Page 2 of 60

Re: Understanding the Trinity

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2016 5:43 pm
by Kurieuo
Jac3510 wrote:Laserbeam: John 1:1. If Jesus really is God, then by definition, there can be no subordination of God to God. When we subordinate ourselves to another, we are submitting our wills to them. But the three Persons do not have distinct wills. There is, numerically, one will in God, and that will is the same (numerically) in the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

I also don't like the language about "roles." I think there is a poor mixing of metaphors based on a confusion of the Incarnation with the Divine Essence. Jesus, the man, is subordinate to the Father (and the HS, for that matter). So that's our "in virtue of" language. He submitted in virtue of His humanity, not His divinity. Moreover, I deny a common evangelical practice of distinguishing between the Persons by their activities, as if the it is the Father who declares one righteous while the Son advocates and the Spirit sanctifies. It's pretty language, and it has some devotional value. It even has some strictly theological value in precisely the same sense that distinguishing between God's omnipotence and omniscience has theological value. I could say a lot more, but the point is that I think evangelicals are wrong on this. We traditionally hold to what is called an economic subordination in the Trinity. I just reject that as ultimately untenable.
This is more speaking to you (and anyone else acquainted enough), as such a discussion is really an advanced extension of thought upon the Trinity understood at its most basic level. I'm not sure I necessarily disagree with anything you wrote, so I expect you'd agree with much of what I'm going to say here.

I kind of see the confusion as similar to our modern theological divide over Divine Simplicity. Whether knowingly aware, there is a tendency within us (due to the physical reality that we experience) to also understand God in a "substance-property" framework, versus what would be more the case of God who is pure Immaterial self-existence which then necessitates an "act-potency" framework.

We must affirm, I believe, that all three have no potency within the three to be other than who they are i.e., God (Christ's incarnation being an exception due to Christ taking upon human nature without which, such was a potential for God like "creation" was once potential). Equally, as I see matters, any eternal contingency of two upon one (e.g., Son and Holy Spirit upon the Father), the one must also be eternally contingent upon the two. The video author uses an analogy like "rays" of the "Sun" for the Son and Spirit having their being in the Father, without any vice-versa and this I think is wrong -- such must be mutually shared each sharing in the existence of each other (Perichoresis (Gk) or Circumincession (Ln) -- such that the three interpenetrate each other as God. Thus, we can truly refer to the Father as God, the Son as God and the Holy Spirit as God as they each lack nothing due to this mutual indwelling and inter-penetration.

THAT SAID, I consider it largely secondary, how the three relate, to the more foundational doctrine of three persons, one God (while I'm also uncomfortable using the term "person" it seems to me adequate enough, interesting Jewish thinking of old referred to "powers" or something the like).

Despite commenting on some deeper thinking above, I'm not about to haul anyone over the coals if they see matters differently. This is man's thinking, including my own, so it's merely enough to understand that the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son are identifiable as three yet the one God. This is what Scripture presents, what the Apostles laid down in their written deposit, and so such is the foundation we must affirm if we wish to follow correct Christian teaching.

Re: Understanding the Trinity

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:25 pm
by Jac3510
Philip wrote:
Jesus, the man, is subordinate to the Father (and the HS, for that matter). So that's our "in virtue of" language. He submitted in virtue of His humanity, not His divinity.
My bolding of Jac's statement, above - yes, that's a really important point. But Jesus' humanity is often the cause of many theological misunderstandings.

Jac, it might be helpful to summarize what Jesus temporarily gave up, per His humanity.
Depends on what you mean by "gave up." I know there is a popular idea sometimes called the kenosis theory that says that Jesus emptied Himself and then seeks to flesh that out. But I don't think that's the best way to look at it. I think Jesus retained ALL of His divine attributes and divine prerogatives in the Incarnation. For me, it wasn't about "giving up" anything but rather taking upon Himself some weaknesses, some frailties. So in His humanity He could become tired or hungry. He could die or become physically weak. He could be ignorant of some truth. He was limited to this place rather than that and became a servant of others, which demanded a degree of humility consistent with the limitations of human nature.

That last point is relevant to the thread and gets to K's post just above. Lot's of mistakes are made with respect to the Trinity by failing to distinguish sufficiently between the human nature and the divine nature in the Incarnation, so that things attributed to God the Son through His human nature end up getting attributed directly to the Divine Essence.

------------------------------

K, as you expect, I am in large agreement with your post. I might quibble with a wording or two, but very much on point, in my way of thinking. This part, to me, is especially important:
Kurieuo wrote:Despite commenting on some deeper thinking above, I'm not about to haul anyone over the coals if they see matters differently. This is man's thinking, including my own, so it's merely enough to understand that the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son are identifiable as three yet the one God. This is what Scripture presents, what the Apostles laid down in their written deposit, and so such is the foundation we must affirm if we wish to follow correct Christian teaching.
I strongly agree here. The video reduces the facts of the Trinity to three, I expand it to five, namely:

1. There is one God
2. The Father is God
3. The Son is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
5. The Father is not the Son or Spirit, and the Son is not the Spirit

So if you affirm all five of those biblical truths, you end up affirming something like the Trinity. Strictly then, for me, the Trinity itself is less of a doctrine and more of a logical explanation of the five doctrines just stated. It is a statement of the sum total of those five statements made in a way that they can be understood to be coherent. Now, obviously, you don't need to understand the explanation to accept those five ideas anymore than I need to know how a function works to use it in a code. Just as functions can be black boxes, so too can theological constructs like the Trinity. The important thing is to believe each of those five statements. The real hard part, then, is to explain it in such a way that you don't end up denying one of the five, and that's something that a lot of people end up doing, whether they intend to or not!

Re: Understanding the Trinity

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:03 pm
by Storyteller
My understanding of the Trinity, especially after reading DS....

God, the Father... God is Existence. The Creator.
Christ... also God but also human, giving us a human example of not only God but how to live with God. By worshipping Christ we worship God. Existence.
Holy Spirit.. is that "feeling", those thoughts, that "force" that guides you, also God.

Three distinct things, beings, people, entities, that's a better word, three separate entities, all God but with different roles, kinda thing.

You can only know God, the Father, through His Son. Christ is the bridge to God. If you don't know Christ I don't think you can know God.
I think you can know the HS before knowing Christ or God, in fact I guess it's the HS that convicted me.. HS is the way to Christ, maybe?
Maybe you can be convicted by the HS and search for, and maybe feel God but Christ is our way of getting to God.

Just some rambling thoughts :)

Re: Understanding the Trinity

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:27 pm
by Philip
For me, it wasn't about "giving up" anything but rather taking upon Himself some weaknesses, some frailties.
That's an interesting way of putting it. Perhaps that also entails a ceasing to utilize certain abilities, temporarily/voluntarily, per those weaknesses inherent in all flesh - which would seem a constant temptation to resume using.

Re: Understanding the Trinity

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 3:09 am
by Kurieuo
Here is the one I actually saw first, found it very interesting and good. Really a must watch!

Video #5: Jewish Recognition of Trinitarian Facts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-aVQ8MELeg

Also, I said since the Apostles (NT Scripture) taught Trinitarian belief (basically those 5 points Jac listed above), so too Christians must accept it, because well... there's no higher authority we have than the Apostles except Christ Himself.

Video #6: The Trinity in the New Testament

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaXjVU05odE

Re: Understanding the Trinity

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 3:58 am
by Nessa
i really like the Jesus, the Father, the holy spirit is and is not triangle diagram

Re: Understanding the Trinity

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:43 pm
by Kurieuo
Nessa wrote:i really like the Jesus, the Father, the holy spirit is and is not triangle diagram
I quite like it too. Best visual perhaps possible for Trinity. For my wedding band, I had a simple version of trinity knot that goes all way around the ring. Much meaning behind it for me, and recognition of the fact we're both married in and under God and not simply to each other. Glad for it.

I'm not sure how two stick together without God being the foundation of a marriage, provides such a practical mutual ground to come together on, eventually forgive each other and move on during those times you absolutely can't stand each other. ;)
Different ring design but essentially the same Trinity symbol
Different ring design but essentially the same Trinity symbol
trinity-ring.png (37.36 KiB) Viewed 3400 times

Re: Understanding the Trinity

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 12:52 am
by Kurieuo
A new video was recently released, this one takes a look at the logic of the Trinity and our ability to conceptually conceive of God being such. Quite interesting.

Video #7: The Trinity Explained

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G2S5ziDcO0

Re: Understanding the Trinity

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:26 am
by crochet1949
Yes, because we take salvation on Faith Alone. A good point -- just because we can't understand something does not make it impossible. God Needs to be on a higher plain than we are. And when God came to earth -- Jesus Christ -- incarnate ( God in the flesh) Just because We don't 'understand' that concept doesn't mean it didn't happen. Jesus Christ was Both man/ divine in nature. He chose to 'give up' some of His divine characteristics so that He Could relate to the people He created. When He accomplished that which He was intended To Do -- while here on earth -- He ascended back up to Heaven -- to the Father -- He became the Go-between between 'us' and the Father. Which means that He -- Jesus Christ the Son -- was indeed part of the Trinity =Godhead. We accept that By Faith. God's Word Tells us that is what happened. And we take God at His Word.

Re: Understanding the Trinity

Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:54 pm
by UsagiTsukino
What do we say when people reject the trinity because Jesus was praying to God or that Jesus was tempted

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html

Re: Understanding the Trinity

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 9:15 am
by bbyrd009
UsagiTsukino wrote:What do we say when people reject the trinity because Jesus was praying to God or that Jesus was tempted

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html
"congratulations. Well done!"

Re: Understanding the Trinity

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 9:25 am
by RickD
bbyrd009 wrote:
UsagiTsukino wrote:What do we say when people reject the trinity because Jesus was praying to God or that Jesus was tempted

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html
"congratulations. Well done!"
Bbyrd,

Please stop. If you want to argue against essential Christian doctrine, please go somewhere else.

Re: Understanding the Trinity

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 9:47 am
by bbyrd009
RickD wrote:
bbyrd009 wrote:
UsagiTsukino wrote:What do we say when people reject the trinity because Jesus was praying to God or that Jesus was tempted

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html
"congratulations. Well done!"
Bbyrd,

Please stop. If you want to argue against essential Christian doctrine, please go somewhere else.
ok, but if i want to assert what Christ confirms, every time He opens His mouth, and prays to Father, and that "God is the head of Christ," not "Christ is God," where do i go for that?

So i'll ask again, can you witness the fruit of your trinity doctrine? What is the advantage, iow? How does the trinity doctrine serve you? Never mind the interpretations, that i will even grant you have Witnesses for, if you like. What is the fruit, Rick?

so, who gets to define "essential Christian doctrine?" you? well, i respectfully disagree, ok. Show me the test, the real test, the fruit.

Re: Understanding the Trinity

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 9:58 am
by RickD
bbyrd009 wrote:
RickD wrote:
bbyrd009 wrote:
UsagiTsukino wrote:What do we say when people reject the trinity because Jesus was praying to God or that Jesus was tempted

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html
"congratulations. Well done!"
Bbyrd,

Please stop. If you want to argue against essential Christian doctrine, please go somewhere else.
ok, but if i want to assert what Christ confirms, every time He opens His mouth, and prays to Father, and that "God is the head of Christ," not "Christ is God," where do i go for that?

So i'll ask again, can you witness the fruit of your trinity doctrine? What is the advantage, iow? How does the trinity doctrine serve you? Never mind the interpretations, that i will even grant you have Witnesses for, if you like. What is the fruit, Rick?

so, who gets to define "essential Christian doctrine?" you? well, i respectfully disagree, ok. Show me the test, the real test, the fruit.
If you want to learn more about the Trinity, then search for one of the many threads we have on the doctrine. If you're here to argue against essential Christian doctrines, please do it somewhere else. The conversation about this is done here. I ask you to respect the rules and the moderating at this forum.

Re: Understanding the Trinity

Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:07 am
by bbyrd009
RickD wrote:
bbyrd009 wrote:
RickD wrote:
bbyrd009 wrote:
UsagiTsukino wrote:What do we say when people reject the trinity because Jesus was praying to God or that Jesus was tempted

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html
"congratulations. Well done!"
Bbyrd,

Please stop. If you want to argue against essential Christian doctrine, please go somewhere else.
ok, but if i want to assert what Christ confirms, every time He opens His mouth, and prays to Father, and that "God is the head of Christ," not "Christ is God," where do i go for that?

So i'll ask again, can you witness the fruit of your trinity doctrine? What is the advantage, iow? How does the trinity doctrine serve you? Never mind the interpretations, that i will even grant you have Witnesses for, if you like. What is the fruit, Rick?

so, who gets to define "essential Christian doctrine?" you? well, i respectfully disagree, ok. Show me the test, the real test, the fruit.
If you want to learn more about the Trinity, then search for one of the many threads we have on the doctrine. If you're here to argue against essential Christian doctrines, please do it somewhere else. The conversation about this is done here. I ask you to respect the rules and the moderating at this forum.
you once again posit "essential Christian doctrine" though, Rick, when i am just here to add to "Understanding the Trinity," which i am just now asking for the fruit of, not asking from "Why?" at all, see, just attempting to reason with you, Rick.

Is asking for the fruit of this doctrine wrong, somehow?