The Holy Trinity

[August]

Hi Fortigurn,

I understand that Christadelphians believe that Jesus was divine after His resurrection. Can you maybe explain how you arrive at that conclusion?

[Kurieuo]

Firstly, I can assure you that at the Council of Nicaea did not take the simple and illogical position as the one expressed by yourself here as "orthodox" (which I'll expand further upon).

You're right, sorry I was thinking of the 'Athanasian Creed', which was confirmed by the Oecumenical Councils.

Are we reading the same creed?

And I think my analysis of early Church history shows anything but they were considered traditionally heretical.

I refer you to the treatment of Tertullian.

Are we reading the same Tertullian? Now I have been going along with your claims that Trinitarian terminology was developed in the fourth century. Infact Tertullian appears to have given theology much of its Trinitarian vocabulary (e.g., Against Praxeas [AD. 200]). He coined the word Trinitas ("Trinity") which became a characteristic feature of Christian theology since his time. He also introduced Substantia ("Substance") to express to unity within the Godhead, and also the Latin Persona to translate the Greek hypostasis, which literally means "a mask" like that worn by an actor. Persona is translated into English as "person", and is quite possible Tertullian intended the classical forumula as we have today of "one substance, three persons". Clearly he did not advocate "one substance, three substances" or "one God, three Gods" (as you make out). And so, we have by the end of the second century, a Trinitarian understanding of God becoming very much developed. Infact within his Against Praxeas we also find what some have identified as references to 1 John 5:7 (http://www.tertullian.org/works/adversus_praxean.htm).

Although I don't know where I acknowledged such a thing, wouldn't any interpretation of the Bible technically be "post-Biblical" (I'm assuming after the Bible was written?) since it had to be written before it could be read?

Yes it would. But if we have statements in the Bible which explicitly uphold one interpretation, that interpretation has more support than an interpretation which relies on implicit statements.

Which "explicit" statements would they be that uphold one interpretation? I think you are under a misunderstanding as to the strength of implicitness. Implicitness can be just as clear as explicit statements, although some can choose to refuse to follow the logically clear implications. To try make a point (and I don't know whether it will be successful, but...), I'd like to challenge you to find me three, or even one, explicit statement that the Father is God. Surely such a thing should be easy for such a widely accepted doctrine?

Now if the doctrine of the Trinity was a concept invented a few centuries later (as you say), for what reasons would Christians conspire to to invent or even think of up such a complex doctrine as the Trinity? If it was due to Scripture, than I fail to see how you can deny the concept is within Scripture to charge us with being unscriptural. And if the concept is not within Scripture, then for what reason did they conspire to invent it? Surely it is unfathomable to believe so many conspired...

There was no conspiracy. I have said this before.

Then the only other option I see is that this concept of there being three persons (The Father, Christ, and Holy Spirit) who are God was found in Scripture, and very likely also originated from teachings passed down by the Apostles.

Only the term came later, but the concept is clearly there.

Where is the concept of one God consisting of three persons found 'clearly' in Scripture?

I refer you to my earlier post(s).

Which passage did I miss?

The many which reveal Christ's divinity... something like the Trinity then becomes binding by logical inference as you agreed at the end of your last reply to me. In this way, it could be said the concept is "logically" clear within Scripture, even if not explicitly summarised in one particular statement (though some hold 1 John 5:7 to be authoritative, albeit appended, but early in origin).

Kurieuo

[Fortigurn]

Are we reading the same creed?

I hope so. I'm reading this:

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

What does that say to you?

Are we reading the same Tertullian? Now I have been going along with your claims that Trinitarian terminology was developed in the fourth century. Infact Tertullian appears to have given theology much of its Trinitarian vocabulary (e.g., Against Praxeas [AD. 200]). He coined the word Trinitas ("Trinity") which became a characteristic feature of Christian theology since his time. He also introduced Substantia ("Substance") to express to unity within the Godhead, and also the Latin Persona to translate the Greek hypostasis, which literally means "a mask" like that worn by an actor. Persona is translated into English as "person", and is quite possible Tertullian intended the classical forumula as we have today of "one substance, three persons". Clearly he did not advocate "one substance, three substances" or "one God, three Gods" (as you make out). And so, we have by the end of the second century, a Trinitarian understanding of God becoming very much developed. Infact within his Against Praxeas we also find what some have identified as references to 1 John 5:7 (http://www.tertullian.org/works/adversus_praxean.htm).

Firstly, Tertullian most certainly did not believe in the trinity (he was a Modalist). Secondly, the fact that some of his language was later adopted by trinitarians does not prove that he believed in the trinity (trinitarians certainly did not believe that Christ simply 'wore a mask', that is Docetism).

Thirdly, if you really want to discuss 1 John 5:7, let's do it in another thread. But I would really prefer you to just read the standard literature on the subject and let it go realising that this verse does not belong in Scripture.

Which "explicit" statements would they be that uphold one interpretation?

You could start with those which refer to God as one (rather than 'three in one'), and those which refer to the Father as God, and Jesus Christ as His son. You could continue with those which refer to the Father as God, and Jesus Christ as a man.

I think you are under a misunderstanding as to the strength of implicitness. Implicitness can be just as clear as explicit statements, although some can choose to refuse to follow the logically clear implications.

If your interpretation of an implicit statement contradicts an explicit statement, you have a problem. If it results in a logical contradiction, you have another problem.

To try make a point (and I don't know whether it will be successful, but...), I'd like to challenge you to find me three, or even one, explicit statement that the Father is God. Surely such a thing should be easy for such a widely accepted doctrine?

Gladly:

Psalm 89:
26 He will call out to me, 'You are my father, my God, and the protector who delivers me.'

John 17:
3 Now this is eternal life—that they know you, [the Father] the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

John 20:
Jesus replied, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. Go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'

Romans 15:
6 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Corinthians 1:
3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

I Corinthians 15:
24 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

II Corinthians 11:
31 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Philippians 2:
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Ephesians 4:
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Ephesians 5:
20 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

Ephesians 6:
21 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

II Thessalonians 2:
16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,

I Timothy 1:
2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

Note the consistent identification of the Father as God - one person. You only need the Father, and you have 'God'. None of these passages identify God as 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit', or even identify Jesus as God (even when they refer to him).

This is a great passage with which to finish:

I Corinthians 8:
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
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.

There is one God, and that God is one person, and that person is the Father.

Then the only other option I see is that this concept of there being three persons (The Father, Christ, and Holy Spirit) who are God was found in Scripture, and very likely also originated from teachings passed down by the Apostles.

I suggest you read some more Christian history. That is far from the only other option (logical fallacy of the false dichotomy).

Which passage did I miss?

The many which reveal Christ's divinity... something like the Trinity then becomes binding by logical inference as you agreed at the end of your last reply to me. In this way, it could be said the concept is "logically" clear within Scripture, even if not explicitly summarised in one particular statement (though some hold 1 John 5:7 to be authoritative, albeit appended, but early in origin).

What you are in fact telling me is that there are no passages in the Bible which refer to God as consisting of three persons in one being.

You are instead telling me that the trinity is a logical inference from a chain of reasoning which involves interpreting certain passages as stating that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God.

But I knew that already.

[Felgar]

The Trinity will not follow unless the divinity of Christ is first established. A number of posters on this thread have tried to focus on that, and I agree with that approach. Christians will content that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. One attribute of divinity is that of being eternal, another is that of being sinnless, and another is that of being creator - all of which are well-supported by scripture. As Corinthians states "Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things."

Now you've already accepted earlier in this thread that the description of the Son of Man in Revelation 1 is clearly Jesus, and in verse 17 Jesus states "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last." Being the First and Last is an attribute of divinity. How then do you deny the divinity of Christ?

Once you adress Jesus Himself stating "I am the First and the Last" then what I would like you to do is to show where scripture states that Jesus is NOT divine. Please keep in mind that showing Jesus is a man will not help your cause.

[Byblos]

Although I started this thread (well, it actually spun off of another but anyway) I haven't been contributing much lately. That's certainly not due to lack of interest on my part as I've been following it very closely, but I simply haven't had the time.

There are a couple of points I'd like to comment on and hopefully if everyone agrees we can bring this discussion to a close, or at least agree to disagree, as is often the outcome of these discussions.

One point I'd like to illustrate is how 2 people can read the same words and yet arrive at totally different interpretations. Here's an example where both Felgar and Fortigurn are using the same quote from 1Cor, but Felgar is using it to illustrate the divinity of Jesus whereas Fortigurn is using it to illustrate the exact opposite.

In this example I happen to agree with Felgar as the quote does show the divinity of Christ, a point which Fortigurn did not touch upon when attempting to show his side, but that is really besides the point.

Here are the quotes, by the way:

The Trinity will not follow unless the divinity of Christ is first established. A number of posters on this thread have tried to focus on that, and I agree with that approach. Christians will content that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. One attribute of divinity is that of being eternal, another is that of being sinnless, and another is that of being creator - all of which are well-supported by scripture. As Corinthians states "Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things."

This is a great passage with which to finish:

I Corinthians 8:
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
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.

There is one God, and that God is one person, and that person is the Father.

The point I'm trying to get at is that there really is a lesson to be learned from this entire thread. The way I see it, the lesson is that religion in general and christianity in particular, is deeply personal and very highly subjective. If it is not, there would not be so many christian denominations, mainstream or otherwise. That is why, while I am very secure in my beliefs as a Catholic, I am also cognisant of the fact that others are equally as secure in theirs. While I consider my interpretations of the Bible to be accurate and to coincide with my beliefs, I am well aware that others may disagree with me and it is within their right. Their disagreements with my belief system does not in any way diminish it. The converse is equally true.

The other point I'd like to make is that, while we all hold our respective positions to be true, that does not give us the right to disparage the positions with which we are in disagreement. Lord knows I myself am guilty of that and for that I am truly sorry. I said this before (not sure if in this thread or another) and that is we all believe what we believe and the only one who has the right to judge us or condemn us for it is God, not another fellow man.

God Bless,

John

[Fortigurn]

The Trinity will not follow unless the divinity of Christ is first established. A number of posters on this thread have tried to focus on that, and I agree with that approach.

You shouldn't need that approach. You should be able to show me the passages in Scripture which define God as three persons in one being. But you can't, becuase there aren't any.

You should also be able to show me the passages which say that true Christians must believe in the trinity. But you can't, because there aren't any.

Christians will content that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human.

This is question begging.

One attribute of divinity is that of being eternal, another is that of being sinnless, and another is that of being creator - all of which are well-supported by scripture. As Corinthians states "Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things."

Actually 1 Corinthians 8:6 says 'through whom are all things', which is a critical difference (that's not my translation, that's from a standard modern evangelical translation). The Arians used this to prove that Jesus was not God, but I don't think you want to go there.

Now you've already accepted earlier in this thread that the description of the Son of Man in Revelation 1 is clearly Jesus, and in verse 17 Jesus states "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last." Being the First and Last is an attribute of divinity. How then do you deny the divinity of Christ?

I have already explained this more than once. The term 'first and last' is a title. Titles of God are given by Him to those who represent Him (His agents). We have many examples of His titles being given to both men and angels in Scripture. This does not make them God.

Once you adress Jesus Himself stating "I am the First and the Last" then what I would like you to do is to show where scripture states that Jesus is NOT divine.

Now you are arguing from silence, and asking me to prove a negative. This is a logical fallacy.

Please keep in mind that showing Jesus is a man will not help your cause.

Why not?

[Fortigurn]

One point I'd like to illustrate is how 2 people can read the same words and yet arrive at totally different interpretations. Here's an example where both Felgar and Fortigurn are using the same quote from 1Cor, but Felgar is using it to illustrate the divinity of Jesus whereas Fortigurn is using it to illustrate the exact opposite.

In this example I happen to agree with Felgar as the quote does show the divinity of Christ, a point which Fortigurn did not touch upon when attempting to show his side, but that is really besides the point.

Given that the quote from 1 Corinthians 8 says very clearly that the Father is God, and declares very clearly that there is one God, who is one person, and that one person is the Father, and given that this passage does not call Jesus God, how do you reach this conclusion?

Here are the quotes, by the way:

The Trinity will not follow unless the divinity of Christ is first established. A number of posters on this thread have tried to focus on that, and I agree with that approach. Christians will content that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. One attribute of divinity is that of being eternal, another is that of being sinnless, and another is that of being creator - all of which are well-supported by scripture. As Corinthians states "Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things."

Where does he quote anything which says Jesus is God?

[Byblos]

One point I'd like to illustrate is how 2 people can read the same words and yet arrive at totally different interpretations. Here's an example where both Felgar and Fortigurn are using the same quote from 1Cor, but Felgar is using it to illustrate the divinity of Jesus whereas Fortigurn is using it to illustrate the exact opposite.

In this example I happen to agree with Felgar as the quote does show the divinity of Christ, a point which Fortigurn did not touch upon when attempting to show his side, but that is really besides the point.

Given that the quote from 1 Corinthians 8 says very clearly that the Father is God, and declares very clearly that there is one God, who is one person, and that one person is the Father, and given that this passage does not call Jesus God, how do you reach this conclusion?

Here are the quotes, by the way:

The Trinity will not follow unless the divinity of Christ is first established. A number of posters on this thread have tried to focus on that, and I agree with that approach. Christians will content that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. One attribute of divinity is that of being eternal, another is that of being sinnless, and another is that of being creator - all of which are well-supported by scripture. As Corinthians states "Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things."

Where does he quote anything which says Jesus is God?

'by whom' or 'through whom' is arguing semantics. The way I read it (and countess others) is that it speaks of the eternality of Christ before and after his resurrection. The Arians might have tried to use the 'through whom' argument to prove Jesus was not God but obviously they were not successful (as here we are).

You keep repeating the demand to show you where in the bible it specifically states 'God is three in one' and it obviously doesn't, we all know that. You're equally looking for the biblical command that christians worship the trinity and that's also not there and we all also know that. But like I said many times, if you are to only look for things to be explicitly stated in the Bible then we would not have any monotheistic religion as the word monotheism is nowhere in it. But guess what, it is clearly implied as is the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Now, since the divinity of Christ is well established (and we've provided ample evidence of that, knowing you disagree), and since our forgiveness of sins can only come from God and Jesus forgave our sins, ergo, Jesus is divine, and since our salvation can only come 'through' Jesus, ergo no ordinary man can purport to carry the cross of human salvation, as we cannot be saved by whom we cannot worship, and if we must worship then it is either Christ is part and parcel of God or christianity is no longer a monotheistic religion.

[Byblos]

But then again, the point of my post was not the above, it was this:

The point I'm trying to get at is that there really is a lesson to be learned from this entire thread. The way I see it, the lesson is that religion in general and christianity in particular, is deeply personal and very highly subjective. If it is not, there would not be so many christian denominations, mainstream or otherwise. That is why, while I am very secure in my beliefs as a Catholic, I am also cognisant of the fact that others are equally as secure in theirs. While I consider my interpretations of the Bible to be accurate and to coincide with my beliefs, I am well aware that others may disagree with me and it is within their right. Their disagreements with my belief system does not in any way diminish it. The converse is equally true.

The other point I'd like to make is that, while we all hold our respective positions to be true, that does not give us the right to disparage the positions with which we are in disagreement. Lord knows I myself am guilty of that and for that I am truly sorry. I said this before (not sure if in this thread or another) and that is we all believe what we believe and the only one who has the right to judge us or condemn us for it is God, not another fellow man.

[August]

Fortigurn, can you quote any passages where Jesus explicitly says that He is NOT God?

[smrpgx]

The Bible is calling God our father because he created us. He's not referring to the father as in the trinity. It mentions Jesus in there because he's the only one who is a physical being.

Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. Joh 14:11

[Kurieuo]

Are we reading the same creed?

I hope so. I'm reading this:

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

What does that say to you?

If you believe the Athanasian creed consists of only two lines, then perhaps some case could be made that it was believed there were three Gods and one God in the same sense. But that is not really taking the whole creed at once is it? Even with the lines you quoted, it explicitly says "they are not three Gods, but one God." This means you are reading the creed wrong if you are using it to support your belief that they advocated your illogical strawman of three Gods and one God. For if that were the case it would read something to the effect of, "there are three Gods, but one God." But this is not the case. Instead it seems clear to me that there is some sort of part-whole relation obtaining between the persons of the Trinity and the entire Godhead, so that each can be called God in their own right while not literally comprising God fully (as I discuss at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... .php?t=716). Now let us quote the whole creed so readers can get the full gist of it:

ATHANASIAN CREED

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

Are we reading the same Tertullian? Now I have been going along with your claims that Trinitarian terminology was developed in the fourth century. Infact Tertullian appears to have given theology much of its Trinitarian vocabulary (e.g., Against Praxeas [AD. 200]). He coined the word Trinitas ("Trinity") which became a characteristic feature of Christian theology since his time. He also introduced Substantia ("Substance") to express to unity within the Godhead, and also the Latin Persona to translate the Greek hypostasis, which literally means "a mask" like that worn by an actor. Persona is translated into English as "person", and is quite possible Tertullian intended the classical forumula as we have today of "one substance, three persons". Clearly he did not advocate "one substance, three substances" or "one God, three Gods" (as you make out). And so, we have by the end of the second century, a Trinitarian understanding of God becoming very much developed. Infact within his Against Praxeas we also find what some have identified as references to 1 John 5:7 (http://www.tertullian.org/works/adversus_praxean.htm).

Firstly, Tertullian most certainly did not believe in the trinity (he was a Modalist). Secondly, the fact that some of his language was later adopted by trinitarians does not prove that he believed in the trinity (trinitarians certainly did not believe that Christ simply 'wore a mask', that is Docetism).

Sorry, but what you say of Tertullian not believing in the Trinity is entirely untrue. Have you read any part of Tertullian's work, Adversus Praxean? In chapter 25, Tertullian writes: "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." And a website dedicated to Tertullian writes:

Praxeas thought that the Father and the Son were so much the same that we could say that God the Father suffered on the cross. Tertullian points out that this isn't how scripture talks about God, and goes on to summarise the teaching of scripture on the persons of the trinity, and their relationship, thereby being the first to explicitly recognise the doctrine of the Trinity.

(http://www.tertullian.org/works/adversus_praxean.htm)

I'm also inclined to believe Alister McGrath on this one, a very well-respected and fair-minded theologian whose introductory textbooks are often used to teach Theology. He writes:

Tertuallian gave the theology of the Trinity its disctinctive vocabulary... he also shaped its distinctive form. God is one; nevertheless, God cannot be regarded as something or someone totally isolated from the created order. The economy of salvation demonstrates that God is active in creation. This activity is complex; on analysis, this divine action reveals both a unity and a distinctiveness. Tertullian argues that substance is what unites the three aspects of the economy of salvation; person is what distinguishes them. The three persons of the Trinity are distinct, yet not divided (distincti non divisi), different yet not separate or independant of each other (discreti non separati). The complexity of the human experiences of redemption is thus the result of the three persons of the Godhead acting in distinct yet coordinated manners in human history, without any loss of the total unity of the Godhead.

(McGrath, Alister; Christian Theology: An Introduction; p.324)

Which "explicit" statements would they be that uphold one interpretation?

You could start with those which refer to God as one (rather than 'three in one'), and those which refer to the Father as God, and Jesus Christ as His son. You could continue with those which refer to the Father as God, and Jesus Christ as a man.

Well I see that my interpretation doesn't just take "parts", but that it takes into account "all" of Scripture. Sure, if we take only the parts that refer to God as one (disregarding the parts that refer to the Father, Christ, and Holy Spirit as each being God), and take only the parts that refer to Christ's humanity (disregarding those that refer to His divinity in any way), but then that would leave us with an uninformed hacked interpretation wouldn't it?

To try make a point (and I don't know whether it will be successful, but...), I'd like to challenge you to find me three, or even one, explicit statement that the Father is God. Surely such a thing should be easy for such a widely accepted doctrine?

Gladly:

None of the passages you quoted "explicity" say the Father is God. Rather, what we have are strong "implicit" statements of the Father being God. Point me to one verse in what you quoted that explicitly says the Father is God, rather than one having to implicity assume the Father to be God, and the only God at that. I'll go through your passages in my next reply to highlight how they are not explicit.

Kurieuo

[Kurieuo]

Now to go through some of your passages to highlight how they are not explicit.

Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, 'You are my father, my God, and the protector who delivers me.'

Here it can be taken as there are two persons, one who is "my father" the other who is "my God". Or even if we accept the two are infact one, it is not explicitly stated they are.

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life—that they know you, [the Father] the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

Isn't it a shame that "the Father" isn't actually in the original verse.

John 20: Jesus replied, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. Go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'

Sounds like two fathers here, and two Gods. One has to assume Christ is referring to one and the same person. If one has to assume anything, or make any kind of logical connection on their own, then the statements in question are only implicit.

Romans 15:6 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

This does not explicitly say "the Father" is God. I'm sure you are aware that if Socrates is a man, a man is not necessarily Socrates. Or a better example than the Socrates one would be God is love, but this does not mean love is God. Likewise if God is our Father, then this does not necessarily mean our Father is God. It is also interesting that "God" is further distinguished by "our Father" as though there may by others who could bear the title of God.

Corinthians 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
I Corinthians 15:24 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
II Corinthians 11:31 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again, same as the previous.

Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Wow, here we have an indication that Christ was not a man. For Paul, an apostle, did not come of men or by man, but by Jesus Christ. Yet, getting back to the explicitness, this passage does not explicitly state the Father is God, nor does it mean there aren't others who could be "God". In order to it to be explicit that "the Father" is God, it would have to read something like: "and the Father, who is God, raised him from the dead."

Philippians 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Again not explicit.

Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Still not explicit for one has to assume two persons aren't be referred to (i.e., one God and one Father = two)

Ephesians 5:20 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
Ephesians 6:21 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
II Thessalonians 2:16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,
I Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

My comments regarding previous passages you provided apply here also. While there is an implicitness that the Father is God, it is not explicit.

IMPORTANT: I want to emphasise to all that what I am doing is not denying the Father is God. Rather I am denying it is explicitly stated "the Father is God". One always has to draw the conclusion or assumption that the Father is God, and also often that there aren't other Fathers or Gods (however obvious may be the author's intention). Now in the same manner Fortigurn presented passages of the Father being God above, we have just as compelling passages that have been constantly presented throughout this thread which quite strongly reveal Christ is God. Yet, just like one has to read into the implicitness, however strong, to draw the conclusion or assumption that Jesus Christ is God (since it may not be forthrightly said "Christ is God"), or the concept of the Trinity despite it not being explicity stated "God is a Trinity", I believe one also has to do the same with the Father to conclude He is God.

Note the consistent identification of the Father as God - one person. You only need the Father, and you have 'God'. None of these passages identify God as 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit', or even identify Jesus as God (even when they refer to him).

The fact you had to make comments to make it more obvious to me, reveals the passages you provided are only "implicit" (however strongly implicit they may be).

This is a great passage with which to finish:

I Corinthians 8:
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
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.

There is one God, and that God is one person, and that person is the Father.

Oh... so some sort of Pantheism is true in so much as we are all God? We are all the Father? Of course I don't believe this, but again a few assumptions are required in the passage. In addition, this passage actually favours Christ's divinity. For if all things are by one God who is the Father, and all things are by one Lord Jesus Christ, then Christ is not created but eternal. Only God is eternal. Therefore Christ is also God.

Which passage did I miss?

The many which reveal Christ's divinity... something like the Trinity then becomes binding by logical inference as you agreed at the end of your last reply to me. In this way, it could be said the concept is "logically" clear within Scripture, even if not explicitly summarised in one particular statement (though some hold 1 John 5:7 to be authoritative, albeit appended, but early in origin).

What you are in fact telling me is that there are no passages in the Bible which refer to God as consisting of three persons in one being.

Oh no, there are passages, but they need to be taken collectively and together they uphold a concept such as the Trinity, which was developed in response to Scripture, not in the absense of Scripture or against it.

You are instead telling me that the trinity is a logical inference from a chain of reasoning which involves interpreting certain passages as stating that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God.

Yes, that is pretty much it... only it has seemed to me that you relegate logical inferences as unimportant when it suits you. Martin Luther was for Scripture and reason alone, and I strongly believe one shouldn't divorce reason from their interpretation of Scripture.

Kurieuo

[Fortigurn]

Fortigurn, can you quote any passages where Jesus explicitly says that He is NOT God?

I have already been through a passage in which he was accused of making himself equal to God, and he refuted the charge.

I have also been through passages in which he clearly said that his Father was his God, and that his Father was greater than he.

I have also been to a passage in which Christ himself says that the Father (one person), is the only true God, and predicates the receipt of eternal life on this truth.

[Fortigurn]

'by whom' or 'through whom' is arguing semantics.

I assure you it is not - not in English, and not in Greek.

The way I read it (and countess others) is that it speaks of the eternality of Christ before and after his resurrection.

That is not what it says.

The Arians might have tried to use the 'through whom' argument to prove Jesus was not God but obviously they were not successful (as here we are).

The Arians were sufficiently successful to be the dominant theology in Christendom until the late 4th century.

You keep repeating the demand to show you where in the bible it specifically states 'God is three in one' and it obviously doesn't, we all know that.

Exactly.

You're equally looking for the biblical command that christians worship the trinity and that's also not there and we all also know that.

Exactly.

But like I said many times, if you are to only look for things to be explicitly stated in the Bible then we would not have any monotheistic religion as the word monotheism is nowhere in it. But guess what, it is clearly implied as is the divinity of Jesus Christ.

This is false reasoning. I am not asking you to show me a term, I am asking you to show me a concept. The concept of one God, who is one person, is revealed explicitly in Scripture. The concept of one God who is three persons, is not revealed explicitly in Scripture.

Now, since the divinity of Christ is well established (and we've provided ample evidence of that, knowing you disagree), and since our forgiveness of sins can only come from God and Jesus forgave our sins, ergo, Jesus is divine, and since our salvation can only come 'through' Jesus, ergo no ordinary man can purport to carry the cross of human salvation, as we cannot be saved by whom we cannot worship, and if we must worship then it is either Christ is part and parcel of God or christianity is no longer a monotheistic religion.

This is question begging:

* You assume that Christ is Divine
* You assume that only a Divine being can forgive sins (I've showed you before that this authority was delegated to the apostles)
* You assume the truth of the Propitiatory Substitution which was invented by Anselm in the 11th century
* You assume that we cannot be saved by whom we cannot worship