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:
But remember the "trinity" is embedded into peoples minds down through the centuries and it's a subject that is "case sensitive" to those that hold to it's tradition of belief.


Now what does this mean? My mind, although I am getting on a little, has not been around for centuries. What you call 'call sensitive' is a passion for God's glory. I am no business to fight the case of the ancients. My own views of trinity would be questioned by some of those ancients.

Please do not patronise those who view things differently from yourself. If you have some thoughts share them and lets examine them together.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/20 11:10Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
davidt on 2008/11/20 15:11:38
Yes, the reason Paul was trying to show that Jesus was equal with God was to show that He was God and there was no difference. If there was a difference in person then it would be noted but it is not. It is not clearly taught anywhere.


You are confusing equivalence with identity. I have 2 legs, 2 arms and 2 eyes. Probably you do too. That is equivalence not identity. I am not you and you are not me just because we share certain characteristics. The fact is that titles and attributes attributed to God in the OT are attributed to Christ in the NT and yet we know there is not two gods but only one.




Quote:
The reason He uses the word Christ is to denote that the only distinction is His humanity as the Christ not that He is different in His Divinity.


This is rather presumptious; this is certainly NOT why 'he uses the word Christ'. He uses the form Christ Jesus because that is who he is talking about. You have created a god who is multi-part and who divided himself up and then has conversations with his 'separated' part known as Jesus Christ. Have you tried to apply your conclusions to the Holy Spirit? Is he still 'part' of the 'integrated' God or has He too now become a separate entity?


Quote:
[Quote] This is the essence of Trinitarian teaching that Christ is both 'with God' and 'is God' and yet these two statements are not tautology.

I have already responded to this. God as a spirit can take on multiple and distinct forms but that does not mean He has multiple personalities. As in the throne room vision in Revelation. The Father was on the Throne, the Lamb was in its midst, and the 7 spirits are before the throne. These 3 are separate in form because God as spirit can do that but it does not mean that they have 3 personalities that are different just 3 functions.

God, I suppose, can do what He wants to, the question is is that part of the revelation that he has trusted to us. Am I right in thinking that you are now saying that Father, Son and Spirit are now 'functions' of Godhead? You are getting into deep water my friend.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/20 11:25Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
You are confusing equivalence with identity.


I am just saying that Paul calls Jesus God because He is. There is no mention of a second person. If I were in the form of you I would be you I would not have another personality. Jesus is in the form of God and so does not have another personality and is one with Him.


Quote:
You have created a god who is multi-part and who divided himself up


God is multi part. He is word and spirit and god. These are not seperate but they are distinct and have different function. I dont know about divided. He may be in different places at once and even 2 different forms at once and He can do this as spirit without dividing.


Quote:
then has conversations with his 'separated' part


I cannot keep saying what I believe about this. I will now ask you a question. Does your word and spirit have a different personality then you? I think that the answer is no but I still want you to answer. I think that once it is established that the Son was not always the Son you no longer have any basis for a separate personality. A son may have a different personality but a word and spirit do not. What do you have to say?


Quote:
Have you tried to apply your conclusions to the Holy Spirit? Is he still 'part' of the 'integrated' God or has He too now become a separate entity?


I have recently written more on this topic and in general:
God, the Spirit, and the Logos are all the same.

The Spirit is the same because the Spirit is God's spirit and God is spirit so there is no difference. The only difference is that the Spirit goes out into the world and searches the deep things of God while God sits on the throne. God on the throne has taken on form since spirit can do this. These are the only differences.

The Logos is the glory of God, the express image of His person, the word of God. Your word and such does not carry another personality the same goes with your spirit.

God is the Spirit and the Logos. The Lord is the Spirit as it says in Corinthians. And the Logos in human form said I and my Father are one if you have seen me you have seen the Father.


Quote:
Am I right in thinking that you are now saying that Father, Son and Spirit are now 'functions' of Godhead?


Why not? I am not understanding. The Godhead is just God summed up or His entirety and that is what the Logos, Spirit, and God are.


p.s. I have chosen not to answer all your questions because I feel I have answered them and dont want to go too deep into semantics and there are so many topics that simplicity is best.

 2008/11/20 11:40Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
I had previously not gone that deep I had merely begun with Scripture and accepted it and had not chased down every thought as far as on this post so some of what I was saying was in alpha form and not beta.



The reason why we have chased these things out is because beliefs have consequences. In previous discussions of the Trinity we have asked, in effect, if it is possible to grasp other essential Christian truths with an improper understanding of God. I think the answer is clearly 'no'.

As we have had this discussion I have had in the back of my mind the effect this unorthodox view has on Penal Substitution theory? I think it is worth noticing that so many aberrational doctrinal views end up effecting their understanding of what was accomplished on the Cross.

I'll be out a while in the UK so won't be able to participate.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/11/20 11:53Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
I am just saying that Paul calls Jesus God because He is. There is no mention of a second person. If I were in the form of you I would be you I would not have another personality. Jesus is in the form of God and so does not have another personality and is one with Him.


No, you would not. That's the point I have been trying to make. To be 'in the form' of has to do with essence and not identity. If you told someone that you were going to adopt my 'form' they would expect there to be two of me; what a thought!! ;-) These 2 passages, John 1 and Phil 2, are making this very point so that we do not confuse the persons nor divide the substance, as the old trinitarians would have put it.




Quote:
I have recently written more on this topic and in general: God, the Spirit, and the Logos are all the same.


So the Father sent Himself in the creation and again Himself at Pentecost? That the Son should 'go' and the Spirit should 'come' is plain evidence that they are not 'the same' person.


Quote:
[Quote] Am I right in thinking that you are now saying that Father, Son and Spirit are now 'functions' of Godhead?

Why not? I am not understanding. The Godhead is just God summed up or His entirety and that is what the Logos, Spirit, and God are.

Then you are into full-blown modalism.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/11/20 11:56Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Robert,

Quote:
The reason why we have chased these things out is because beliefs have consequences.


I understand this. I think it is good and essential to do this. Sometimes however you can jump into areas that you dont need to. Also when I said I have not studied this far does not mean that I have not looked ahead at all. I have looked ahead and I do believe that I needed to look ahead more and am that is part of my reason for posting. Before when I brought this up to brothers they had nothing to say or might have just felt it was too deep or agreed. So I am helped by this conversation. And I also am not basing my belief on false original ideas of God I have allowed Scripture to form it.


edit:have a good time at the conference.

 2008/11/20 12:00Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Phil,

Quote:
I am just saying that Paul calls Jesus God because He is. There is no mention of a second person. If I were in the form of you I would be you I would not have another personality. Jesus is in the form of God and so does not have another personality and is one with Him. No, you would not.


If you say you are in the form of something it is pretty simple to understand that you are that thing. If I am in the form of a banana then I am an banana. Jesus was in the form of God and therefore was God. He is God. God's glory does not have its own personality!


Quote:
So the Father sent Himself in the creation and again Himself at Pentecost? That the Son should 'go' and the Spirit should 'come'


Yes God did. Gods glory went forth and Gods spirit went forth. Kinda like if I spoke and sent out my word or if my spirit left my body these things do not have different personalities it is all me.



Quote:
Then you are into full-blown modalism.


I teach what I believe to be in the Bible. You do not have to ask what I believe because I have clearly written it with no frills:

God, the Spirit, and the Logos are all the same.

The Spirit is the same because the Spirit is God's spirit and God is spirit so there is no difference. The only difference is that the Spirit goes out into the world and searches the deep things of God while God sits on the throne. God on the throne has taken on form since spirit can do this. These are the only differences.

The Logos is the glory of God, the express image of His person, the word of God. Your word and such does not carry another personality the same goes with your spirit.

God is the Spirit and the Logos. The Lord is the Spirit as it says in Corinthians. And the Logos in human form said I and my Father are one if you have seen me you have seen the Father.

So, as there is no difference from you your spirit and your word so there is no difference with God's spirit and word. Simply.

 2008/11/20 12:08Profile
boG
Member



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

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

Davidt, honestly, no. You are stuck in your pride sir. I am sorry that you have spent some 4 years "extensively" studying the "Triunity", as you say, and yet it doesn't take but 4 seconds to see that it doesn't stand. You have done a fine job of reading scriptures but you have shown yourself incapable of apprehending the Godhead because you don't seem to be able to put two thoughts together and see that they contradict.

Forgive me if I am being disrespectful, but the only ones that will believe this doctrine you are trying to promote are the same people who think that "The Shack" is good theology. Fortunately for you there seems to be a lot of those people, just not here on SI.

If you were to try to present this to secular intellectuals, besides the fact that they hate God, you will only convince them further that there is no God when you present to them a God that is clearly formed of your own imagination. As they will not be distracted by many scripture references but will rather analyze the content of your doctrine. I say this for your own protection but perhaps it is the very thing that needs to happen before you will take a look at the things you believe.


Quote:
If you say you are in the form of something it is pretty simple to understand that you are that thing. If I am in the form of a banana then I am an banana. Jesus was in the form of God and therefore was God. He is God. God's glory does not have its own personality!



"He is God" = "God's glory does not have its own personality!"

What a definition! If this is true then apparently God doesn't have His own personality.


Quote:
The Logos is the glory of God, the express image of His person, the word of God. Your word and such does not carry another personality the same goes with your spirit.



You will notice in John's gospel,
[b]John 17
4.[/b] I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
([b]Note:[/b] the glory with which Jesus glorified the Father was this: "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.")

[b]5.[/b] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
([b]Note:[/b] "[b]glorify thou me [u]with thine own self[/u][/b]", what a strange request for "God's glory" to say to the Father!)


Quote:
Question: [b]how does God's love fulfill "love does not seek its own".[/b]

This is in context to loving you sinful nature. Or the kind of self love that neglects others. But when God loves Himself in that He loves others for when He loves Himself He loves love and therefore will love others since love loves others.



I wonder if you even begin to grasp what you have written here.

1) "This is in context to loving you sinful nature. Or the kind of self love that neglects others."
You have just said here that God loves sin.

2) "But when God loves Himself in that He loves others"
Again, I will say it again because you didn't understand the first time; if you even thought about this the first time. God has existed from eternity past before the creation of men. THAT MEANS! He existed before we sinful creatures existed. THAT MEANS (according to your theology)! That before man came into actual existence God's love was not perfect because His love had no one else to love. At the very most, you might say that God's love looked forward to a time when He might actually love His creation. And at the very least, you have just made God dependent upon His creation to perfect love. THAT MEANS! God is not Self-Sufficient in your doctrine because without His creatures He cannot "love others". THAT MEANS! When "He loves Himself He loves love" in vain "since love loves others" who don't yet exist.

The foreknowledge of God concerning creation does not fulfill the requirements of perfect love because, again, it makes God eternally and infinitely dependent, contingent, reliant, conditional upon something that is not God, namely, His creatures. Does this not move you at all? Honestly brother, you say you are merely reading the bible and this is the doctrine it teaches, but you know very well you are using your own eisegesis. To what end and purpose, I wonder?


_________________
Jordan

 2008/11/20 16:30Profile
davidt
Member



Joined: 2006/5/21
Posts: 326


 Re:

Bog,

Quote:
You are stuck in your pride sir.


From what are you deriving this? Come on Bog I dont think I am having a bad attitude in anything. I am just trying to bring reasonable debate. If the way I have worded things comes out that way I am sorry. When I used an exclamation point I did not mean to yell but to bring emphasis.


Quote:
"The Shack"


I dont know what the Shack is. I have heard about it but not studied it.


Quote:
If you were to try to present this to secular intellectuals,


My main aim is not for it to be pleasing to the mind but to exposit Scripture correctly and rightly divide the word of truth. Though even though this is not my aim I believe it to be very reasonable.


Quote:
What a definition! If this is true then apparently God doesn't have His own personality.


I wish you would try to understand what I am saying more so. I am trying to point out that the word does not have a separate personality from the Father. I am not saying He does not have a personality only that He does not have a personality of His own since He shares the same personality with the Father since they are one.


Quote:
(Note: "glorify thou me with thine own self", what a strange request for "God's glory" to say to the Father!)


He was speaking from His humanity not from His Divinity as the Logos. He is not God's glory specifically in His humanity but specifically in His Deity.


Quote:
1) "This is in context to loving you sinful nature. Or the kind of self love that neglects others." You have just said here that God loves sin.


I am not saying that God loves sin. I am saying that God love Himself and since He is love He is loving love and there is nothing wrong about that. We cannot love ourselves supremely because we would be stepping in the place of God who is supreme. If we love ourselves in a certain way specifically our sinful natures then it will turn to bad. But if God loves His good nature then that ultimately leads to loving others. So if a sinner loves Himself He will do evil to express that love. If God loves Himself He will do good since to love Himself is to do good things since His nature wants to do good. This is why it is okay for God to love Himself.


Quote:
THAT MEANS (according to your theology)! That before man came into actual existence God's love was not perfect because His love had no one else to love.


He loved Himself and that is love indeed. And loving Himself is a good thing since He is love.


 2008/11/20 16:50Profile
boG
Member



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

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

Quote:
He loved Himself and that is love indeed. And loving Himself is a good thing since He is love.



Circular logic of "love" and "love loves" and "loves Himself" and "is love" without any substance of meaning. Perhaps you ought to enroll yourself into a Christian morals & ethics course; yea, Professors love reading stuff like this.

Davidt you have said that you are searching the scriptures without and preconceived notions of the Godhead but how I wish you did!

You are like the blind leading the blind: without any expectation of "what you believe to be true" you cannot see where and when the scriptures shatter your own construction. You continue to completely miss what "love" is. Have you really read the scriptures that describe love?

[b]Galatians 6
2.[/b] Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.

Tell me, how does God fulfill this law? I mean, which God? Do I mean God's glory? Do I mean His Spirit? Or do I mean the Father? Is the Father God? Or is God just a form of the true God?

You have made this very difficult to discuss because you have made God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit to be forms and expressions and shadows of a substance which you have not defined. Or, did you define God by combining the Father, Son, and Spirit together as One? By combining three modes of expression do we define the source? Or... was God defined as God's thoughts? Or... maybe God is love and love is God and love is love loves Himself is loves others because that is good? Why is that good? because God is love...

Is God God or is God a part of God or is God the essence of God?

Does God loving Himself as love satisfy the requirement of "loving others"?

How does God fulfill the Law of Christ, how does He "bear one another's burdens" without having another individual?

Is God infinite and complete God or is God a particular finite portion of God?

Is God a schizophrenic "three-faced" being or is God Trinity?

It is evident that you are far gone from "slightly differing". Please, make up your mind and put an end to all of this slippery nonsense.


_________________
Jordan

 2008/11/20 18:53Profile





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