Early SDAs and theTrinity

[8thdaypriest]

On 7/15/2019 at 10:00 PM, Gustave said:

The Son is ETERNALLY begotten of the Father by an act of eternal generation and the Holy Spirit has always proceeded ETERNALLY from the Father & The Son. (Western Church view)

I share the belief that the Son was 'begotten" of God the Father. 

I share the belief that He was begotten before "time" - as we define it or measure it - began. 

I am assuming that the Western Church view of "eternally begotten" means that the Son had no beginning.  I think that is actually in one of the creeds.  "The Son had no beginning."  Right?

I do not agree. 

If "the Son" was in fact a second divine being begotten from the first and original divine being (the Father), then do not the words "Son" and "begotten" give us the understanding that the Son began to exist?   He has not always existed.  I personally believe that the begetting of the Son was "the beginning of the creation of God" (Rev 3,14) in the sense that God the Father would later create through Him.

 

[JoeMo]

9 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

"The Son had no beginning."  Right?

I do not agree. 

I don't agree, either.  But - as you stated:

10 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I share the belief that He was begotten before "time" - as we define it or measure it - began.

So what existed before "time" (or the reckoning of time)?  Eternity, correct? So in that sense, Jesus existed before time began.

I believe that the "wisdom" described it  Proverbs 8 is actually Jesus.

"“The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be. When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,  when there were no springs overflowing with water;  before the mountains were settled in place,  before the hills, I was given birth, before he made the world or its fields or any of the dust of the earth. I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above  and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.  Then I was constantly at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,  rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world  and delighting in mankind." (Prov. 8:22-31)

Notice that the above speaks nothing about "wisdom" being created. I perused all English translations, and the term "created" is never used.  The terms "brought forth", "born", and "begotten" are used. All of those terms imply that jesus is the same substance as the Father - "God stuff".  And since Jesus was brought forth before the reckoning of time, in that sense, He was 'brought forth" in eternity.

[Gustave]

54 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I share the belief that the Son was 'begotten" of God the Father. 

I share the belief that He was begotten before "time" - as we define it or measure it - began. 

I am assuming that the Western Church view of "eternally begotten" means that the Son had no beginning.  I think that is actually in one of the creeds.  "The Son had no beginning."  Right?

I do not agree. 

If "the Son" was in fact a second divine being begotten from the first and original divine being (the Father), then do not the words "Son" and "begotten" give us the understanding that the Son began to exist?   He has not always existed.  I personally believe that the begetting of the Son was "the beginning of the creation of God" (Rev 3,14) in the sense that God the Father would later create through Him.

 

The Western Church Teaching is that eternally begotten means eternally. The Father has no beginning, the Father "begat" The Son through what the Church called "Eternal Generation". Which, from my understanding (and I may be slightly off here), is simply saying WE DON'T KNOW how this process works, it's beyond our grasp. JoeMoe has stated this and I have overstated that his position can't be overstated. "Eternal Generation" was simply the best word we had, at the time, to describe the Tradition of the Apostles that Jesus had no beginning exactly like the Father yet eternally submitted to the will of the Father.

This is in contrast to the stated position of evidently many SDA's (NOT BOONSTRA or Gregory)  that there was 3 Persons of equal power and Divinity who at some point prior to everything going south drew lot and decided to adopt ALIEN ROLES and play act Father, Son & Holy Spirit to restore peace, harmony and justice to the galaxy.

The Trinity Doctrine doesn't allow that sort of teaching because it affirms that The Son has been the Son for as long as the Father has been the Father (which is eternally).

Does this make sense to you? I'm not saying you have to believe it the way I do but I'm asking if the way I explained it makes sense to you for reasons I, Gregory & Boonstra believes it.

 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

The Western Church Teaching is that eternally begotten means eternally. The Father has no beginning, the Father "begat" The Son through what the Church called "Eternal Generation". Which, from my understanding (and I may be slightly off here), is simply saying WE DON'T KNOW how this process works, it's beyond our grasp. JoeMoe has stated this and I have overstated that his position can't be overstated. "Eternal Generation" was simply the best word we had, at the time, to describe the Tradition of the Apostles that Jesus had no beginning exactly like the Father yet eternally submitted to the will of the Father.

This is in contrast to the stated position of evidently many SDA's (NOT BOONSTRA or Gregory)  that there was 3 Persons of equal power and Divinity who at some point prior to everything going south drew lot and decided to adopt ALIEN ROLES and play act Father, Son & Holy Spirit to restore peace, harmony and justice to the galaxy.

The Trinity Doctrine doesn't allow that sort of teaching because it affirms that The Son has been the Son for as long as the Father has been the Father (which is eternally).

Does this make sense to you? I'm not saying you have to believe it the way I do but I'm asking if the way I explained it makes sense to you for reasons I, Gregory & Boonstra believes it.

 

Yes.  Makes sense.

How do you know for sure that the original Apostles taught "that Jesus had no beginning".  

Just cause the Council of Nicea (controlled by the pagan murderer Constantine) voted to say it was, doesn't mean it really was.  I have no trust in the conclusions of that council.  

Where does it say in the New Testament, that the Son "had no beginning" ?

[phkrause]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

So what existed before "time" (or the reckoning of time)?  Eternity, correct? So in that sense, Jesus existed before time began.

I believe that the "wisdom" described it  Proverbs 8 is actually Jesus.

Not sure I agree JoeMo. I believe that its talking about "wisdom?" This is Solomon speaking and lest we forget, he asked originally for "wisdom" from God when asked what he would want more than anything?? It also seems that the context of the first number of chapters is all about "wisdom" is it not?? Actually up to chapter 17. I think what we need more than anything is maybe a better definition of "begotten" per the Bible?

[JoeMo]

59 minutes ago, phkrause said:

I think what we need more than anything is maybe a better definition of "begotten" per the Bible?

Maybe.  But one thing I'm currently sure of - begotten means something considerably more than created.  The Bible is rampant with statements alluding to Jesus being the God who interacted with humanity throughout the Bible.  For example, Jesus identified himself as the great I AM - just like the voice from the burning bush said to Moses.

Isaiah 46:9-10 says:

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning"

In Rev. 22, Jesus identifies Himself as the beginning and the end.

Look at Isaiah 43 thru 49.  Five times, the LORD (Yahweh?) identifies Himself as Saviour.  The first chaper of John's gospel describes describes the Word who became flesh as the Creator of the universe.

59 minutes ago, phkrause said:

This is Solomon speaking and lest we forget, he asked originally for "wisdom" from God

Proverbs 8 states that wisdom was brought forth from before "the beginning".  It also identifies itself in the first person, implying a "Person" of sort.  Solomon's wisdom had a beginning way after "The Beginning" - it started when he asked for it. Plus, it was a mental condition (attribute); not a person.

[8thdaypriest]

Krause, I thought you a staunch EGW fan.  You know she said that text in Proverbs is the pre-incarnate Christ speaking. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, you contribute to this forum.  We are  glad to have you.

[Gustave]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Yes.  Makes sense.

How do you know for sure that the original Apostles taught "that Jesus had no beginning".  

Just cause the Council of Nicea (controlled by the pagan murderer Constantine) voted to say it was, doesn't mean it really was.  I have no trust in the conclusions of that council.  

Where does it say in the New Testament, that the Son "had no beginning" ?

"And without controversy great is the mystery of Godliness: GOD was manifest in the flesh...…..1 Timothy 3, 16

You sould watch the video I posted again. Constantine believed the difference between the Orthodox view and Arius' was "foolish and triffeling" and couldn't understand WHY there was such a big fuss. Despite Constantine's view the Bishops representing the Tradition of the Apostles held firm and didn't budge. 

I can't recall where I read this but the historical account was that many of the Bishops who attended the Council showed the signs of their tortures,  prior to Christianity being "legalized". This group (the Bishops) were very loyal to the Traditions of the Apostles. This should add significant weight to someone who weighs each side's argument. 

Additionally, the Synodal letter attached to the Creed is very clear.

Look at the Synodal Letter attached to the documents of the Creed.
investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety and transgression of Arius and his adherents; and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, AND that the Son of God is by his free will capable of VICE and virtue; saying also that he is a creature. All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous words. And of the charges against him and of the results they had, you have either already heard or will hear

As I've already explained, ANY hypothetical situation culminating in Christ "rotting in the tomb" is a reflection of Arianism.

Look at these hypotheticals 8thdaypriest:

Charles S Longacre
IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin.

IF Christ "risked all," EVEN His ETERNAL EXISTENCE in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and IF overcome by sin, He would have gone into Joseph's tomb and neither THAT tomb nor any other tomb would EVER have been opened. All would have been lost and HE would have suffered "eternal loss," the loss of ALL He ever possessed &; His DIVINITY AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been "lost & eternally lost

It was possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, "God, the Father", would still have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth. The Deity of Christ’, paper presented to the Bible Research Fellowship Angwin, California January 1947, page 13 & 14)

When Christ was led by the Holy Spirit into the desert He could have been attacked by a King Cobra, envenomated and DIED, if Christ couldn't have been killed by a King Cobra than His trek into the desert "was all a farce and mere mockery. "

If it were impossible for the Son of God to sink and drown when He walked on water than His walking on water "was all farce and mere mockery."

When Christ was growing up as a young boy he could have been abducted, molested and dismembered by a pedophile. If it were impossible for Christ to have been abducted, molested and dismembered as He was growing up than "His childhood was all a farce and mere mockery."

Like I said previously, Scripture is ABSOLUTE that if ANYTHING would have happened to Jesus to prevent His providing salvation THE ONLY THING it would have meant / proven would have been he wouldn't have been the Christ in the first place.

Remember, when John the Baptist's disciples came up to Jesus and asks Him if He was the one they have been waiting / looking for? Do you remember Jesus' answer? Jesus quoted Isaiah 35,4:

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me." Matthew 11, 4

 

"Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert. And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes."

Jesus, in Matthew 11, 4 bluntly states HE WAS GOD to John's Disciples. How long has "God" beeen around? 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

Thank you Gustave.  You make some good arguments. 

The Council of Nicaea was called by the Emperor (yet unbaptized) for the purpose of achieving consensus within the Christian Church (over which he declared himself head) - to standardize Christian doctrine and teaching, and thus end division.  It came about because disagreement has arisen among teachers and leaders of the various churches. 

13 hours ago, Gustave said:

Despite Constantine's view the Bishops representing the Tradition of the Apostles held firm and didn't budge. 

The Bishops claimed to represent the "Tradition of the Apostles".   You assume they actually did.  Just because there were a large number of them, does not automatically mean they had it right. 

One would think the bishops understood that Constantine would silence the minority opinion by force.  Why would Christian leaders appeal to "Caesar" (a civil authority) to silence opposition?   Seems rather like the Temple authorities appealing to Pilot, to silence Jesus.

I've never been one to simply accept the majority opinion.   The majority is not always right - even in the Church.  Jesus said, "Few there be that find it."

The Council of Nicaea took place 300 years after the death of Christ.  Compare the time period to that of The US Constitution, which was written less than 300 years ago.   How voluminous are the arguments over just what the founders meant.  What were there intentions.  There is no perfect agreement - no consensus.  Yes - we have a court of final appeal, but even that court changes with time as "liberal" judges are replaced with "conservative" judges. 

If the LORD wanted us to understand more clearly or exactly how "the Son" came to be, or whether He had in fact come to be, I think the Father would have inspired the writers of His word to spell it out.  You know.  Put in something like "God the Son has always existed.  He never came to be."  Something to that effect.   But that's not there.  We have to infer the meaning from what we do find. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

Anyone who's been reading my posts for awhile, knows that I do not automatically accept the SDA official or consensus view either. 

Does that mean Rachel does not completely trust authority figures?   Probably.

I do not automatically trust any "majority" view when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture. 

I think that anyone who has discovered a serious flaw in the teaching of the church to which she belongs, develops an independent attitude that doesn't go away. 
 

[8thdaypriest]

14 hours ago, Gustave said:

Look at the Synodal Letter attached to the documents of the Creed.
investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety and transgression of Arius and his adherents; and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, AND that the Son of God is by his free will capable of VICE and virtue; saying also that he is a creature. All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous words. And of the charges against him and of the results they had, you have either already heard or will hear

I see why you believe that it was not possible for Jesus to sin - because He is God.  And you define "God" as one being without beginning, who exists (and has always existed) as "three persons".  

One doctrine impacts all the others. 

I personally do NOT believe the Son of God "was a creature" - If that means a living and created entity. 

I do NOT believe that He was "from things that are not".   He was begotten from His Father.  His Father obviously "was", therefore the Son "came from" something that was/is - His Father.  There is a vast difference between "created from nothing" and "begotten of God". 

I do NOT believe "the Son" was a lesser God.  He was exactly like His Father - an exact copy - the "express image".   But the Son was the copy.  He was not the original. 

The Son was "the image" BEFORE He incarnated.  He upheld all things by the word of His Father BEFORE He incarnated.  And He was a separate divine being BEFORE He incarnated.  He acted according to the will of His Father BEFORE He was incarnated.  The Father acted and communicated THROUGH His Son, before that Son was incarnated. 

 Hebrews 1:1-3 "God . . . has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He (God the Father) made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory (the Father's glory) and the express image of His person (the Father's person), and upholding all things by the word of His power (the Father's authority), when He (the Son) had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the (Father) Majesty on high, (NKJ)

The question:  Can God beget?   Can "God" beget another divine being exactly like Himself?   I believe He can, and did. 

I looked at all the ways the word 5287 "hupostasis" #5287 - was translated in different versions. 

It is translated as "person" in the King James, which would mean that "God" is a "person".  Other translations have it as:

"the exact representation of His nature" (NAS)

"the very expression of God's essence"  (CJB)

"the representation of his essence" (NET)

"the exact representation of his being" (NIV)

The Greek BYZ has:  χαρακτὴρ (an impress, exact likeness, exact representation) τῆς (of) ὑποστάσεως (substance)

So "the Son" - prior to His incarnation - was the exact representation of God's substance.  

Question:  Who needed such a representation?  Would it not be created sentient beings, who would need to relate to/with a personal being with a form of some sort?  Which says to me, that "the Son" was "begotten" for that very purpose - communication.  

We know "the Son" represented God (His "Father") to mankind.

Did "the Son" need to facilitate communication for any other created beings PRIOR to the creation of mankind on a planet (with surrounding universe) called "earth" ?   Job 38:4-7 does suggest there were other beings already existing prior to the creation of our earth. 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

PRIOR to the creation of any sentient beings, there would be no need for a communicator.  Hence no need for "the Son". 

Which is why I believe the evidence from Scripture presents "the Son" "begotten" as "the beginning of the creation of God". 

The Son was begotten, and then God  ("through" the Son) created "all that was created".  The Son then served as the Communicator (Mediator) between God the Father (who is unknowable and unapproachable) and their created sentient beings. 

"One God and one Mediator"

[phkrause]

20 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Krause, I thought you a staunch EGW fan.  You know she said that text in Proverbs is the pre-incarnate Christ speaking. 

No I did not know that?

[JoeMo]

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6)

Do any of these titles sound familiar?  IMHO, the child is Jesus.  He is called the Counsellor (or Comforter in other translations).  Most Christians think this title belongs to the Holy Spirit. Jesus is also called mighty God and Everlasting Father.  I thought those titles belong to Jesus' heavenly Father.

"For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour:"(Is. 43:3)

"I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour. (Is. 43.11)

" there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. (Is.45:21)

Most Christians don't believe that it was the pre-incarnate Christ that said these things.  IMHO, it could be no one else.  Looking at these (and other OT scriptures, it is evident to me that Christ is the aspect or Person of God who communicated with humanity.  These verses also indicate how closely interrelated and unified the members of the Godhead are.

Such a marvelous mystery!

[GHansen]

On ‎7‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 12:27 PM, Gustave said:

Stan and Gregory operate a well oiled machine with this Forum. Initially I didn't think I would last very long here but I'm glad I was incorrect about that. Running a Forum of this scope takes a lot of experience and frankly smarts. I commend the owner and Management on a Job extremely well done. 

I agree that this forum is well run. Not only the administration but those who post, lack the misguided zeal, bigotry and various other "qualities" which make the  "ignore" option such a blessing. If posters on certain other forums took their attitudes and communication style into a bar or a public park, they'd have their teeth kicked in.

[Kevin H]

On 7/16/2019 at 11:53 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Many writings of Mrs White certainly support the idea that only God the Father and His Son planned the rescue of their creation.  I don't read about a third divine being in Mrs White's writings during the first 50 years of her ministry. 

 

This is because of the roles of the members of the trinity. God the Father and God the Son are both objective revelations and thus they would be the ones pictured as discussing the plan of redemption. The Holy Spirit is the way the one infinite God revels himself to our subjective experience. You have a tendency of looking for three objective revelations out there and keep pointing out that there are only two. You don't seen to catch the idea that this is the point, two objective revelations; God as power and God as intimate personal friend making a oneness of the opposites of approachable and unapproachable. Universal and personal. And these two are objective revelations. They are seen about in places and talking, and then the subjective application, God consciously revealing himself inside us with our existential experience. 

Revelation 12 and 13 has the members of the trinity only instead of a oneness that we find in the Biblical trinity they are independent of each other or cooperating for their mutual selfish desired. The red dragon represents spiritualism, the idea of live as you please for heaven is your home. The final law and authority is your existential experience, existentialism. Instead of the Holy Spirit working with out existential experience to be fair to the outside world, it is a counterfeit holy spirit telling us that the final authority is what is right for you. 

The beast is the counterfeit god the father. god as power and authority. It is the opposite of the dragon. The dragon says your final authority lies inside yourself in your existential authority. The beast is any organization that replaces Christ in our hearts, an outside source of power that we bow to even if it goes against our conscience. While the dragon only cares about our existential experience, the beast does not care about it at all and tells us to just submit. 

The false prophet is a counterfeit christ, where we feel that with God's closeness to us does it so that it does not matter if we surrender up conscience and submit to the beast. 

[Kevin H]

On 7/17/2019 at 3:50 PM, phkrause said:

Not sure I agree JoeMo. I believe that its talking about "wisdom?" This is Solomon speaking and lest we forget, he asked originally for "wisdom" from God when asked what he would want more than anything?? It also seems that the context of the first number of chapters is all about "wisdom" is it not?? Actually up to chapter 17. I think what we need more than anything is maybe a better definition of "begotten" per the Bible?

It appears that "wisdom" was one of the steps in coming to the understanding of the trinity and God the Son, along with Yahweh and the angel of the Lord who turns out to be the Lord. (see James L Kugel "The God of Old") https://www.amazon.com/God-Old-Inside-World-Bible/dp/0743235851

All three members of the trinity have been described in both male and female terms. 

[phkrause]

57 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

It appears that "wisdom" was one of the steps in coming to the understanding of the trinity and God the Son, along with Yahweh and the angel of the Lord who turns out to be the Lord. (see James L Kugel "The God of Old") https://www.amazon.com/God-Old-Inside-World-Bible/dp/0743235851

All three members of the trinity have been described in both male and female terms. 

I have that book per you!! I'm about half way thru!!

[phkrause]

I was reading, or should I say have been catching up with my Signs of the Times magazines, the December 2017 issue. There is an article by Loren Seibold on "the Trinity." I thought I would share it and see what others thought about it:

http://www.signstimes.com/?p=article&a=44153356129.786

ps:If for any reason you can't access the link, let me know and I will copy and paste it. Thanks

[Gregory Matthews]

I have decided to post the article.  The Signs of the Times is a SDA magazine and Loren Seibold is  SDA clergy.

 

The Trinity by Loren Seibold	From the December 2017 Signs
In the late fourth century a young man born in Roman England was captured by marauders, who brought him to Ireland, where he was sold into slavery. His name was Patrick, and you might never have heard of him were it not for the fact that in his captivity he learned about Christ and spent his enslaved years strengthening his faith through study and prayer. Eventually he was able to flee his owner and make his way back to Britain, where he undertook formal studies and was eventually ordained in France. One day Patrick had a vision in which he heard the people of Ireland calling him: “We appeal to you, holy slave boy, to come and walk among us.” So Patrick returned to Ireland as a Christian missionary, baptizing thousands, raising churches, and ordaining priests. Though other missionaries had worked in Ireland, none of them were as successful as Patrick. There are many stories and legends about Patrick, but one that’s especially beloved is how he taught his uneducated pagan hearers that God was one God but also three Individuals. He held up a sprig of clover—a plant that blankets green Ireland. “This is three leaves, but also just one leaf,” he explained. “So it is with God. God is one, but that one is three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” A most puzzling doctrine The proposition that God is composed of three separate but equal and completely united personalities—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—may be the most frequently discussed church doctrine in the history of Christianity. Strict monotheists, like Jews and Muslims, have misunderstood it as evidence that Christians are polytheists. Even Christian believers have wrestled with it. The seventeenth-century English minister Robert South once wrote, “As he that denies this fundamental article of the Christian religion may lose his soul, so he that much strives to understand it may lose his wits.” As important as it is to believe the teaching of the Trinity, I can assure you that it isn’t necessary that you understand the precise mechanism of this blending of three Individuals in one God. As with many things about God, it cannot be completely understood by mortal minds. What we can understand are the Individuals of this Trinity and how they work together to show us God’s love. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit To Israel, there was only one God. Surrounded by foreign nations with multiple false gods and goddesses, God insisted that Israel confine itself to the one real God. “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:4). But even back in the Old Testament there were hints that there was more to God than Creator, Nation-maker, and Judge. Isaiah predicted the coming of a Messiah (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6) and laid out broad hints that He wasn’t going to be just another king, but Someone who would suffer on behalf of His people (Isaiah 53). Job hinted at it, declaring, “I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth” (Job 19:25). Jesus’ arrival with the claim to be the Messiah upset the settled belief that God could be understood in only one way. Jesus’ miracles and His teachings were so astonishing that even His enemies had to admit that He had an unusual relationship with God. When asked to describe that relationship, He said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). This confession that He was Himself God so angered the Jews that they determined to crucify Him, which gave Him the opportunity to prove His divinity by coming to life after being dead. The Holy Spirit may be the most mysterious and difficult One to describe of the Three Persons of the Godhead. Jesus referred to the Spirit as the Entity that would continue to provide guidance after He was gone (John 15:26). There are enough biblical references to the work of the Holy Spirit that it’s clear that He isn’t just an indirect way to speak of God’s influence—but that He is an actual Individual. The early Christian struggle The Bible never uses the word Trinity, but there are a few New Testament references to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a combined Entity. Each of these Individuals is described clearly, and all Three are often even mentioned in the same passage. A case in point is 1 Peter 1:2, in which the apostle, addressing his readers, said that they had been “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood.” And in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus told His disciples to baptize new disciples “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” the Three Members of the Trinity are combined as a sort of formula. So with no clear theology of the Trinity in the Bible, early Christians struggled to know how to regard Jesus and the Holy Spirit. A few rejected Jesus’ divinity, but most of the church fathers were convinced that He was God, exactly as He claimed to be. And the apostle John clearly understood the Holy Spirit to be a Person in His own right, independent of the Father and the Son. He quoted Jesus saying, “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you” (John 14:16, 17). Church councils took up the question of the Trinity again and again during the early period of Christian history. One of the final products of their study, the fifth century Athanasian Creed, explained the Trinity while warning against polytheism. It described “one God in Trinity. . . . There is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. . . . They are not three Gods, but one God. . . . So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, There be Three Gods.” In these few words the early Christian scholars showed that even if God is Three, these Three aren’t separate. To think that you must pray to God for one thing and Jesus for another or to act as though the Three are in competition to one another is to misunderstand completely the doctrine of the Trinity. You can pray to any of Them, and that prayer is heard by all. You can neither divide Them nor love one more than another. Functionally speaking Perhaps the best way to explain the Three Persons of God is to see Them in Their purpose in our salvation. God the Father is the Foundation and Originator of everything (Genesis 1:1). I like the description of God by the hymn writer Walter C. Smith, who wrote: “Immortal, invisible, God only wise, in light inaccessible hid from our eyes, most blessed, most glorious, the Ancient of days, almighty, victorious, Thy great name we praise.” As we look through the Old Testament, we see Him as a strong force, a guide, a disciplinarian. And God is indeed all of these things. But a God like that—immortal, invisible, distant—isn’t necessarily easy for us finite beings to relate to. When it came time to implement the plan of salvation, God needed “one like a son of man” (Revelation 14:14) to be a healer, a teacher, and a sacrifice of atonement. As a man, Jesus was “tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin” (Hebrews 4:15). God was seen in the person of Jesus as merciful and gracious, one who loves sinners, had power over death, and who in heaven mediates our prayers to His Father (1 Timothy 2:5). As Jesus predicted, the Spirit speaks to us in subtle ways through our minds and emotions. Early Christians emphasized that the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of the Bible (2 Peter 1:21) and guides as we study it (John 16:13). This enables us to worship and fellowship together as Christians (2 Corinthians 13:14). The Holy Spirit is the Voice of our conscience (Romans 9:1). He gives us spiritual talents (1 Corinthians 12:7) and provides the power we need to overcome our sins (2 Timothy 1:7). Seen in this way, the Holy Trinity presents God to us in three separate Persons, each intended to be accessible to human beings with our differing personalities and needs. Yet don’t misunderstand: That I can see the Holy Spirit changing my life doesn’t mean that Jesus is uninterested in my growing in grace. That Jesus served as the sacrifice for my sins on Calvary doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love me just as much. That God is the judge of sin doesn’t mean that Jesus or the Spirit are unconcerned about it. They are indeed Three in One, and all Three love you and me.

[JoeMo]

There is an old Yiddish proverb that shows how difficult it is to understand the nature of God (at least Messiah):

"The Messiah you are expecting will never come.  The Messiah that is coming you never expected."

This originally applied to only Jews; but could it apply to some Christians as well?

 

[8thdaypriest]

If "God" is a Trinity of three, then He did not "give His only begotten". 

The Son cannot be both "begotten" and have existed without beginning. 

Unless of course, He was "begotten" only when incarnated into the womb of Mary, and He was not God's "son" prior to that incarnation.

[8thdaypriest]

On 7/19/2019 at 2:36 PM, Kevin H said:

This is because of the roles of the members of the trinity. God the Father and God the Son are both objective revelations and thus they would be the ones pictured as discussing the plan of redemption. The Holy Spirit is the way the one infinite God revels himself to our subjective experience. You have a tendency of looking for three objective revelations out there and keep pointing out that there are only two. You don't seen to catch the idea that this is the point, two objective revelations; God as power and God as intimate personal friend making a oneness of the opposites of approachable and unapproachable. Universal and personal. And these two are objective revelations. They are seen about in places and talking, and then the subjective application, God consciously revealing himself inside us with our existential experience. 

Revelation 12 and 13 has the members of the trinity only instead of a oneness that we find in the Biblical trinity they are independent of each other or cooperating for their mutual selfish desired. The red dragon represents spiritualism, the idea of live as you please for heaven is your home. The final law and authority is your existential experience, existentialism. Instead of the Holy Spirit working with out existential experience to be fair to the outside world, it is a counterfeit holy spirit telling us that the final authority is what is right for you. 

The beast is the counterfeit god the father. god as power and authority. It is the opposite of the dragon. The dragon says your final authority lies inside yourself in your existential authority. The beast is any organization that replaces Christ in our hearts, an outside source of power that we bow to even if it goes against our conscience. While the dragon only cares about our existential experience, the beast does not care about it at all and tells us to just submit. 

The false prophet is a counterfeit christ, where we feel that with God's closeness to us does it so that it does not matter if we surrender up conscience and submit to the beast. 

Kevin, 

This doesn't make a bit of sense to me.  Where do Revelation 12 and 13 present "members of the trinity"? 

QUOTING KEVIN:   "This is because of the roles of the members of the trinity. God the Father and God the Son are both objective revelations and thus they would be the ones pictured as discussing the plan of redemption. The Holy Spirit is the way the one infinite God revels himself to our subjective experience. You have a tendency of looking for three objective revelations out there and keep pointing out that there are only two. You don't seen to catch the idea that this is the point, two objective revelations; God as power and God as intimate personal friend making a oneness of the opposites of approachable and unapproachable. Universal and personal. And these two are objective revelations. They are seen about in places and talking, and then the subjective application, God consciously revealing himself inside us with our existential experience. 

BACK TO RACHEL:  The Holy Spirit is "the subjective application" who give us "our subjective experience".    Is that right?   What does that mean?  Something we cannot see, hear, or physically feel - but we can emotionally experience?  Is that about right? 

I've experienced something of this type.  Yes.  The day I came to believe that God is real.  I was out walking.  I looked up at the sky, and said to God, "I don't know if you exist.  If you exist, then you have to speak to me.  I can't just talk to the sky."  Instantly, I felt something flow over me, and I was vibrantly powerfully aware that I was loved - absolutely loved, just for myself.  I feel to my knees on the sidewalk and cried.  Nothing and no one had ever loved me like that!  I knew that God loved me.  I've never looked back since that moment 41 years ago. 

1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is one God, the Father of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live." (NKJ)

Ephesians 4:6 "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (NIV)

So God the Father - who is "above all and through all and in all" - cannot evoke a subjective experience in human beings?  

Why not?

Jesus said, "God is spirit."   He said we are to "worship Him in spirit".   Did He say we are to worship the Spirit?  No.  We are to worship the Father in Spirit.  (John 4)

There is no command to worship the Holy Spirit - no command to sing to, praise, glorify, thank, pray to, or in any other wise direct an act of worship specifically to the Holy Spirit as a divine being.  In Scripture we worship God the Father and His Son.  We worship God's Son because God the Father has directed us to do so. 

I will not sing "Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost".  That is not Scriptural.  

If I am not to address any form of worship to the Holy Spirit, thus identifying "Him" as a "third person" of a Trinity, then how can I believe such a teaching?

I believe God our Father is the great omnipresent original spirit.  Because He is spoken of as "sitting" on His throne, does not exclude His also being the omnipresent spirit.  He - one being - can be both present and visible at one place, while also omnipresent.  

 

  

 

[JoeMo]

12 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

There is no command to worship the Holy Spirit - no command to sing to, praise, glorify, thank, pray to, or in any other wise direct an act of worship specifically to the Holy Spirit as a divine being.

There is also no instance of anyone praying to the Spirit in Scripture.  They pray IN the Spirit, and FOR the Spirit, but never TO the Spirit.  There is also no example in Acts of any disciples baptizing anyone "In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" Every baptism chronicled in Acts show people baptized "in the Name of Jesus".