and then say this makes no 'sense'. Is that logical or reasonable? Your logic as expressed in the above statement is curious to say the least. Have you thought it through? I am English. Queen Elizabeth is English. Therefore I am Queen Elizabeth? Does it not strike you that there might be an error in the logic here?

It is true that the word Trinity is not biblical, but it has been said that Trinity is 'in solution' throughout the Bible. The circumstances of the councils distilled it. There is one God; this is the consistent declaration of the scripture. Christ, upon the cross, referred to My God in the moment of his separation; the Father is God. Thomas, without rebuke, declared 'My Lord and my God'. (an extraordinary statement from a Jew!); the Son is God. Christ says that to slander the Holy Spirit is blasphemy; the Spirit is God. And yet none of this changes the original revelation 'there is one God'. Christians have tried to express this understanding intelligibly in the doctrine of the Trinity. There is one God and yet it is plainly revealed that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the subjects of reciprocal personal pronouns. "I, thou, we" are all indisputable evidence of distinctive identity. 'thou' is not 'I'. God is not three 'partial gods' which together produce 'one god'.
There is no percentage applicable to Christ's divinity nor to the Spirit's. Just as there is no percentage applicable to divinity and humanity in the incarnation. The Word became 100% flesh, while remaining 100% divine. The Father is 100% god, as is the Son, as is the Spirit. and yet there is 'one God'. The word used to declare, though never fully explain, this revelation is Trinity.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/11/9 3:44Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Hi BeenBlake,

Quote:
[u]Ron wrote[/u]: Trinity is not the last word about God; it is only the best we have been able to do which does justice to all the data that we have. Your alternative does not do justice to the data we have and so must be rejected.



This is the crux of what is happening. I recall a comment one time that you can't cut wood without making chips. Those metaphorical 'chips' on the floor are pieces of revelation that you are having to shave off to get the concept of Godhead to make sense to you. What we are doing is leaving the revelation as it is without leaving anything out.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/11/9 9:00Profile
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Re:

Dear Philologos,

Quote:
Your alternative does not do justice to the data we have and so must be rejected.



My "alternative" is an interpretation of everything you have been saying. It was an attempt to explain what the trinity is proposing. I don't like it either nor do I believe it. However, I have been trying to understand what you and Robert have been saying. I really respect you both and desire to understand you both. Although, it appears I am failing to do so.

And I apologize for any accusations I made against you. I am not perfect. You are right to say that I also reason through everything. Please forgive me.

Quote:
Trinity is not the last word about God; it is only the best we have been able to do which does justice to all the data that we have.



I agree with that statement. If I had to choose one doctrine of all that I have heard, to take as my own, it would be the trinity. I just don't like it divides God into three persons. I understand the reason for this is to make the distinction between the three. However, I feel it is misleading. From this, anyone could easily say that we believe in three Gods, which is not the case.

Quote:
Have you thought it through? I am English. Queen Elizabeth is English. Therefore I am Queen Elizabeth? Does it not strike you that there might be an error in the logic here?



"English" is a heritage. What you are saying is that God is a heritage, and the father and son both share that heritage. Don't you see the error in this? That is the same as saying God is an essence and both the father and son share that essence.

Quote:
There is one God; this is the consistent declaration of the scripture. Christ, upon the cross, referred to My God in the moment of his separation; the Father is God. Thomas, without rebuke, declared 'My Lord and my God'. (an extraordinary statement from a Jew!); the Son is God. Christ says that to slander the Holy Spirit is blasphemy; the Spirit is God. And yet none of this changes the original revelation 'there is one God'. Christians have tried to express this understanding intelligibly in the doctrine of the Trinity. There is one God and yet it is plainly revealed that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the subjects of reciprocal personal pronouns. "I, thou, we" are all indisputable evidence of distinctive identity. 'thou' is not 'I'. God is not three 'partial gods' which together produce 'one god'. There is no percentage applicable to Christ's divinity nor to the Spirit's. Just as there is no percentage applicable to divinity and humanity in the incarnation. The Word became 100% flesh, while remaining 100% divine. The Father is 100% god, as is the Son, as is the Spirit. and yet there is 'one God'. The word used to declare, though never fully explain, this revelation is Trinity.



This I agree with you wholeheartedly. That is why I reject the use of the word "person" because it connotes that God is divisible into three individuals.

I will post what I believe in my heart as the Lord has revealed to me. I hope it will help.

Thank you,
I do appreciate these discussions.

Blake


_________________
Blake Kidney

 2005/11/9 12:06Profile
beenblake
Member



Joined: 2005/7/26
Posts: 524
Tennessee, USA

 Re:

Ultimately, the question we are trying to answer by the doctrine of the Trinity is this: What is the relationship between the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit? How are they the same and how are they different? Here is what I believe:

The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15).

From The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. We all know and accept that God created earth, but often times we miss the part that said God created heaven. This implies that the existence of God, whatever it may be, exists outside of earth and heaven. Earth, as far as we know, exists in time and space. God is outside time and space. We do not know of what substance heaven is made, but whatever it is, we know God exists outside of it because He created it.

Not only does God exists outside of heaven and earth, but God is the only constant, the only true autonomous being, that existence itself can be built upon. Existence depends upon God for it's existence. Heaven and earth are not just built by God, it is built upon God, meaning that it cannot exist without Him. God doesn't need anything. All of creation needs God.

God is omni-present. He is everywhere. All of creation is built upon the foundation of God. And thus, God is in everything and is everywhere. This is a poor analogy, but this is the best way I can think of to explain this. Imagine a piece of paper with a pencil line on it. The line represents everything God has created. The paper is God. The line is written on the paper. The paper gives the line order, shape, and form. Without the paper, the line is just graphite dust. It is not a line. Everything we know needs God to give it design.

This is God. He is a constant that lives at the heart of all things. There is really no adequate way to explain the depth of this. And there is only one sentence that fits in explaining Him. It is simple. In the words of God, "I AM." This is a complete sentence. God is the only being that can say, "I AM." and form a complete sentence. God needs nothing. God is everything and is everywhere.

Immediately, we might realize that this presents a huge dilemma. For if God is everything and is everywhere, then what of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Who are they? What are they? What about sin?

Jesus is God's Word. Even though I know this is a metaphor, as God is beyond human language, I take this somewhat literally. Jesus is the Word that comes forth from God's mouth. Jesus has always existed in God, and by that "was God." Additionally, when God speaks, when God sends forth His Word from out of His mouth, His Word is brought forth or begotten. As we know, when God speaks, it is not without cause or circumstance. When God speaks, it happens.

God's Word is the expression of God's Will. When God's Word goes forth, it acts. In the beginning, God spoke the world into existence. God said this and that, and everything was created. God's Word is more than just words as we know them. God's Word is power. God's Will is made manifest by His Word which is the power of God in action. Something else to realize by this is that God's Will is always of love. God needs nothing and can benefit from nothing. Therefore, God cannot be selfish in any way. Not only that, but everything God does is by choice. Love is a choice. And God chose to create the heavens and the earth. He did not need it. He chose to create it out of love. When God speaks, it is always in love. And so, Jesus is the expression of God's love.

Jesus is God's Word. Jesus is not a separate person from God. Jesus is the person of God. Jesus is the expression of God's personality within God's actions. Jesus can be separated from God in as much as our word can be separated from us. No matter how distant our word may be from us, it is still our word. And I think, the best metaphor to realize this relationship between Jesus and God is to say Jesus is God's Son. Jesus is God's only begotten Son. (This is not to say God does not have a daughter.)

Who is the Holy Spirit?

As we know, the bible does not speak immensely about the world of the Spirits. This is the world of angels. What we know of this world is where it intersects with ours (as Ron Bailey pointed out). This world is called Heaven, and it is also called the dwelling place of God. Why? If God is everywhere, then how is it Heaven is called the dwelling place of God? Because of the Holy Spirit.

Obviously, God is a person. He has an established identity that He chose. God is good. God chooses to be good. Everything God does is by choice, for God is love. People have a substance or being. Most importantly, people have a presence. You can stand next to someone and be in their presence. God also has a presence. And so, God has established His presence in Heaven. He has established Heaven as His dwelling place.

The Holy Spirit is God's presence. That is why the Holy Spirit is called the Holy Spirit. Of all the spirits, this one is Holy. This is the Spirit of God. To be filled with the Holy Spirit is to be in the presence of God.

God is everywhere and in all things. Therefore, God knows everything and sees everything. He has all knowledge. This knowledge is made manifest in His presence.

The Holy Spirit is the places God chooses to be present. God is everywhere, but His presence is not everywhere. I know this is difficult to grasp and understand. God is in everything, but His person is not. The Holy Spirit can be in multiple places at once even. Imagine it like this. God has built a castle on top of a huge mountain. He is looking down across His whole Kingdom. He sees everything. However, if you want to meet God, or be in His presence, you must come to the castle. Even though God is everywhere, God can choose to reveal His true person, His Holy Spirit, to whom ever He chooses.

This is important, for God cannot be in the presence of sin. Likewise, His Holy Spirit cannot be where sin is.

The Holy Spirit is God's presence. By this, the Holy Spirit is God's wisdom. The Holy Spirit knows all things. Many people think that Proverbs chapter 8 is speaking about Jesus. Rather, I believe this passage is speaking about the Holy Spirit. The passage personifies wisdom. However, in doing so, it does not use the pronoun "he" rather it uses the pronoun "she." I believe that the Holy Spirit is the daughter of God, and the use of "she" in this passage clearly establishes this. However, the Holy Spirit has been referenced as "He" in the new testament. What about that? The Holy Spirit is God. And so, it is clear that we should call the Holy Spirit "He" in order to establish this.

Whether the Holy Spirit is a "she" or a "He", or whether the Holy Spirit is a daughter of God or not, what is important to realize is that the Holy Spirit is God. Saying Jesus is God's son, and the Holy Spirit is God's daughter, is a way of establishing the relationship these two have with God. The use of these analogies are to help us mere limited humans to understand God on levels that are beyond our world.

Immediately, someone might say that what we have here is three persons. We must be careful, however, to call either Jesus or the Holy Spirit separate persons. They are all one person. Just as a man has a mind, body, and soul, so God is made up of His Word, His Wisdom, and Him. God cannot be divided or separated into parts. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not parts of God. They are God. They are not modes of God either. By saying they are modes also separates them from God, as it suggests God made them up, as if they are masks that God is wearing. Both are the true person of God. They are not just masks that God is wearing. A mask is not truth. Jesus is the truth. Jesus is the true person of God. Jesus is God as a man, in as much as God can become a man.

If you were to create a little world inside of a painting, could you ever step into the painting? Even if you did, the world you created would not understand you. If you wanted to enter into the painting, you would have to paint yourself into it. God painted Himself, His true person, into the painting of earth as Jesus. God did not paint a lie. He painted His true self. God's Word, went forth from His mouth, and became a man here on earth. God lived among us. And God still does live among us through the Holy Spirit.

These three are one. They cannot be divided. They are not separate persons. They are not individuals with a separate will or a separate consciousness. God did not create Jesus or did He create the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is not a mode or face of God. Jesus is God. If you have seen Jesus, you have seen the father.

By this, you could say that I believe in a trinity. However, I am weary of any doctrine that separates God into three parts. In the "trinity," it is the "unity" that is most important. It is important that we recognize Jesus was a man(with all the limitations of a man) and is God(with all the divinity of God). Jesus died for us, and has the power to save us.

This is what I believe.

In love,
Blake


_________________
Blake Kidney

 2005/11/9 12:19Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
Jesus is God's Word. Jesus is not a separate person from God. Jesus is the person of God. Jesus is the expression of God's personality within God's actions.

How can anyone have a relationship with themselves? Ron (inthelight) referred to Augustine's old comment that 'God is love' and that must imply both a 'lover' and a 'beloved'. I do not have fellowship with myself, but the scripture constantly reveals participative fellowship between Father and Son. In fact we might infer that the very revelation of God as Father and God as Son is the only way that such a relationship could be described without descending into pagan fertility notions. Relationship demands at least two points. Father and Son are reference points but much more. The Father loved the Son from the foundation of the world. [John 17:24]

Have you tried substituting your own definitions in these relational statements? eg "God loved the 'the expression of His own personality within His own actions' from the foundation of the world? At several points during this discussion I have just had to stop, bow my head and worship... but I tell you that last sentence was not one of them! It is sterile. The concept of Trinity breathes life and love and fellowship. I have no fellowship with my word, nor with the expression of my own personality, and neither could God.


Quote:
The Holy Spirit is God's presence. That is why the Holy Spirit is called the Holy Spirit. Of all the spirits, this one is Holy. This is the Spirit of God. To be filled with the Holy Spirit is to be in the presence of God.

Now we are back into 'powers and influences'. The Holy Spirit is not a synonymous term for God's presence. A brief tour through both the Old and New Testaments will show you that the words most used for 'presence' are the words for 'face'. 'before His face' is the idiom for God's presence. To be filled with the Spirit of God is not the same as being in the presence of God, and you will not convince anyone who is filled with the Holy Spirit that it is.


Quote:
I believe that the Holy Spirit is the daughter of God, and the use of "she" in this passage clearly establishes this.

This is not heresy; it is blasphemy.


Quote:
Whether the Holy Spirit is a "she" or a "He", or whether the Holy Spirit is a daughter of God or not, what is important to realize is that the Holy Spirit is God. Saying Jesus is God's son, and the Holy Spirit is God's daughter, is a way of establishing the relationship these two have with God. The use of these analogies are to help us mere limited humans to understand God on levels that are beyond our world.

This is nonsense.

Quote:
These three are one. They cannot be divided. They are not separate persons. They are not individuals with a separate will or a separate consciousness.

Then what do these statements mean? “Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” (Luke 22:42, KJVS)

“And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46, KJVS)


Quote:
By this, you could say that I believe in a trinity. However, I am weary of any doctrine that separates God into three parts.

Only your misconceived view of Trinitarian statements 'separates God into three parts'.

Quote:
This is what I believe.

and I doubt you will ever be persuaded otherwise. But this God that you have created is an image of your own making, and to worship it is idolatry.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/11/9 15:35Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Hi Robert

Ron, I believe your work here should be archived in the Text database.

You can get a pdf version of this from my Biblebase site or click [url=http://mp3.biblebase.com/download.php?file=117]Godhead[/url] I have a feeling it may be on SI too but I can't find it.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/11/9 16:27Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re: Prepositions

I touched on this is a previous posting on this thread but I think it warrants a separate post. It is the whole question of prepositions. Prepositions are parts of speech. The dictionary definition says:preposition:
noun Grammar
a word governing, and usually preceding, a noun or pronoun and [u]expressing a relation to another[/u] word or element in the clause, as in “the man [i]on[/i] the platform,” “she arrived [i]after[/i] dinner,” “what did you do it [i]for[/i] ?” The idea behind prepositions is that they show 'relationship'. In order for there to be 'relationship' there must be at least 2 objects so that the 'relationship between them' can be described. This is where Blake's version of the Trinity comes unstuck. I cannot think of a preposition which could be used in his view of Father/Son/Spirit. His assertion that the Father is the Son who is the Spirit makes prepositions unusable.

My opening post on this thread was all about the amazing prepositions which are used in the first verses of John's gospel“[u]In[/u] the beginning was the Word, and the Word was [u]with[/u] God, and the Word was God. The same was [u]in[/u] the beginning [u]with[/u] God.” (John 1:1-2, KJVS)If there is only one distinct consciousness within the Godhead, as Blake claims, this passage would be nonsense. It would be tantamount to saying God was [u]with[/u] Himself. In fact, in the sense that 'pros ton' is used it would be tantamount to saying 'God was facing Himself'.

There is a website which has a delightful cartoon from an old "Teach Yourself Greek" primer. It is well worth a visit. You will find it [url=http://website.lineone.net/%7entgreek/f41-prep.html]here.[/url] You can see the use of 'pros' with the the accusative case in the first of these cartoons - pros ton leonta. The Greek of John 1:1,2 is 'pros ton theon'. It is a preposition which has 'movement' in it. "The Word was Godwards"; it reveals a dynamic relationship and is the equivalent of 'facing'.

Of the prologue in John, Westcott says:The predicate stands emphatically first. It is necessarily without the article, inasmuch as it desribes the nature of the Word and does not identify his person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say:"The Word was ho theos (the God)" Thus in verse 1 we have set forth the Word in his absolute eternal being.
(a) his existence: beyond time
(b) his personal existence: in active communion with God
(c) his nature: God in essence.
Marcus Dods, in the Expositor's Greek Testament says (a) The Word is distinguishable from God, yet 'theos En o logos' -the Word was God,
(b) of divine nature: not 'a God', which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable,
(c) not yet identical with all that can be called God, for then the article (the) would have been inserted.The Watchtowers's New World Translation builds its own Unitarian error into its own translation at this point and reads "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was [u]a god[/u]." This is poor scholarship and could only have been done by someone who did not understand the significance of Greek word order, or by someone with another agenda.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/11/10 5:12Profile
crsschk
Member



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

 Re:Coming to grips

Been reading through a great deal of this and had to pull out what seemed of greatest import. I guess there is always a point of wrestling with more than a few areas of doctrine or maybe better said 'issues' for us all as we go on. Like the 'issue' of creation it is understood that a normal inquiring is built into us, trying to grasp and understand, finding a fit explanation to our minds...

It would be just as unusual not to do so and yet there is a sense of things coming full circle, where you leave off and become content with the explanation of no explanation, better, something along these lines;

Robert,

Quote:
Better yet, lets leave off physical examination and consider that God exists beyond the three dimensions of space and time our finite minds are limited to in its ability to comprehend.


Not sure which it is, that this is too self effacing and thus a cause for embarrassment or a right impulse to not settle until everything has been wrestled through. One of the most stirring and striking moments in scripture to me has been Thomas' reaction and Jesus' 'explanation' in that moment;

Joh 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Joh 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

I know this has been addressed and mentioned already and have mentioned this elsewhere many days since past... There where times and still on occasion where I could but pray "Lord, I would forgo every blessing for one moment in your physical Presence, to do like Thomas and reach forth my finger". Just to see would be more than enough. About a week ago or so was praying and there are times where I will pace about, musing... In a moment had this thought as I stood still; What if this were to actually happen? Not in my imagination, but with my eye's wide open, right now, literally and 'figuratively' in the most profound sense? It was quite a bit different than being on my knees or on my face and took a bit of concentration to stop the machinery of the mind and...

It just made me shudder and practically tremble at the possibility, maybe it is just a hint of that which broke upon Thomas in his moment of exclamation; "[i]My Lord and my God[/i]". There is a certain profundity in not only [i]my Lord[/i] but my [u]God[/u].

Not to muddy this too much but this has been drawing me back to itself the last few days. Need to preface this as it is from the ISV version, how correct or otherwise I don't know, but it seems to drive another profound point home;

Joh 17:26 I made your name known to them, and will continue to make it known, so that the love you have for me may be in them and I [u]myself[/u] may be in them." (The KJV has just "I in them")

That touch of the personal pronoun (ties in nicely with Ron's earlier examples) just brings home a reality that ...

I am digressing here. Really came to acknowledge perhaps the greatest 'explanation' I have yet to hear regarding the Trinity, though very well [i]said[/i] here;

Quote:
The word used to [b]declare[/b], though never fully explain, this revelation is Trinity.



The Amen comes from this;
Quote:
At several points during this discussion I have just had to stop, bow my head and worship...



Thanks Ron, me too


_________________
Mike Balog

 2005/11/10 9:28Profile
TheophilusMD
Member



Joined: 2003/12/1
Posts: 124
New Jersey

 Re:

Quote:
Ron B. wrote:
At several points during this discussion I have just had to stop, bow my head and worship...



I attempted to quote the same statement in response last night but I held back because it seemed like out of topic. I have closely followed this thread since the start and the awesomeness of our God has put a shout of rejoicing in my heart. Somehow I can relate with Paul as he wrote his letter to the Romans when he stopped the flow of his thoughts abruptly and exclaimed -
Quote:
[b]O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out![/b] (Romans 11:33)



How can we not love and worship a God like Him?


_________________
Rey O.

 2005/11/10 9:47Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy