The Trinity?

[o2bwise]

Hi Lysimachus,

I sure appreciate your contributions.

Quick question.

I confess that I tend to think Christ is younger than His Father simply because sons are younger than their parents. Though the ESSENCE that proceeded forth from the Father in the "begotten event" is of course eternally preexistent.

What I wonder is this.

From the perspective of love, such as "God so loved the world...," is love diminished if Christ is younger? How so?

As a rough example, if I gave up my child as some sacrifice and someone responded with dissatisfaction by saying, "Ain't worth much since she is younger than you are," I would actually be pretty upset by that attitude.

I confess to lacking understanding how it is IF Christ is younger than the Father, something is diminished.

Can you help me out here?

Blessings,

Tony (o2)

[o2bwise]

Quote:

If a created being could acquire Divinity through any action of God, then there is no need for the Great Controversy nor a Cross.

What is your point? Who is talking about created beings?

Quote:

If you are not Arian, you certainly do sound like it

Why is it you think I "certainly do sound like it?"

I never got a reply to this and so I will elaborate on my own thoughts.

First off, I personally even despise the use of certain terms such as Arianism, semi-Arianism, modalism, etc. The reason I do is because they are loaded with biases. A lot of folks are naturally sensitive to not wanting to be viewed a heretic and such terms have been packed with that very characteristic - YOU are a heretic!

I see nothing constructive in use of such terms. I prefer just drilling down to meaning without couching meaning with strong biases.

It is my understanding that Arius said Christ was created and given the above quote mentions created being -and- Arian, I am here assuming this is the assertion made. That I believe Christ was created.

Now, I will use the term born, not worrying about the specifics of the actual event wherein I believe the Son proceeded forth from the Father (though I am pretty sure the Hebrew in Proverbs 8 supports such a term).

Anyway, in our realm creation was finished during creation week. Think on this!

(And I do realize hearts are recreated, but that is another matter.)

If one believes Christ was literally born of His Father before creation took place...

How in the world can anyone possibly deduce then that Christ is a created being?

We have had probably TRILLIONS of beings that were born AND NOT ONE OF THEM WAS CREATED AT THAT TIME!

If the Bible account of creation in six days is correct, creation NEVER takes place at conception or birth.

NEVER!!!

And yet some here are actually gonna deduce something in complete violation of the creation record.

Why?

It would appear that the matter of creation has to do with when the "stuff" of which we are composed "came to be" and in this realm, it all came to be in six days.

So, how do I know that I am created?

I trace my lineage back, see that it goes back to Adam and see that Adam was created.

What of Christ IF He was literally born of His Father?

I do the exact same thing. I trace His lineage back and see that it goes back as far as His Father. Therefore, with the same reasoning I see that I was created, I see that Christ was not created since His Father was not created. I also deduce the ESSENCE making up the Son and I see that His essence has been around forever into the past and is indeed "as old" as His Father.

And so among my points asking why I was told I sound Arian where it is linked to the notion that Christ was created is that to even make such a point is such violation of Bible truth with respect to creation and being born, that anyone making it is being astonishingly self-defeating from the perspective of his process of deriving truth.

Yes, the words are strong, but I believe they are true. ANYONE who sees Christ as necessarily a created being by virtue of the assumption He was literally born of the Father has a serious flaw in his thinking on the matter - so serious a flaw that it anihilates the process of understanding the Godhead.

Blessings,

Tony

[Gordon1]

From the perspective of love, such as "God so loved the world...," is love diminished if Christ is younger? How so?

As a rough example, if I gave up my child as some sacrifice and someone responded with dissatisfaction by saying, "Ain't worth much since she is younger than you are," I would actually be pretty upset by that attitude.

I confess to lacking understanding how it is IF Christ is younger than the Father, something is diminished.

Quite true, nothing is diminished by Christ being God's own Son.

Rather, agape love by the Father for mankind, is increased by the value of the sacrifice.

It's a rebuke to heaven to deny God's Son,

One brought forth from the Father.

Who can be more Divine than God's own Offspring?

Divinity is Christ's birthright.

[Gordon1]

God brought forth His own Son, begotten in His express image.

What could be more plainly stated?

And re-stated.

[Gerr]

Gordon & O2, if you take the sonship of Christ as literal, who then is His mother?

[Gordon1]

Gerry, why do you assume God needed a mother to beget Christ?

Adam had no mother.

Eve came from Adam's side.

Christ came from the bosom of the Father.

[o2bwise]

Gerry:

Gordon & O2, if you take the sonship of Christ as literal, who then is His mother?

I was even waiting for this.

Gerry, anyone who brings this up is guilty of idolatry. What you are doing is reducing God to the status of the created. We require two and so on that basis, you are going to deduce that God has the same limitation?

Romans 1:21-22

21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

You have changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man.

The short answer is that the Creator does not have this particular limitation God gave to (some) of His created (realizing some creatures do not need "two" as well in order to have another proceed forth from them).

Blessings,

Tony

[Ted Oplinger]

Ted Oplinger,

(Continued...)

When the Bible or SOP says that Jesus is the Son of God, I don't take that symbolically. When it says that the Father is the Father of Christ, I don't take that symbolically. I will not go into the realms of what God has not revealed.

Ellen White herself says,

"The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed." (GC 598)

Do we believe that?

Or are we going to take all the hundreds and hundreds of passages both from the Bible and SOP where it says that the Father is the Father of Christ, and Christ is the Son of God, and throw them out, and just conclude in our mind that because we cannot comprehend how that works, that it must be "symbolic" or a role play?

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

If a created being could acquire Divinity through any action of God, then there is no need for the Great Controversy nor a Cross.

What is your point? Who is talking about created beings?

[Ted Oplinger]

Gerry:

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Gordon & O2, if you take the sonship of Christ as literal, who then is His mother?

I was even waiting for this.

Gerry, anyone who brings this up is guilty of idolatry. What you are doing is reducing God to the status of the created. We require two and so on that basis, you are going to deduce that God has the same limitation?

Romans 1:21-22

21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

You have changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man.

The short answer is that the Creator does not have this particular limitation God gave to (some) of His created (realizing some creatures do not need "two" as well in order to have another proceed forth from them).

Blessings,

Tony

Oy, Tony....

You complained about getting labelled when I attributed your begotten/born remarks as sounding of Arianism, and here you are smacking Gerry with idolatry for merely asking the naturally-arising question!

I think you'll need to start backing your proposal with a bit more Scripture based theology than a couple of verses and some human thought.

Your short answer would appear to put God in the asexual category of single-celled life propagation - which is included in the "creeping things" of the above verse you quoted.

Blessings,

[John317]

Quote:

How are you understanding and defining the word "begotten"?

That's a good question. Obviously, the root word is "beget."

Don't we need to have a clear understanding of the Greek word that "begotten" is translated from?

What is that word and how do you define it?

How do the Greek-English lexicons define it?

[BobRyan]

in the NT we are told that God begat Jesus when He raised Him from the dead.

Acts 13:

32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Let those who wish to claim that Jesus did not ever exist prior to this begetting at His own resurrection - have the floor.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

Gerry:

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Gordon & O2, if you take the sonship of Christ as literal, who then is His mother?

I was even waiting for this.

Gerry, anyone who brings this up is guilty of idolatry. What you are doing is reducing God to the status of the created. We require two and so on that basis, you are going to deduce that God has the same limitation?

Yet if the sonship of Christ is to be taken literally-- as that Christ somehow came out of the Father's being at some point in eternity past-- then it seems to me that it might be reasonable to posit that there may also be a "mother." In fact, that is what many people do think. For example, some believe the Holy Spirit is the "mother." We've even seen that posted on this Forum before.

As for Christ being created, that has been a very popular belief among anti-Trinitarians. Uriah Smith even proposed this view in the first edition of his Thoughts On Revelation (1865 edition, page 59, on Rev. 3: 14). (Some time later, between 1875 and 1881, Uriah Smith rejected the view that Christ was a created being.)

[John317]

in the NT we are told that God begat Jesus when He raised Him from the dead.

Acts 13:

32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

That's right-- and here "begotten" is not to be taken literally as meaning that Christ did not previously exist.

There's also Hebrews 1: 5, referring to Christ's resurrection--

For to which of the angels did God ever say,

"You are my Son,

today I have begotten you"?

[John317]

Quote:

Oh, you don't have a problem with 1+1 = 2?

ESV | ýMk 10:7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, ý8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Or 1+1+1+1+1 etc. = 1?

ESV Jn 17:21 "...that they may be one even as we are one,"

But have a problem with 1+1+1 = 1?

Find out what a metaphor is.

Deut. 6: 4 uses the same Hebrew word [echad] for "one" as Gen 2: 24 where two persons are "one flesh." (See Strong's #259.) This is no metaphor.

It doesn't refer to the mathematical "1" but rather to the "one" of unity.

Moses could have used a different Hebrew word [chad, Strong's 3298] which means "1" but he chose instead to use the "one"[echad] of plurality.

"One God" or "one Lord" also means that God is the only One for His people.

This is how it is translated by the Jewish Publication Society's version of the Old Testament: "The Lord is our God, the Lord alone."

Rotherham's literal translation renders it, "Yahweh is our God-- Yahweh alone."

Ellen White wrote:

Quote:

The unity that exists between Christ and His disciples does not destroy the personality of either. They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one. {8 T 269}

Please notice that the statement "God and Christ are one" is not a metaphor. Christ was not using metaphorical language when He prayed that His followers would be "one." He was praying that His followers would be united in the Spirit.

The "heavenly trio"-- the Trinity-- is also completely united, working in total harmony for the salvation of the human family.

[John317]

Here's a key statement by Ellen White on the Godhead's consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--

Quote:

The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave Themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption. In order fully to carry out this plan, it was decided that Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin. What line can measure the depth of this love? God would make it impossible for man to say that He could have done more. With Christ He gave all the resources of heaven, that nothing might be wanting in the plan for man's uplifting. CH 222

Does anyone really believe that "the Godhead was stirred with pity" means that only the Father was stirred with pity?

Notice that the Holy Spirit is included among the Ones who "felt pity" and "gave Themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption."

Lest anyone doubt that Ellen White defines the Godhead as consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, see the following statement:

Quote:

The eternal Godhead--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--is involved in the action required to make assurance to the human agent, . . . confederating the heavenly powers with the human that man may become, through heavenly efficiency, partakers of the divine nature and workers together with Christ. {UL 148.4}

QUESTION: Does "the eternal Godhead" ever change from one to two or from one to three?

Since the "eternal Godhead" consisted of Three divine beings at the time of the creation, can't we be certain that the "eternal Godhead" has always consisted of Three divine beings?

Here Ellen White speaks of the "heavenly trio" as "the three holiest beings in heaven" and says that she prayed to "the three great Worthies":

Quote:

Here is where the work of the Holy Ghost comes in, after your baptism. You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You are raised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of life--to live a new life. You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power of the three holiest beings in heaven, who are able to keep you from falling. You are to reveal that you are dead to sin; your life is hid with Christ in God. Hidden "with Christ in God,"--wonderful transformation. This is a most precious promise. When I feel oppressed, and hardly know how to relate myself toward the work that God has given me to do, I just call upon the three great Worthies, and say; You know I cannot do this work in my own strength. You must work in me, and by me and through me, sanctifying my tongue, sanctifying my spirit, sanctifying my words, and bringing me into a position where my spirit shall be susceptible to the movings of the Holy Spirit of God upon my mind and character. {7MR 267.2}

And this is the prayer that every one of us may offer. . . . {7MR 268.1}

[Gerr]

That's what happens when you take the sonship of Christ and the oneness of the 3 persons of the Godhead too literally.

[John317]

Ellen G. White:

Quote:

In His incarnation He gained in a new sense the title of the Son of God. Said the angel to Mary, "The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). While the Son of a human being, He became the Son of God in a new sense. Thus He stood in our world--the Son of God, yet allied by birth to the human race. {1SM 226, 227}

In what way did Christ gain the title of the Son of God "in a new sense" in His incarnation?

I believe if we take this statement together with all of her other statements on the topic, we will conclude that before His incarnation, Christ was not literally the Son of God. At His incarnation, Christ did indeed become literally the Son of God. The Father became His literal "daddy."

There's nothing in either the Bible or the SoP which teaches unquestionably that the pre-existent Christ had a beginning or that He came into existence through the Father. In fact, Ellen White says that before the incarnation, Christ had always stood at the right hand of the Father. PP 38.

This makes sense since the pre-existent Christ is Jehovah, the name of which means "the self-existent One."

He couldn't possibly be "self-existent" if He had had a beginning, nor in that case could Christ have been "infinite" and a part of the "eternal Godhead."

[John317]

So then, if Christ was not literally the Son of God prior to the incarnation, what does the Bible and Ellen White mean when they call Christ "the Son of God"?

How did the Jews understand it? Did they think the title referred to how Christ came into existence?

No, they rightly understood that Christ's use of the title shows that He claims to be equal with God.

They understood rightly the way "the son of" is used in the Scriptures. For instance, "the son of the singers" and the "son of the prophets" did not mean they were literally "sons", but rather that they were "of the order of" the singers and of the prophets.

When the Bible calls us "sons" or "children of God," it is not saying that we are literally His children or sons. It means that we are like God in some ways. We have his character or mind, etc.

So it is that when it refers to Christ as "the Son of God" and as "the only Son of God," its primary reference is to Christ as "the exact represenation of the Father's essence" (Heb 1: 3). The Son of God also refers to Christ as being "in the form of God" prior to the incarnation (Phil 2: 5). He perfectly reflected the Father's glorious Being, in the same way that a child perfectly reflects the image of his/her parent.

But when God gave His Son in order to become a man and die for humanity, God truly gave up His Son forever. Christ is forever in the form of a human being, never more in the form of God (although He is indeed Deity). It's in that sense that God gave up His "one and only Son" for eternity. The man Christ Jesus developed a human personality and He has that same human personality today. His personality and His form are not the same as the Father had beside Him for eternity prior to the incarnation, and it never will be again, ever.

Yet in giving His only beloved Son, our heavenly Father gained many millions of beloved sons who will spend endless eternal ages with Him around the throne that He makes on this earth.

[Enabled]

Quote:

Gordon & O2, if you take the sonship of Christ as literal, who then is His mother?

Who Garry was eves Mother as she came forth from Adam/ another question not needing an answer. We have not been told that procreation is a necessary function with Christ, we are only told that he is begotten and that it is so. Just as Mary was a virgin, we can't explain that one either. Can you explain for us here how it is that the Holy spirit moved upon Mary yet God the Father is said to be Christs Father and not the Holy Spirit? I am not trying to be smart here only to note that Faith is the essence of things not seen (no evidence visible)if we could explain everything instead of seeing things through a cloud darkly we would be God and have no need of Faith in another. Lucifer got himself in real trouble on a similar point, desiring knowledge on something not revealed to him. He wouldn't accept that Christ was God's son as he didn't like what that left him with or what it implied about him! "He who denies the only begotten is Anti-Christ" never forget it, the only begotten is the only savior.

God Bless

[BobRyan]

Gordon & O2, if you take the sonship of Christ as literal, who then is His mother?

Someone older than God the Son??

[BobRyan]

Ellen G. White:

Quote:

In His incarnation He gained in a new sense the title of the Son of God. Said the angel to Mary, "The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). While the Son of a human being, He became the Son of God in a new sense. Thus He stood in our world--the Son of God, yet allied by birth to the human race. {1SM 226, 227}

In what way did Christ gain the title of the Son of God "in a new sense" in His incarnation?

[o2bwise]

Hi Ted,

A couple of times you have recommended I read this entire thread. I would like to do so, but I am busy. Such as right now I am actually at work and squeezing time in.

And I do like to dialogue.

Anyway...

Quote:

You complained about getting labelled when I attributed your begotten/born remarks as sounding of Arianism, and here you are smacking Gerry with idolatry for merely asking the naturally-arising question!

I didn't mean for my words to be a complaint, I just meant to share the idea of some words carrying baggage.

Quote:

I think you'll need to start backing your proposal with a bit more Scripture based theology than a couple of verses and some human thought.

Ya gotta help me out here. What exactly do you mean by "my proposal?"

Now, I am going to isolate your comment "I think you'll need..." to the question of God needing a mother in order to be able to beget a son.

My point was made and you didn't even address it. This is indicated by your characterization of Gerry's question as "naturally arising." I think it is the essence of an unnaturally arising question for the precise reason I gave.

God's creation has limitations and who is anyone to characterize God as having those limitations? As was mentioned by someone else, God enabled Adam to come to be without being born. He enabled Eve to come to be by coming out of Adam's rib.

Why do I need anymore scripture than Romans 1 and any more reason than the concept that it is erroneous to assign to God limitations that His creation has?

On this point (why doesn't God need to have a mother in order to beget a son), I confess to being absolutely firm in my convictions. I cannot fathom positing onto God a need that we have.

Quote:

Your short answer would appear to put God in the asexual category of single-celled life propagation - which is included in the "creeping things" of the above verse you quoted.

Sure, if one divorces my short answer from any context.

I CONFINED my referral to "single celled life propagation" to ONE THING which is this...

Referring to a being that does not have a specific limitation we have.

So, Ted, you're gonna 100% divorce what I said from its context and incorporate a wholly other context and assign that context to me?

OY VEY!

Your context being that I am trying to limit God according to the category of "single celled life."

Your assessment of what I wrote is as off-base as asserting that up is down, black is white, etc.

Blessings,

Tony

[o2bwise]

Hey Ted,

You wrote that there are a few trinitarian models. Could you give me a reference that lists and explains each?

Which is your understanding?

Blessings,

Tony

[o2bwise]

Thought I would share a bit of my personal path with respect to the godhead.

Very early in my Christian experience, I read in a book that since the Holy Spirit is a person, one ought to pray to Him. Knowing very little of the Bible and being reared a trinitarian, I could not escape the logic.

As an example, if I had a guest at my home, I cannot conceive of not talking to him. And so, how could I have the best friend in the universe in my heart (whatever that means) and yet never talk to Him?

So I did. During my abiding time, I would pray to the Father, then Jesus, and then the HS. But, the following always happened.

Every time I talked to the Holy Spirit, I felt really creepy.

I persisted for about two weeks. The feeling never abated and I swore off the practice. I still remember telling myself that I did not understand it (read: not knowing the Bible well at all, I lacked a biblical basis), but I just was not going to do it anymore.

Maybe 12 years later, I was convicted to study WHY Jesus came. I read the entire NT and referenced every text that stated why Jesus came. It appeared to me that He came so as to change our characters.

Well, I saw things like the word works effectively in he who believes, we are changed by the word, by the blood, by the message of the cross, by the HS, God's word is spirit, and so on.

Some time after that, I had a conversation with a close friend and I said something that just came out. It was not premeditated.

Sometimes I wonder if the Holy Spirit is a metaphor for the word.

My friend replied, "AMEN!"

Now, I do believe the HS is much more than what I stated, but anyway, I realized I stated a non-trinitarian position. What happened was I had a very uncomfortable feeling. I realized I was entertaining truth to be non-trinitarian. It was like I could feel the iron hand of "Christian orthodoxy" laying on me.

Sometime after the above, I recollected my early experience of not talking to the HS and I felt I had biblical confirmation.

There is only one valid reason NOT to talk to the HS. It is not a person!

In Patriarchs and Prophets, Ellen White said that God (the Father) had ONE with whom to counsel - His Son. Zechariah says the counsel of peace was made between the TWO.

Now, should the HS be a literal person, that is some weird way to behave I would think. Father and Son counsel together and do not include the HS in their counsel. They seem to corroborate my own experience.

In Patriarchs and Prophets, Ellen White mentions the next being in authority after God and His Son. You would think she would mention the HS, but no.

She next refers to Lucifer.

I think it is noteworthy that my "gut" as it were (and here I intend to include deep spiritual conviction) was such that I simply would not treat the HS as a person.

Moreover that my initial non-trinitarian declaration included three things. One, a byproduct of a study involving reading the entire NT. Two, virtually no thought of the Godhead during the study. Three echoing that declaration without any premeditation.

The description of the HS given by Lysimachus totally resonates with me.

Blessings,

Tony