Jesus' death on the cross and the Trinity

[Anonymous]

Hi Christian2,

Actually, I find this problematic among "Traditional Trinatarians" (TT). The personal one God of the Old Testament is reduced by most TT into mere "essence" or "nature" when the Bible does not teach such idea. Thus, they talk of "one esence/nature with three persons."

When the Bible says, "The Lord is one..." TT understood it as "The LORD is one esence" but that could hardly be the meaning of Deut. 6:4 since how can you love this "essence" (v.5)? Surely, Moses was not referring to "esence" in Deut 6:4 when he said, " the LORD is one."

Besides, could an "essence/nature" say, "I am one" or "I alone are God"? No, an essence cannot speak thus; only a person could speak.

When God says, "I am God and there is no other" that means that God is only one but certainly not as a substance/essence/nature since he used "I am". "I" is a personal pronoun and it is not used to refer to a substance/essence/nature. Or when the Bible says, "The LORD is one", do we mean that The LORD is one only as a substance/nature/esence here? But can a "Substance" says "I am"?

[Jac3510]

Hey, Third . . .

Tell me which of these statements you disagree with:

1) There is only Being who is God. (that is, monotheism)
2) Yahweh is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God.
3) Therefore, we have three persons in one Being.

I never understood why the Trinity was such a hard concept to grasp . . .

Jac, this came up at a study yesterday. Do you have any scripture to back this up other than Christ's quote of Psalms on the cross?
For one, why would God the Father be forced to turn from the Son. Both are always absolutely holy and the Son's holiness didn't force Him to turn his back on Himself (so to speak), so why would the Father be so forced?

Sorry this took me so long to get to, ttoews. School/work/church has been crazy as of late.

Anyway, this gets into a question of what exactly happened on the cross. Primarily I draw this conclusion from 2 Cor. 5:21. As the NASB reads:

• He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Jesus, who lived a sinless life (Heb. 4:15, 1 Peter 2:221 John 3:5), literally became sin for us. He became the curse . . . you know all that, so I won't go into that detail.

Now, with that understanding, we know that wages of sin is death, but what is death? Simply, it is separation from life, and life is from God. Death, we can easily say, is separation from God. Look at the first death. I don't know about you, and I may differ with some people here, but I personally believe that Adam would have suffered physical death even had he not sinned. But, even if I'm wrong on that, we can all agree that God DID say that Adam would die in the same day that he ate the forbidden fruit (Gen. 2:17). Did he? Well, we know he didn't die physically that same day. Again, whether or not physical death is a result of the Fall can be debated. Regardless, we know that spiritual death IS a result of the Fall, and Adam DID die the very same day, just as God stated he would.

Sin, then, brings death, and death means separation from God. Therefore, sin leads to separation from God.

It is for all of these reasons that I submit that while the physical death of Jesus was necessary, it was the spiritual separation from God that was the greater sacrifice, and it was this, specifically, that allowed Him to be the propitiation for sin. As a final reference, consider God's own reaction to sin. In Isaiah 1:15, God refuses to hear the prayers of Israel. Why? Because their hands are "covered in blood." Think about that. God refuses to hear their prayer so long as they are so deep in sin. Now, consider the cross . . . hanging on that tree, Jesus didn't just take on our sins in Himself, but God considered Him to be the very essence of Sin itself. See 2 Cor. 5:21 again. I ask, then, if God wouldn't even hear the Israelites prayers because of the sin on their hands, and instead chose to hide His face, and if death means separation from God due to sin, and if on the Cross God actually chose to consider His Son the very essence of Sin so that His wrath could be satisfied, does it not logically follow that, to use classical terminology, God "turned His back" on His Son? And, how else do you explain Jesus statement on the cross?

So, the entire picture just seems to fit well for me in this way.

God bless

[Anonymous]

Hey, Third . . .

Tell me which of these statements you disagree with:

1) There is only Being who is God. (that is, monotheism)
2) Yahweh is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God.
3) Therefore, we have three persons in one Being.

I disagree with numbers 1 & 3.

How do you define "BEING" here? Is that one "BEING" has a personal consciousness of himself?

[Jac3510]

So you are a polytheist.

Technically, you subscribe to a doctrine of God called Tritheism. Google it. It was considered a heresy many, many moons ago.

Careful with heresy

[Anonymous]

So you are a polytheist.

Technically, you subscribe to a doctrine of God called Tritheism. Google it. It was considered a heresy many, many moons ago.

Careful with heresy

I dont know Jac, but I believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Now if you say that they are one God then my question is this: Did this one God become man? Yes. If this one God became man and this one God is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, do you believe then that the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son became man? Im sure you dont. You would say, it's the person of the Son that became a man. Ther is our problem, Jac, the Bible never teaches that the person of the Son that became a man. The Bible teaches that it's GOD WHO BECAME FLESH.

Like I said, I believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And they are ONE in UNITY not in NUMBER.

[Christian2]

Hi ThirdOption,

You confuse me a bit. You said: Like I said, I believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And they are ONE in UNITY not in NUMBER.

I'm not sure what you mean by "One in Unity, not in number." Nevertheless, how is what you said any different than saying the following?

Yahweh is God Almighty, one Being. This one Being is God the Father, God the Son (Word) and God the Holy Spirit, one God in triunity.

Think of this, God existing in Himself, revealed Himself as the Father; speaking His Word, He revealed Himself as the Son (the Word); alive in His spirit, He revealed Himself as the Holy Spirit.

Did this one God become man?

God the Son became man.

If this one God became man and this one God is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, do you believe then that the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son became man? Im sure you dont.

Correct.

You would say, it's the person of the Son that became a man.

Yes.

Ther is our problem, Jac, the Bible never teaches that the person of the Son that became a man. The Bible teaches that it's GOD WHO BECAME FLESH.

The Bible teaches that God the Son or Word became flesh which is the same thing.

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

''And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory. the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth'' (John 1 :14).

''But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons'' (Galatians 4:4, 5). Paul establishes the fact of the Incarnation-- " God sent forth His Son, made of a woman."

God bless

[Jac3510]

Took the words right out of my mouth, Christian. Seriously . . . same verse references and everything

[Anonymous]

In Exo. 3:15 we read:

God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD , the God of your fathers-the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob-has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.

Do you believe that the LORD, who is God - the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, is one God in three persons?

Do you believe that the Bible teaches that the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, is one God in three persons?

[Kurieuo]

Interestingly enough, I've heard (but am too lazy to look into it further right now) that when the doctrine of the Trinity was finally beginning to be settled, it was either common or said back at the time that God is one essential nature expressed as three. They did not like writing persons, or any other word at the end (i.e., what the type of the three was, which came to be understood in English as "person"). They simply left the term open, one essential nature in three.

I've only heard this, but interesting nonetheless. I think ThirdOption perhaps only has a problem with the different terminology used. Seeing as language is very inadept at expressing thoughts, perhaps "person" doesn't express itself correctly to TO...?

Kurieuo.

[Christian2]

Hi Kurieuo,

I think that you are right. I have never liked the word "persons" but I understand what it means to say "persons." When the use of pronouns is used in the Scriptures, it denotes "person." Such as the following:

Ezekiel 11:5: "Thereupon the spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and He said to me…." From the old Hebrew, Tanakh. The Holy Spirit speaks and He is called "He" — a person.

I have used an article called, "Answers to 12 anti-Trinitarian Arguments" by Sam Shamoun in some of my discussions with Muslims. Here is a clip:

First, the Trinity entails believing in one and only one eternal, invisible, immaterial, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient Creator. Second, the doctrine of the Trinity also entails believing that there are three eternally distinct yet inseparable Persons who do not act independently from the others, but in perfect unity. The three Persons of the Godhead do not function separately and apart from the other members. Rather, they always work in perfect harmony. Hence, historic Trinitarianism does not teach that the three distinct Persons seek out their own personal initiatives since to do so would destroy the perfect and inseparable unity of the Godhead.

Furthermore, by the term "Person" we mean that the three members of the Godhead are conscious agents who are aware of their own personal existence as well as the existence of the others. Because of this, the three Persons are able to have intimate communion and fellowship amongst themselves. By the use of the term "Person" we do not mean to imply that there are three material entities that occupy space or exist within time.

Finally, the historic Christian position on Jesus Christ is that he is one divine eternal Person having two distinct natures and wills. Jesus Christ is the God-man (theanthropos), perfect God and perfect man united in one Person.

Regards

[Anonymous]

Sho, guys are you saying that Yahweh is NOT a person, but a Being? But Yahweh refers to HIMSELF as "I" and "I" is personal pronoun singular.

[Kurieuo]

Like I said, I believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And they are ONE in UNITY not in NUMBER.

TO, what is it that makes the three—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—distinct from each other as to give them separate names?

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

Kurieuo, the three are distinct in many ways. I dont believe that the divine nature of the Father is also the divine nature of the Son, first, because the Bible does not teach that. Second, if the nature of the Father is the nature of the Son, then the nature of the Father became flesh, thus the Father's nature experienced death as well.

The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in the sense that man and wife are considered by Christ as one. God does not look at man and wife as two but ONE. But man and wife do not share the same nature. That's why it is mystical oneness and not numerical oneness (see Eph 5:31,32).

[Christian2]

I dont believe that the divine nature of the Father is also the divine nature of the Son.

But you believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all divine. Would you agree that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of the same essence or substance and that only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can make that claim?

The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in the sense that man and wife are considered by Christ as one. God does not look at man and wife as two but ONE. But man and wife do not share the same nature. That's why it is mystical oneness and not numerical oneness (see Eph 5:31,32).

Man and wife do share the same nature. They are both human. So we can say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are also of the same nature—divine. Again, who else can make that claim?

Could you look at the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in terms of relationship? A man can be a father, son, and husband in relationship (all human nature)—three in relationship—but still one person. A man cannot be his own father, his own son, or his own spouse. So, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can be one in nature—divine, but three in relationships.

God Bless

[ttoews]

Sorry this took me so long to get to, ttoews. School/work/church has been crazy as of late.

no problem, its the same at this end

Anyway, this gets into a question of what exactly happened on the cross. Primarily I draw this conclusion from 2 Cor. 5:21. As the NASB reads:

• He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

I note the NIV also provides for "be a sin offering on our behalf". In any event, I would not interpret "to be sin" literally. The Son is God and as God must always be holy. If the verse is taken literally, it means God became sin, or in other words, became the thing opposite of holy. If somebody paid a traffic ticket on my behalf, that person would have bore my penalty but would not have become guilty in the process.

Now, with that understanding, we know that wages of sin is death, but what is death? Simply, it is separation from life,...

I've heard some say that death means separation, but I don't agree. Death was common for those of the biblical ages and as such death was a thing commonly observed and spoken of. I would suggest "death" to them meant the same as "death" means to us. When they spoke of a dead tree, it wasn't contemplated that the tree was separated from life or from God,... it just meant the tree was dead (a simple idea really versus some complex concept of separation). Same for a dead lamb or dead man.

... but I personally believe that Adam would have suffered physical death even had he not sinned. But, even if I'm wrong on that, we can all agree that God DID say that Adam would die in the same day that he ate the forbidden fruit (Gen. 2:17).

we can all agree on that, but we don't all agree that this passage or God's words in that verse should be interpreted literally

Sin, then, brings death, and death means separation from God. Therefore, sin leads to separation from God.

yes, sin leads to physical death and to spiritual death. Physical death is not necessarily separation from God. On the contrary, the death of a Christian puts that person in paradise with Jesus.

It is for all of these reasons that I submit that while the physical death of Jesus was necessary, it was the spiritual separation from God that was the greater sacrifice, and it was this, specifically, that allowed Him to be the propitiation for sin.

this I think is the core of the matter. Did the Father and Son have a break of sorts in their "interconnectedness" at a point on the cross?

.... and if on the Cross God actually chose to consider His Son the very essence of Sin so that His wrath could be satisfied,....

see here you are straying from a literal interpretation...the Son doesn't actually become sin, but the Father chooses to consider Him to be sin

...does it not logically follow that, to use classical terminology, God "turned His back" on His Son? And, how else do you explain Jesus statement on the cross?

that is what I am trying to grapple with. Would appreciate your follow up comments (and any biblical references on point) to my comments here.

God bless