|
Trinity
Dec 21, 2004 23:17:20 GMT -5
Post by Kenny on Dec 21, 2004 23:17:20 GMT -5
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 24, 2004 18:52:56 GMT -5
Post by Kenny on Dec 24, 2004 18:52:56 GMT -5
No one biting this one, how interesting...lol
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 24, 2004 22:25:03 GMT -5
Post by fairbank on Dec 24, 2004 22:25:03 GMT -5
Wonder why no one it biting at this one?
I think we are all a bit intimidated, and with good reason. We can no more fully understand this topic than a gnat can drink in the ocean.
What little I know can be summed up as follows. The Trinity is our God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The order in which they are presented is not indicative of a heirarchy, or an order of authority or status, rather it is the order in which they work, perhaps.
In Creation, the Father created (Genesis 1:1), through the Son (as we read in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16), and the Spirit gave life to that which was created (Genesis 1:2).
The Spirit is generally regarded in Christian history as the "giver of life." The Nicene Creed states "And I believe in the Holy Spirit, THE LORD AND GIVER OF LIFE, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son." When the Holy Spirit shows up at Pentecost, He GIVES LIFE to the church. The Word of God is LIVING and active (Heb 4:12), and it is alive because, again, the Giver of life made it alive (2 Peter 1:20-21).
In terms of salvation, the Father elects, the Son redeems, and the Spirit applies that redemption to the heart of the believer.
The Son is not in 2nd place in terms of authority, status, or power, but rather he voluntarily submits himself to the plans and purposes of the Father (see Philippians 2:5-11) and the Spirit submits himself to the plans of the Father and the Son.
The struggle with this doctrine (among others) is responsible for the downfall of Jehovah's witnesses, who deny the Trinity. It is a bedrock, doctrinal distinctive of the Christian faith. All three persons are distinctive, and yet one cohesive whole.
The Father is God, but He is not the Son or the Spirit.
The Son is God, but He is not the Father or the Spirit.
The Spirit is God, but He is not the Father or the Son.
Whew!
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 25, 2004 1:23:59 GMT -5
Post by rgrove on Dec 25, 2004 1:23:59 GMT -5
Wonder why no one it biting at this one? I think we are all a bit intimidated, and with good reason. We can no more fully understand this topic than a gnat can drink in the ocean. Agreed. I absolutely love the Trinity. It's beatiful. But difficult to express. I have found that in prayerfully contemplating some aspect of the doctrine of God that at times the Spirit really seems to illuminate the mind in this area, but as soon as you come back to reality it's almost impossible to adequately express what had come into the mind. I'm not talking about some kind of wierd mysticism or anything. They probably wouldn't be profound except to anyone as simple minded as myself... But this is one area I've really felt that being in a very prayerfully contemplative state on the topic opens up the beauty of the Trinity in some unexplainable way. This blew me away the first time I was exposed to the concept and gave it serious consideration. It's one of the most profound truths of the Christian faith, and yet unfortunately most Christians I have found have never heard it like I hadn't. To me, this statement brings the doctrine of the Trinity right out of the realm of scholars and right into a direct, deeply personal relationship to all Christian's lives. Did I mention how much I love the Trinity! ;D In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 25, 2004 3:03:09 GMT -5
Post by fairbank on Dec 25, 2004 3:03:09 GMT -5
Well stated sir. "Contemplative" is a great way to describe the process for grasping the Trinity. Just when you think you have it...well, you know. The cry of your heart is the same as mine brother...Oh how I love the Trinity.
Earlier I described the chronology of how it seems they work in salvation, but I failed to personalize it. If I may attempt...The Father loved us enough to set his mark of redeeming love upon us, even before we were born. The Son loved us enough to take on flesh and suffer the punishment we deserved. The Spirit loved us enough to awaken our hearts and minds to the aforementioned truths, and enable us not only to understand the truth, but also to walk in it.
Think also about this one, the Trinity's involvement in our prayer life: The Spirit intercedes with groanings that are too deep for words. The Son intercedes before the Father, and the Father answers our prayers.
"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (2 Cor 13:14)
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 25, 2004 14:21:16 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 25, 2004 14:21:16 GMT -5
what would you guys suggest if you were raised in the trinity doctrine but the more devotion you put to studying the scriptures, the farther its drawing away from you? i understand that we should baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Of course the understanding is given as to the Father who is a Spirit can be in heaven while imparting from His Spirit onto whom He directs but the fact of the matter remains then, would that working merit the term trinity?
Basically what im trying to convey is if God the Father and God the Son were at the beginning as those two, one as being Lord God of Spirits and the other as being the Word of God, then are you suppose to direct your communication to the Holy Spirit that the Lord God of Spirits imparts to you?
Since the Father is a Spirit and pours out from His Spirit upon all flesh, wouldnt it be more than three and all derived from the Lord God of Spirits?
if im being obtuse, im not trying to be. i have a genuine question that im extending it out to you.
1Cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 25, 2004 21:38:33 GMT -5
Post by fairbank on Dec 25, 2004 21:38:33 GMT -5
Interesting question my brother. The Spirit is certainly subordinated to the plans and purposes of the Father and the Son, but this leads many to conclude that the Trinity is the FATHER, SON, and holy spirit. This is similar to the Arian heresy. Like you I have also struggled with this but what helped me is the following.
First of all, it seems that since the dawn of time until the ministry of Jesus, the Father was on center stage. From the ministry of Jesus until his ascension, He was on center stage. From Pentecost until the present day, the Holy Spirit seems to be on center stage.
Also, I Cor 3:16-17 indicates that God's Spirit dwelling within us makes us "God's temple." Those verses would not make sense if the Holy Spirt was any less than fully God. Thanks for the question. Hope this helps! Bless you.
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 25, 2004 23:19:32 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 25, 2004 23:19:32 GMT -5
but this leads many to conclude that the Trinity is the FATHER, SON, and holy spirit---- fairbank
im sorry but i dont draw the same conclusion for in actuality it would be:
Father, Son and the Father's extension onto all
which would still lead towards the root. Bless you.
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 25, 2004 23:45:29 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 25, 2004 23:45:29 GMT -5
i would like to use a few examples with the use of asking only question:
how many "I's" are listed in the following:
Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
Joe 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: Joe 2:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. Joe 2:30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. Joe 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.
Act 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: Act 2:19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 25, 2004 23:51:32 GMT -5
Post by fairbank on Dec 25, 2004 23:51:32 GMT -5
Got it. Thanks for the clarification. Take a look at Acts 5. In rebuding Ananias, Peter says "Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?" In the following verse he says, "You have not lied to men, but to God." The two are used interchangeably.
Many attributes ascribed to God the Father are also said to be held by the Holy Spirit:
Omniscience 1 Cor 2:10-11 Power to do signs and wonders Rom 15:9 Power to convict and change the human heart John 16:8-11, Titus 3:5 Power to create Job 26:13
Also, the mandate to make disciples, and "Baptise them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." As opposed to "The Father, Son and their spirit."
May the Lord continue to bless you my brother, as you wrestle with His Word.
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 26, 2004 0:08:07 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 26, 2004 0:08:07 GMT -5
Got it. Thanks for the clarification. Take a look at Acts 5. In rebuding Ananias, Peter says "Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?" In the following verse he says, "You have not lied to men, but to God." The two are used interchangeably. Many attributes ascribed to God the Father are also said to be held by the Holy Spirit: Omniscience 1 Cor 2:10-11 Power to do signs and wonders Rom 15:9 Power to convict and change the human heart John 16:8-11, Titus 3:5 Power to create Job 26:13 Also, the mandate to make disciples, and "Baptise them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." As opposed to "The Father, Son and their spirit.". i mentioned that at my first post and how God imparts from His Spirit and that Spirit that He imparts is always Holy Spirit because it is an extension from Him. God wouldnt list that many "I's" if He didnt mean it, would He? Bless you brother as you seek towards the root and may you always continue to do so.
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 26, 2004 3:16:38 GMT -5
Post by Soulfyre on Dec 26, 2004 3:16:38 GMT -5
[this is also posted under "Dyad"] Well, worthily, first I would have to say that I would certainly hesitate to use a book considered non-canonical by the church (that the book of Enoch was quoted by Jude does not indicate acceptance of the book itself, but that the individual passage quoted was deemed to be true or useful to the author who quoted it). Enoch was considered by both the Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Roman Catholic churches) as among the "apocryphal" writings of the Old Testament. It was also considered pseudepigraphical, in that it was written long after the time of Enoch, hence its attribution of authorship was considered false. The "Lord of Spirits" of Enoch would probably be considered a parallel usage to the "LORD of Hosts", which, more properly, is translated "LORD of armies" (YHWH Sabaoth) of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, "Lord of Spirits" appears to also imply that the "Spirits" are in fact individual entities with personality attached. Second, context always determines usage, and Christians would argue that the term "spirit of God" (which in most instances should be written "Spirit of God") is predominantly used, not as an "extension" of the Divine, but as a "person" distinct from the Father who acts and can be acted upon, who wills, and who can exist in an "I/thou" relationship with the Father and the Son. While a Jew might argue that point in the Old Testament, the progressive nature of revelation urges us to define the Old Testament in terms of the New Testament, in which the "Spirit of God" and "Holy Spirit" are personified. While God is "spirit", and those who worship the Father must worship Him in "spirit and in truth" (note the extended treatment of the topic by Jesus Christ when he spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, John 4:21-24), the use of the term "spirit" is adjectival (a predicate adjective, to be precise), not nominal (a predicate nominative). Hence "spirit" is qualitative, describing the nature of God, not substantival, as in "God is THE spirit". The "Spirit of God", or "Holy Spirit", is never dealt with as an "extension" of the Father. While one might argue that the concept of "impart" or "pour out" does not require personhood, certainly "send", as in John 15:26 implies personhood (incidentally, the term "impart" or "imparted" is found only once in the Hebrew Old Testament and twice in Greek New Testament, and neither time is it used of the "Spirit of God" or the "Holy Spirit"). In this same context, the "Spirit of truth who [note the use of the definite article as a pronoun] goes out from the Father" is referred to as "the Counselor (Greek parakletos)" or "legal advocate". This should bring to mind a contrast to "Satan" (in Hebrew, the "accuser"). The illustration of courtroom drama would imply as much distinction of personality to the "legal advocate" as to the "accuser" (compare also Mark 13:11, Luke 12;12). Distinctions in persons where all three are mentioned are evident from the baptismal formula in Matthew (as pointed out by fairbank), where the defining prepositional phrase "in the name of" indicates personhood, and to attempt to apply it to an "extension" of God, "personal" only in the broader, possessive sense would, I believe, do violence to the text. A similar distinction is found in the benediction of II Corinthians 13:4 (note "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit"), where the personhood of Jesus Christ and God (here the Father would be assumed, since "God" is distinguished from Jesus Christ) is also applied to the Holy Spirit. To assume otherwise would, again, confuse the natural meaning of the text. Third, that aspects of personality are ascribed to the Holy Spirit is without doubt. In Matthew 12:30-32 (compare also Mark 3:28-30, Luke 12:9-11), Jesus indicates that "every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." Blasphemy is only used in the Bible of an affront to God. Clearly, the Son of man is identified as a person, and by implication, God. The Holy Spirit is treated in the same manner, not as an extension of either God the Father or God the Son, but as an entity unto himself. In Acts 13:2, it is the Holy Spirit who commands that Paul and Barnabas be separated out for a particular work to which "I" called them. The Holy Spirit can "forbid" (Acts 16:16), can designate people as "overseers" (Acts 20:28), and can be "grieved" (Ephesians 4:30). Fourth, the word "God", if used by itself, is generally used of "God the Father". The use of "elohim" (generally considered a plural of majesty in Hebrew) in the Old Testament admits of the possiblity of a "plurality" or "complex unity" in what we refer to as the "godhead" (for lack of better terminology), as also is allowed by the term "echad", as in "The LORD our God, the LORD is one [Hebrew "echad"], which is usually not used of a simple unity. The progressive nature of revelation in the Bible establishes that God is, indeed, a "complex unity", of God the Father, the Son [consubstantial to and equal to God, but subordinate to the Father in office], and the Holy Spirit [consubstantial and equal to God, but subordinate to the Father and the Son in office]. John 1:1-18, especially John 1:1, does not purport to define the term "elohim" of Genesis 1, but to establish that Jesus is the Word, and hence, God. Incidentally, given Genesis 1:1, one could as easily argue that creation is done by God through the agency of the Holy Spirit, who "hovered" over the deep (illustrative of a female bird "hovering over" or "setting upon" her eggs). Incidentally, your use of the word "root" troubles me (it reminds me of Tillich's "ground of all Being") ,in that it is reminiscent of the Gnostic heresy that plagued the early church in which Jehovah (also referred to as Ialdeboth) and Jesus were "emanations" of the "pleroma", or "fullness". While it seems easier to treat the "Holy Spirit" as an "emanation" from (or an extension of) God, this was certainly not the general understanding of the early church, which considered the "Trinity", although not fully defined until the council of Nice called by the Emperor Constantine, as an article of faith (given that to understand otherwise confounded the most natural meaning of the Biblical text). I can go into more detail, but presently am finishing some other commitments in this forum. I will post this reply in your thread (which more properly belongs as a reply under "Trinity"), and in the "Trinity" thread. God bless and keep you and yours, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 26, 2004 13:56:18 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 26, 2004 13:56:18 GMT -5
Well, worthily, first I would have to say that I would certainly hesitate to use a book considered non-canonical by the church (that the book of Enoch was quoted by Jude---soulfyre. Well, i appreciate on you filling me in on what is "canonical" although within that term relies on man's final judgement based on unecessary fear against scripture. *It should be noted that in the original Authorized 1611 King James Version the Apocrypha was included. *Matthew's Bible (1537 A.D.) and Taverner's Bible (1539 A.D.) place the Apocrypha between the Testaments. *The Authorized, King James Version (1611), like the Great Bible, (1539 A.D.), the Geneva Bible (1560 A.D.) and the Bishop's Bible (1568 A.D.) before it, places them in an appendix. 24 Biblical antagonists have a long and violent history as they have sought, frequently by force, to eliminate the sacred Scriptures from public access. Reflect upon the following examples of malevolence toward the Creator and His Word. When the noble Hebrew king, Josiah, was killed in battle, his son Jehoahaz came to the throne. He reigned but three months before Pharaoh-Necoh of Egypt put him in chains and transported him to the land of the Pyramids. A brother, Eliakim, was placed upon the throne; his name was changed to Jehoiakim. Jehoiakim began to reign when he was twenty-five years of age. He taxed the Jews heavily on behalf of Pharaoh. He strayed from the Lord and immersed the nation in idolatry (2 Kings 23:28-37). The prophet Jeremiah was commissioned by Jehovah to write a sacred scroll, which threatened divine destruction unless the king and his people repented of their wickedness. Jehoiakim treated the matter with absolute contempt. After briefly listening to the message being read, he confiscated the scroll, cut up the leaves with a knife, and cast them into a fire (Jeremiah 36). But the Holy Word was not to be dismissed so easily. After the death of Alexander the Great, the Greek empire was divided into four segments (cf. Daniel 8:8), and the Jewish people fell under the control of a remarkably evil ruler whose name was Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus, known popularly as “the madman,” launched a bloody persecution against the Hebrew people. One aspect of his vendetta was an attempt to destroy copies of the Jewish Scriptures. An ancient document records this episode: “And [the officials of Antiochus] rent in pieces the books of the law which they found, and set them on fire. And wheresoever was found with any a book of the covenant, and if any consented to the law, the king’s sentence delivered him to death” (The Apocrypha, 1 Maccabees 1:56-57). The historian Josephus comments upon this event: “And if there were any sacred book of the law found, it was destroyed, and those [Jews] with whom they were found miserably perished also” (Antiquities, 12.5.4). The heathen plan backfired, however, for it was this very persecution that generated more intense examination of the divine Writings. Out of this circumstance the genuine books of the Old Testament canon were formally separated from contemporary spurious documents that feigned inspiration (McClintock & Strong, p. 76). Following the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead, Christianity was introduced into the Roman world. It spread like wildfire in the stifling environment of ancient paganism. Not many decades passed before Rome came to view the Christian system, with its New Testament Scriptures, as a threat to the security of the empire. And so history repeated itself. A determined effort to eradicate the Bible from antique society was initiated by the Roman ruler, Valerius Diocletian. Diocletian occupied the Imperial throne from A.D. 284-305. In A.D. 303, he inaugurated a series of merciless persecutions upon those who professed the religion of Christ. Hurst notes: “ ll assemblies of Christians were forbidden and churches were ordered to be torn down. Four different edicts were issued, each excelling the preceding in intensity. One edict ordered the burning of every copy of the Bible – the first instance in [Christian] history when the Scriptures were made an object of attack” (p. 175).
Of course, as every student of history knows, events changed radically when Constantine the Great came to the Roman throne in A.D. 306 at the age of thirty-two. He solidified the Western empire by the defeat of his rival, Maxentius, in A.D. 312. The following year Constantine (in concert with Licinius, emperor in the East) issued a decree that granted legal protection to Christians. A form of this document is found in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (Book X, Chapter V). Once more the sacred Scriptures could find their way from places of seclusion and exert their benevolent influence.
In due course i will cite to you King James remark towards the "Apocrypha" and i believe you may find its benevolent influence with authenticity.
Deuteronomy 4:2: "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
A) Since you deem it not worthy for the term Elohim when defined into an english term and applied textually---God, then i guess the final judgement is left on english speaking people to render its final verdict when in contradiction with one another. i guess the original Hebrew language is not quite adequate to fulfill documentation since that was the original language used to convey understanding within the original manuscripts.
1) i guess, if we following the path of the biased, we can also note that when the gospel spoken in John who refers back to the beginning in John 1:1-2 as also being incongruent since it must also fit within the "canonical" regime.
B) It troubles me to find you having trouble with the symbolic term used within "root" when the "canonical" bible lists the term 44 times. Note the following:
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Addressing the evangelical's position on deuterocanonical books posted within an article:
Their position is basically that if Jesus didn't quote directly from the deuterocanonical books, they aren't inspired. That charge, though, is insane. First of all, Jesus did not even quote from all of the 39 Old Testament books Protestants considered inspired, either! It is true he quoted from most of them, but that is not enough. "Most" won't do. What about those he did not quote, such as Ruth, Canticle of Canticles, etc.? Are they not inspired? Secondly, we do not know whether Jesus might indeed have quoted from the deuterocanon, since not all revelation is written down in the Bible (see John 21:25). Thirdly, quotation from a book does not imply its inspiration. In Hebrews 11:36, for example, the author alludes to the non-inspired book Ascension of Isaiah 5:1-14. In Jude 9, we are told that Archangel Michael had a dispute with Satan over the body of Moses. This dispute is not found in the Old Testament, but in the Assumption of Moses, which is not inspired. The mere alluding to a book or quotation thereof simply does not make a book more or less God-breathed. An even more important aspect is that it is simply not true to say that the deuterocanonicals are never quoted or alluded to in the New Testament. Sirach 5:13-14 matches with James 1:19, Wisdom 2:12-20 with Matthew 27:41-43, and 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8 with John 10:22-36.
There is really no reason to reject the 7 disputed books. Protestants accept the 27 books of the New Testament which were defined by the Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Florence, and Trent, and yet not the 46 books of the Old Testament defined by the same councils. Why not? Why this inconsistency?
God bless you as you walk in faith with Jesus Christ
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 26, 2004 15:14:28 GMT -5
Post by worthily on Dec 26, 2004 15:14:28 GMT -5
(In due course i will cite to you King James remark towards the "Apocrypha" and i believe you may find its benevolent influence with authenticity.)----
Here is an excerpt from King James own Position on the "Apocrypha" Books:
"As for the Scriptures, no man doubteth, I will believe them; but even for the Apocrypha, I hold them in the same account that the ancients did: they are still printed and bound with our Bibles, and publicly read in our Churches; I reverence them as the writings of holy and good men:" ["The Church History Of Britain" by Thomas Fuller, Oxford, M.DCCC.XLV].
here is more on the symbolic use of the term "root".
Isa 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
God bless you for He and Jesus Christ are the root to creation and direction
|
|
|
Trinity
Dec 26, 2004 16:53:06 GMT -5
Post by melinky on Dec 26, 2004 16:53:06 GMT -5
In terms of salvation, the Father elects, the Son redeems, and the Spirit applies that redemption to the heart of the believer. I love this statement. I have heard that the Father elects, but I don't think I've heard the rest. I think this is a very good way to explain the Trinity, especially with the following to tie it together: The Father is God, but He is not the Son or the Spirit. The Son is God, but He is not the Father or the Spirit. The Spirit is God, but He is not the Father or the Son. I think these two statements are a good way to explain the Trinity to new or non-believers. I have found that in prayerfully contemplating some aspect of the doctrine of God that at times the Spirit really seems to illuminate the mind in this area, but as soon as you come back to reality it's almost impossible to adequately express what had come into the mind. Ron, I think I understand what you mean. I find that I have moments of clarity that are swift and, unfortunately, at times fleeting. The Trinity is a concept that I understand, but have always had a hard time explaining. It's as if words don't do justice to the nature of God. Thank you guys for sharing! You have helped my own understanding of this topic immensely. Yours in Christ, Melinda
|
|