Page 1 of 2
A Definition of the Trinity
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:13 pm
by Paidion
TRINITY—In the multiplex theism of certain Christian churches, three entirely distinct deities consistent with only one.
Subordinate deities of the polytheistic faith, such as devils and angels, are not dowered with the power of combination, and must urge individually their claims to adoration and propitiation. The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible, Unitarians betray their inadequate sense of theological fundamentals. In religion we believe only what we do not understand, except in the instance of an intelligible doctrine that contradicts an incomprehensible one. In that case,we believe the former as part of the latter. (From the Devil's Dictionary)
Re: A Definition of the Trinity
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:47 pm
by dizerner
Binitarianism seems to have all the same logical dilemmas as Trinitarianism.
Re: A Definition of the Trinity
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:53 pm
by Paidion
Binitarianism seems to have all the same logical dilemmas as Trinitarianism.
I agree.
The above post from the "Devil's Dictionary" was given merely to provide a bit of humour.
By the way, as I have stated several times, I am not a Binitarian.
Re: A Definition of the Trinity
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 8:44 pm
by dizerner
wikipedia wrote:Semi-Arian binitarians do not believe that Jesus "was fully human and fully God", which is the position held by trinitarians. They believe that Jesus was God (the Word) prior to His incarnation, that He became fully human (finite) yet he was not fully God during the pre-resurrection incarnation as He did not have the powers etc. of God then, and that all authority was restored to Him (as well as his infinite God-status) at or shortly after the resurrection. They make three major claims to support that position:
1. Semi-Arian binitarians believe that Jesus emptied Himself of His Divinity while in the flesh, citing the same Scriptures which trinitarians cite to the opposite conclusion: that he denied himself the honor and glory he deserved, and hide the fact that he is equal to the Father, in order to serve those who were undeserving. 2 Corinthians 8:9 states that Jesus became poor, yet God is rich (Haggai 2:8), while Philippians 2:7 states, "…Christ Jesus, who subsisting in (the) form of God thought (it) not robbery to be equal to God, but emptied Himself, taking (the) form of a slave, becoming in (the) likeness of men" (Literal translation. Green J.P. ed. Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, 3rd ed. Baker Books, Grand Rapids (MI), 1996, p. 607). The Semi-Arian view of these texts is called kenosis, referring to the idea that what Jesus "emptied" himself of was his divinity (rather, than, say, his exalted position in Heaven).
2. They deny the trinitarian teaching that Jesus possessed two wills and two natures. For this reason they view the assertions of Jesus that He "could do nothing" without the Father, prior to His resurrection (John 5:19,30; 8:28), as a denial by him that he had all divine rights until after the resurrection, when he claimed that he had "all authority in heaven and on earth" (Matthew 28:18). They conclude that it is because he had overcome the temptations of Satan and upon living the perfect sinless life would be "all powerful".
3. Similarly, they note that the Bible claims that Jesus was tempted in all points as humans are (Hebrews 4:15) and that in another place the Bible claims "God cannot be tempted by evil" (James 1:13). Denying the trinitarian view of two natures, Semi-Arian binitarians see the assertions as contradictory if posited of the same person, and therefore, since "scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35) Jesus could not have been fully God while in the flesh. But still that is contrary to Colossians 2:9 which says "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." and Luke 4:12 "And Jesus answered, and said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
Sounds like it?
Re: A Definition of the Trinity
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:45 pm
by Paidion
Diz, I would appreciate a link to the Wikipedia article that you quoted. I did a search for it, and could not find it.
Nearly all the positions that the article says "semi-Arian binitarians" take, I also take.
However, the second sentence affirms, "They believe that Jesus was God (the Word) prior to His incarnation." Binitarians of ANY stripe, affirm that God consists of two divine Persons—the Father and the Son. This is NOT my position. That is the reason I deny being a binitarian. I do not believe that Jesus is "God the Son," but "The Son of God."
Like Jesus Himself, I believe the Father is "the only true God." That is the way Jesus addressed Him, according to John 17:3. That means Jesus and I are unitarians. Not like modern unitarians who deny that Jesus was ever divine, or that He pre-existed, and who affirm that He was never anything more than a mere human being. Though I do believe He became fully human in his incarnation and "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied Himself (of His divine attributes)", nevertheless He was fully divine prior to and subsequent to His time as a human being here on earth. He was fully divine in virtue of the fact that He was generated (or "begotten") by God as God's first act, and was Another exactly like the Father in character. Therefore He is called "the Son of God" not "God the Son."
As for Jesus being equal to God, He denied this Himself, by saying, "The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28). Notwithstanding, though not equal positionally, the Son is equally divine with the Father.
For me, to say, "Jesus is God" is to use the word "God" in a sense different from what is meant when we address the Father as "God." It is to say that He is of the same essence as God, due to the fact that God begat Him in the Beginning, but created everything else THROUGH Him. Thus, I also believe as do Trinitarians, that the Son is "of the same essence" as the Father. Hebrews 1:3 affirms that He is "the exact imprint of [God's] essence." Also, "begotten not created" is not only the Trinitarian position, but mine as well.
I do not think that there is a label for my position. I believe it to be the position of Christians in the first and second centuries A.D.
Re: A Definition of the Trinity
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 5:05 pm
by dizerner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binitarianism
You think Jesus lost his god-ness or he is a sub-god? In what sense can anything be divine but not God, unless divine just means something qualitatively different than being God. The way you describe it, you may not "like" that it leads to binatarianism, but if Jesus is
in any sense whatsoever God, I'd say that it does, and probably why it get's labeled so.
Maybe you're something like a cross between Arianism and Socinianism.
I believe it to be the position of Christians in the first and second centuries A.D.
A lot of people try to claim this. It's a bit hard to pin down in my opinion, not to mention the logical dilemma of, if two sects disagreed on anything which was the real "early Christian" or if one writer changes his opinion over time, or contradicts himself. Of course this also assumes no progressive revelation such as the NT interpreting the OT. Lot of problems with this positions.
Re: A Definition of the Trinity
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 5:42 pm
by darinhouston
Have you all seen this? It has some historical points (though without citations) I've never heard before (with some specificity particularly as to the Council of Nicea).
http://www.cogwriter.com/binitarian.htm
Re: A Definition of the Trinity
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 10:52 pm
by Paidion
Thanks, Darin. That site, in my opinion, accurately depicts Binitarianism as the belief that there are "two in God" as opposed to Trinitarianism, the belief that there are "three in God."
Re: A Definition of the Trinity
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 11:05 pm
by Paidion
You think Jesus lost his god-ness...?
Through the divine self-emptying, He divested Himself of his divine attributes, and became TOTALLY a human being while on earth. The only aspect of His "god-ness" that He retained was His identity as the Son of God.
...or he is a sub-god?
No. Not a sub-god.
In what sense can anything be divine but not God...?
In the sense of having been generated (not created) by God.
...unless divine just means something qualitatively different than being God.
No. Not qualitatively different. Rather the Son is the exact imprint of God's essence, as I stated in my last post.
The way you describe it, you may not "like" that it leads to binatarianism, but if Jesus is in any sense whatsoever God, I'd say that it does, and probably why it get's labeled so.
And I say that it is NOT binitarianism, since my position is NOT that God is a compound Being consisting of the Father and of the Son. Rather my position is that God is a single Being (unitarianism), and that the Son of God is not God, either in the sense of BEING the same Individual as the Father (modalism) or in the sense of being part of a compound being called "God" (Trinitarianism and Binitarianism), but only in the sense of being of the same essence as God.
Re: A Definition of the Trinity
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 11:17 pm
by Paidion
Dizerner, you wrote:A lot of people try to claim this [that their position is that of first and second century Christians]. It's a bit hard to pin down in my opinion...
Not too hard to pin down. I can quote writings from those centuries that indicate this position. Indeed, that is precisely the source of my position. Had I not read the Christians writings of that period, I probably would not have arrived at this position, for although Jesus and Paul, as recorded in the New Testament also teach it, I would have been influenced by Trinitarians to interpret Jesus and Paul in the same way as they do.