RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God



Message

iSERVEaJEW -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/4/2008 3:43:56 PM)

This thread isn't supposed to be a debate on whether or not God exists in three persons. This thread is supposed to be about the fact that I really don't think that doctrine adequately explains His nature. There are instances in the Tanakh that don't fit the doctrine. Those instances in the Tanakh can be explained by saying it was the pre-incarnate Messiah. However, we have no Biblical proof to support that theory that I'm aware of.

I am concerned about a purely Biblical idea of God. I think that it is somehow wrong to try to fit Him into a doctrine.



J_Michael80 -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/4/2008 7:11:09 PM)

quote:

original: Bob

We know that Christ sits at the Right Hand of God today.......has he always?


1. Yes! Jesus Christ has always been at the right hand of God. Read this verse carefully and see what David says about God. The "right hand of God" and "works of God," is used interchangeably.

"The right hand of the LORD does valiantly. The right hand of the LORD is exalted; The right hand of the LORD does valiantly. I will not die, but live, And tell of the works of the LORD."
(Psalm 118:16)

2. Now read this verse and see what Jesus says about Himself, in relationship to His Father. Jesus reveals Himself as always doing the works of God.

“If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:37)



J_Michael80 -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/5/2008 1:39:17 AM)

This means the right hand of God became Flesh! (John 1:14) This is revelation from God!



bob97 -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/6/2008 6:17:37 PM)

I would like to pose a question; can anyone point out an occasion in the bible where God has directly interacted with man?

Since God is spirit and without form how would He accomplish the following:

Walk with Adam and Eve in the Garden?

Appear and talk to Abraham?

Precede the Israelites out of Egypt?

Appear to Moses on the Mt?

We know that Christ created the Heavens. On every occasion that an appearance to man has occurred, it is said to be the Angel of the Lord, the commander of the army of the LORD or Jesus Christ Himself. Of course one could say that in all appearances of a physical being to mankind that it was Christ.

The Holy Spirit breathed life into Adam. The Holy Spirit is the one who teaches and writes the laws of God into our hearts.

Christ will fight the final battle and it will be Christ who will judge mankind.

The purpose of my question is; it seems that it is either the Holy Spirit or Christ who interacts with mankind. Since we know that the Spirit and Christ are actually one with God, are these two elements of God His way of dealing with man?


Bob



iSERVEaJEW -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/6/2008 6:31:20 PM)

Here is a good discussion of the nature of God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi2nAHPpgvI



bob97 -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/6/2008 7:02:23 PM)

I would have to say that link would support what I am trying to say.

Bob



perfectWeakness129 -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/7/2008 11:33:44 AM)

To say that the Docterine of the Trinity is a docterine of man is true. It was dogmatized in the third century AD. Incidently, the same decade as the canonization of Scripture. THIS IS NOT TO LEAD TO A DISCUSSION OF THE CANON, however I assume that we all agree with the canon as it exists today (regarding NT of course). That being said, the same way that the Scriptures were inspired and divine for the three centuries preceeding the dogma of man, so too the docterine of the Trinity was accepted and taught in the centuries preceeding the dogma of man.

I say again that the revelation of God (The Bible in its entirety) teaches the existance of the Trinity (this does not mean that the Trinity is a revelation from God in the explicit sense). I will agree that it does not limit God to three persons, but it is in no way a heretical or false image of God, as has been accused in this thread, because it is rooted deeply in the exigetical teachings of the Holy New Testement writings including the red letters.



DaveW -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/7/2008 12:59:51 PM)

Without going into what everyone else said I would have to anser a definate YES and NO.

Trying to define God is always problematic because He is as the ancient sages said "Wholy Other" that what we know.

The concept of the Trinity was formulated at Nicea in 325, and clearly none of the believing Jews were there to influence the verbage. It is correct as far as it goes but is coming from the wrong minset/viewpoint.

And to really blow things up, it does not address at all the "Seven Spirits of God" in Rev 1.14 and 4.15.



perfectWeakness129 -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/7/2008 1:07:55 PM)

The Jewish problems with the idea of the Godhead DOES NOT start being challenged at the docterine of the Trinity. It began at the very assertion that Jesus was God. That is why Jesus was alsmost stoned half a dozen times, because the Jews saw Him claiming to be God as blasphemy. Jesus being God is just as difficlut for a believing Jew as is the Trinity. Both of these ideas must be harmonized with an 'Echod' united One God. Honestly, it is just something believing Jews have to accept, and have for millenia (diety of Christ as well as Trinity).



DaveW -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/7/2008 2:40:50 PM)

You missed what I was saying.

I was not speaking of traditional Jews who rejected Messiah. I was speaking of the believing Jews of the early 4th century.

The wording was so steeped in Greek culture that it became yet another stumbling block to the traditional Jews. It described something very foreign to them, more foreign than it had to be.

BTW, the way Moses used echad in the Torah allows for a composite unity: "...the two shall become one (echad) flesh..." Had THAT been properly explained, it might have brought a lot more Jews into the redeemed community.



perfectWeakness129 -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/7/2008 3:52:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveW

You missed what I was saying.

I was not speaking of traditional Jews who rejected Messiah. I was speaking of the believing Jews of the early 4th century.

The wording was so steeped in Greek culture that it became yet another stumbling block to the traditional Jews. It described something very foreign to them, more foreign than it had to be.

BTW, the way Moses used echad in the Torah allows for a composite unity: "...the two shall become one (echad) flesh..." Had THAT been properly explained, it might have brought a lot more Jews into the redeemed community.


I did miss what you were saying. I agree with your most rescent post that it was a hard thing for believing Jews to rationalize. I would say just as difficult as accepting a walking talking flesh and blood being as God in the flesh who was worshiped twice in the gospels and again in Revelation.

I think we're on the same page, you and me.



Sabellius -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/8/2008 3:31:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW

First, I would like to emphasise that I think that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God. I am not denying that at all. But, I have issues with the doctrine of the trinity itself. I don't think that this doctrine does the nature of God justice.

For example, Scripture is clear that our God is not a man. However, He appears as a man. Some think that Moses and the Elders saw the Messiah when they climbed Mt. Sinai. Some think that the Man who visited Abraham was the Messiah too in some pre-incarnate form.

It doesn't add up for me. I don't like the idea of having to try to fit God into a three-sided box. What do you think?


God became a man (John 1:14). Not merely "appears" as a man, IMHO. I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that they are One God but I do not believe, either, that the Trinity is a necessary interpretation of Scripture.



iSERVEaJEW -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/8/2008 4:43:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabellius
quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
First, I would like to emphasise that I think that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God. I am not denying that at all. But, I have issues with the doctrine of the trinity itself. I don't think that this doctrine does the nature of God justice.

For example, Scripture is clear that our God is not a man. However, He appears as a man. Some think that Moses and the Elders saw the Messiah when they climbed Mt. Sinai. Some think that the Man who visited Abraham was the Messiah too in some pre-incarnate form.

It doesn't add up for me. I don't like the idea of having to try to fit God into a three-sided box. What do you think?

God became a man (John 1:14). Not merely "appears" as a man, IMHO. I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that they are One God but I do not believe, either, that the Trinity is a necessary interpretation of Scripture.

Yes, He became a man. However, I was specifically referring to the instances in the Tanakh where He appears to Jacob, Abraham, Moses, etc as a Man. Perhaps it could be said that He became a Man then too, but let's not split hairs.



cognitivemagic -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/8/2008 6:03:28 PM)

quote:

I am concerned about a purely Biblical idea of God. I think that it is somehow wrong to try to fit Him into a doctrine.


But that's just what you've done here by saying:

quote:

1) "I don't like the idea of having to try to fit God into a three-sided box" (i.e. the doctrine of "rationalism")

2) "Another reason why I dislike this doctrine is because it is a huge hindrance to explaining the nature of God to a Jew" (i.e. the doctrine of "evangelical accommodation")

3) "I prefer to use Scripture to define His being" (i.e. the doctrine of "scripture alone")

4) "When our Master and His Apostles talked about the Father, Son, and Spirit they didn't say that He is ONLY expressed that way" (i.e. the doctrine of "indescribability/ineffability")

5) "You were right when you said that we cannot comprehend the nature of God and you should have stopped there" (i.e. the doctrine of "incomprehensibility")

6) "I am concerned about a purely Biblical idea of God. I think that it is somehow wrong to try to fit Him into a doctrine" (i.e. the doctrine of "anti-doctrinism")


Of course, I hope you see some of the humor derived from the material that you have provided.

Nevertheless, God has revealed Himself as Tri-Personal in both Testaments.

quote:

The LORD said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
2 The LORD shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion.
Rule in the midst of Your enemies!

3 Your people shall be volunteers
In the day of Your power;
In the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning,
You have the dew of Your youth.
4 The LORD has sworn
And will not relent,
“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”

5 The Lord is at Your right hand;
He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath.
6 He shall judge among the nations,
He shall fill the places with dead bodies,
He shall execute the heads of many countries.
7 He shall drink of the brook by the wayside;
Therefore He shall lift up the head.

Psalm 110:1-7


and

quote:

6 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Genesis 1:6,7


and

quote:

“Behold! My Servant whom I uphold,
My Elect One in whom My soul delights!
I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.
2 He will not cry out, nor raise His voice,
Nor cause His voice to be heard in the street.
3 A bruised reed He will not break,
And smoking flax He will not quench;
He will bring forth justice for truth.
4 He will not fail nor be discouraged,
Till He has established justice in the earth;
And the coastlands shall wait for His law.”

Isaiah 42:1-4


Notice that Isaiah 42:1 mentions all three Persons of the Holy Trinity (i.e. God, His Servant and His Spirit; namely Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

The question is not whether the Trinity doctrine is good enough; rather, the question is "is it really wise to deny it"?

I will forgo New Testament verses since your audience would be more inclined to hear the Old Testament.



iSERVEaJEW -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/8/2008 7:28:32 PM)

Sorry, but Trinity doesn't explain the burning bush, the Man that Jacob wrestled, etc.



abu_khomar -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/8/2008 9:14:12 PM)

Perhaps they were theophanies.



walterquez -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/9/2008 11:42:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW

This thread isn't supposed to be a debate on whether or not God exists in three persons. This thread is supposed to be about the fact that I really don't think that doctrine adequately explains His nature.
Why don't you think so? What do you believe is His nature?

With regards to His nature, it was stated in the first Ecumenical Council that God is of "one" essence, not three. So I am not sure what you mean about Three Person explaining His nature.

As far as the Trinity being "formulated" at Nicea it is incorrect. The purpose of that council was to state what was always believed from the beginning. And if you search the writings of the early Church Fathers before Nicea, you will find them talking about it, so it was not a new thing at this council. And you also find it in the Holy Scripture, not necessarily the word "Trinity", but the Three Person.

After John the baptist baptized Jesus, the Father was there, as well as the Holy Spirit. Jesus even commanded His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.



iSERVEaJEW -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/9/2008 11:58:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: walterquez
quote:

ORIGINAL: iSERVEaJEW
This thread isn't supposed to be a debate on whether or not God exists in three persons. This thread is supposed to be about the fact that I really don't think that doctrine adequately explains His nature.

Why don't you think so? What do you believe is His nature?

With regards to His nature, it was stated in the first Ecumenical Council that God is of "one" essence, not three. So I am not sure what you mean about Three Person explaining His nature.

As far as the Trinity being "formulated" at Nicea it is incorrect. The purpose of that council was to state what was always believed from the beginning. And if you search the writings of the early Church Fathers before Nicea, you will find them talking about it, so it was not a new thing at this council. And you also find it in the Holy Scripture, not necessarily the word "Trinity", but the Three Person.

After John the baptist baptized Jesus, the Father was there, as well as the Holy Spirit. Jesus even commanded His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Did you read what I wrote earlier?



walterquez -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/10/2008 12:40:08 AM)

I did read what you wrote, that is why I am asking what you believe is the better explanation of His nature. Why do you believe the Trinity is not adequate? I don't think you gave your take on this, at least from what I read in your posts. The bible talks about the Father, and also about Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. How do you explain this to a Jew?



Bluethread -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/11/2008 7:56:28 PM)

Here are a few manifestations for you. Which personage spoke from the burning bush? Who's was the still small voice that Eliajah heard? The dove at Yeshua's mikvah was called Ruach Ha Chedosh but was it a person seperate from Adonai? The tongues of fire at pentecost where they a personage?

Let's take a pragmatic approach here. What benefit is derived from the trinitarian view other than a neat package for answering new believer's questions?



bob97 -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/11/2008 10:48:18 PM)

quote:

The bible talks about the Father, and also about Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. How do you explain this to a Jew?


You can only explain this to a Jew who has the faith to believe. It is of course impossible to explain to one with a hardened heart...and such will Israel be until the time of the gentiles is past and then Jeremiah 31 will be fulfilled. The New Covenant will be complete.

Bob



cognitivemagic -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/15/2008 11:21:39 PM)

quote:

Sorry, but Trinity doesn't explain the burning bush, the Man that Jacob wrestled, etc.


Neither does your view. In fact, you don't think any doctrine describes or explains God, and so you've refuted yourself.

In fact, you violate your own scriptures that tells you not to carry unequal weights and measures (Deut. 25:13-16, Prov. 20:10). In other words, you're unjust in your criticism since you allow for yourself what you will deny to others; namely a characterization of God.

Now I had given scriptures that demonstrate the plurality of Persons within the Godhead from the Old Testament. You gave not a single comment on them.

To go back to your reasoning: the bible doesn't talk explicitly about you either. In fact, it doesn't even mention you. Are we then to conclude that you aren't actually a "person"; or that you don't really exist at all?

But the real issue you have is over the word "Trinity", right? That's it's not found in the scripture, right?

Fine, neither is "person" (hypostasis) in regards to God. It's a Greek philosophical term that Nicaea also utilized. Yet I don't hear you say that God can't be a "person" because this term is absent from the New Testament in regards to God.

In fact, it's interesting to note, that the New Testament was written by Jews in Greek. Did God speak to Moses or Jacob in Greek? No?! Well, then he couldn't have communicated the Gospel to them (i.e. Moses and Jacob) since He was pleased that the Gospels of Christ should be communicated in a pagan language (Greek); and with pagan idioms and expressions (like agape and eros, theos and kyrios) to boot. And you serve Christ, right?

Therefore, it would behoove you to consider your own narrow conceptualizations of God before you enlighten the rest of us.



figmentPez -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/24/2008 5:29:19 PM)

First, let me apologize for missing so many of the posts in this thread. It's hard to keep up with such a deluge of false teaching.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

What benefit is derived from the trinitarian view other than a neat package for answering new believer's questions?


Well, aside from simply being the correct understanding of what is revealed in scripture. Trinitarian doctrine is necessary for the proper understanding of:
  • The Sonship of Jesus Christ - This sonship, which Christians are adopted into, is only correctly understood through trinitarian doctrine. All other explanations of the Son of God lead to grievous error in what His Sonship is and what it means. While different rejections of the triune God lead to different errors (i.e. modalism/oneness leads to different errors than polytheism/Mormonism, which are both different than outright rejections of the deity of Christ)

  • The identity of the Holy Spirit - There are many errors that arise when the Holy Spirit is viewed as an impersonal force, rather than the third person of the trinity. Especially when combined with misunderstanding of the Sonship of Christ. For instance, "Oneness" Pentacostalism, effectively, teaches that humans will become divine through being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. If the Son of God was divine only because "he" was a human body indwelt by the Holy Spirit, then humans would become divine in the same way when indwelt by the Holy Spirit. And if God, when speaking of sending "another" was not referring to a person, but just a power called the "holy spirit", then humans become divine because of divine power put inside them, and excercising the gifts of the spirit becomes a self-important act of a minor diety, unrestricted by need to have relationship with the actual person of the Holy Spirit.

  • The act of sacrifice on the Cross, and the meaning of death - Non-trinitarian doctrine always comes to error when considering what it meant for Jesus Christ to die on the cross. "Oneness" teaching firmly denies that God died on the cross, and there are various other errors as well. It is only through understanding who the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are that we can understand the concept of the Son being under the full wrath of the Father, which is what it means to suffer death.

    There are many passages that need a trinitarian viewpoint to understand and not come to error in doctrine. I find the biggest involves a question that Jesus posed to His disciples, and it took revelation from heaven to answer:

    Who do you say that the Son of Man is?

    I'm well aware that those who reject the triune God of the Bible are fearful of this question, but it's a very important one.

    Daniel 7:13-14
    13"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14"And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

    Read this passage and tell me who the Son of Man is. Please be detailed, and make sure that any terms you use in your reply are clearly defined by your answer. Also, answer these questions: Who is the Ancient of Days? Does the Son of Man deserve what He receives in this passage? Why or why not? Do you see any parallels between this passage and Revelation chapter 5?



    • Sabellius -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/25/2008 12:55:25 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: figmentPez

    First, let me apologize for missing so many of the posts in this thread. It's hard to keep up with such a deluge of false teaching.

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Bluethread

    What benefit is derived from the trinitarian view other than a neat package for answering new believer's questions?


    Well, aside from simply being the correct understanding of what is revealed in scripture. Trinitarian doctrine is necessary for the proper understanding of:
  • The Sonship of Jesus Christ - This sonship, which Christians are adopted into, is only correctly understood through trinitarian doctrine. All other explanations of the Son of God lead to grievous error in what His Sonship is and what it means. While different rejections of the triune God lead to different errors (i.e. modalism/oneness leads to different errors than polytheism/Mormonism, which are both different than outright rejections of the deity of Christ)

  • The identity of the Holy Spirit - There are many errors that arise when the Holy Spirit is viewed as an impersonal force, rather than the third person of the trinity. Especially when combined with misunderstanding of the Sonship of Christ. For instance, "Oneness" Pentacostalism, effectively, teaches that humans will become divine through being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. If the Son of God was divine only because "he" was a human body indwelt by the Holy Spirit, then humans would become divine in the same way when indwelt by the Holy Spirit. And if God, when speaking of sending "another" was not referring to a person, but just a power called the "holy spirit", then humans become divine because of divine power put inside them, and excercising the gifts of the spirit becomes a self-important act of a minor diety, unrestricted by need to have relationship with the actual person of the Holy Spirit.

  • The act of sacrifice on the Cross, and the meaning of death - Non-trinitarian doctrine always comes to error when considering what it meant for Jesus Christ to die on the cross. "Oneness" teaching firmly denies that God died on the cross, and there are various other errors as well. It is only through understanding who the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are that we can understand the concept of the Son being under the full wrath of the Father, which is what it means to suffer death.

    There are many passages that need a trinitarian viewpoint to understand and not come to error in doctrine. I find the biggest involves a question that Jesus posed to His disciples, and it took revelation from heaven to answer:

    Who do you say that the Son of Man is?

    I'm well aware that those who reject the triune God of the Bible are fearful of this question, but it's a very important one.

    Daniel 7:13-14
    13"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14"And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

    Read this passage and tell me who the Son of Man is. Please be detailed, and make sure that any terms you use in your reply are clearly defined by your answer. Also, answer these questions: Who is the Ancient of Days? Does the Son of Man deserve what He receives in this passage? Why or why not? Do you see any parallels between this passage and Revelation chapter 5?



    • Figmentpez, I have a youth retreat this weekend so I am extremely scarce on time. I'll try to come back later and respond more fully to your post.

    For the moment however I believe the most important point to make here is that the Oneness of God is not equivalent to what we historically know as Modalism. It may share likeness, but we would be making a logical mistake to say likeness is sameness. The little information we know of Modalism is limited to quotes by Trinitarian church father apologetics, as far as I know.

    Quickly, what we know of Modalism seems to suggest that God merely manifested Himself like an actor changing masks in a play. Modalism is correct, IMHO, in that there is only God and only one person of God. The person of God however took on true human nature. God became a man (John 1:14). The Son of God, the only begotten of the Father. The Incarnation and the union of the humanity of Christ with diety however informs us that God was not merely walking around with flesh on, but had truly become a man.



    Bluethread -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/25/2008 5:19:19 PM)

    I do not accept the view that Yeshua(Jesus) and Ruach Ha Chedosh(The Holy Spirit) can not be Adonai because Adonai is one. Nor do I believe that there are three or more gods that work in concert. But the trinitarian view does not answer the question of how can three things be one either. I know we can come up with various analogies in an attempt to explain it, but in the final analysis it is a mystery.

    I believe, the character of Adonai is beyond our understanding. That does not mean we are not responsible for the knowledge that Adonai has given regarding Himself. But to dogmatically label others a heratics because they do not accept a view of Adonai that one has derived from ones understanding of the Scriptures is a bit presumptious.

    If Adonai can be summed up in three persons, one should be able to find one or a few Scriptures that can not be reasonably disputed. However, if this understanding only comes from exposure to the whole of Scripture over a period of time, then I'm not sure it is justifiable to be so dogmatic.

    Though it has been said that a man's best friend is his dogma. lol



    Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>



    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI