Can God do all things?

[Guest]

It doesn't matter to me if we use that terminology ("God the x") or not.

Notwithstanding your indifference, it seems to be a fact that those who embrace Trinitarianism almost universally use these terms. The fact that the Bible doesn't use this terminology with reference to the Son or the Holy Spirit, may be an indicator that the Bible does not affirm Trinitarianism, either directly, or implied.

[_Derek]

The fact that the Bible doesn't use this terminology with reference to the Son or the Holy Spirit, may be an indicator that the Bible does not affirm Trinitarianism, either directly, or implied.

Hi Paidion,

Sure. It may very well be an indicator. But again, that the Bible calls the Son, "God", is indisputable. I am pretty sure you agree with that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you think it's ok to call the Son "God", (and even Yahweh), but it's not ok to call the Son, "God the Son"?

Why is that not ok?

[Guest]

Hi Derek,

I'm don't have much time ATM, so if this sounds rudely short, I apologize. Also, I may have read too fast and missed something.

I don't think you've dealt with the logical inconistancy I pointed out.

a). God is three persons.
b). Jesus is fully God.

Therefore, from a and b,

c). Jesus is three persons.

I don't say a logical way around this without changing the meaning of "God" in a and b, "person" in a and c, or "Jesus" in b and c. I can't see where you've resolved this logical inconsistency.

Perry

[_Derek]

Hi Derek,

I'm don't have much time ATM, so if this sounds rudely short, I apologize. Also, I may have read too fast and missed something.

I don't think you've dealt with the logical inconistancy I pointed out.

a). God is three persons.
b). Jesus is fully God.

Therefore, from a and b,

c). Jesus is three persons.

I don't say a logical way around this without changing the meaning of "God" in a and b, "person" in a and c, or "Jesus" in b and c. I can't see where you've resolved this logical inconsistency.

Perry

I disagree. Can you show me how I'm changing the meaning of any of these words? In my mind, I am not seeing it at all. So if you could spell it out for me, that would be helpful. At least if you showed me how you think I'm changing the meaning, then I could understand where you're coming from better.

Again, I ask. If I call the past "time" and the future "time", or all three (past, present, future), does "time" have a different meaning altogether in each case? Certainly the word "past" has a different meaning from the word "future", yet it is perfectly acceptable to call any one, or all three "time".

Either way, there is no logical inconsitency as I see it. Could you tell me what rule of logic am I breaking?

Is there a contradiction in the following?

0) There is one God (Is. 44:6)
a) Jesus is a person.
b) The Father is a person.
c) The Holy Spirit is a person.
d) God is three persons (the Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
e) Jesus is God
f) Jesus is God the Son (one of the three persons)

If so where?

The only words I see that have different meanings above are the words "God" and "person". "God" is not used in the same way that "person" is. It is by trying to make them mean the same thing that you are misunderstanding trinitarianism.

All I am showing is that God is "one" in one sense, and "three" in another. There is nothing fallacious in my understanding that is evident to me.

What I have done here, is attempt to make sense of what the bible teaches. All of the above can be supported by scripture, and since there's nothing illogical about it, I'm going to stick with it for now.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I cannot fully comprehend how the trinity is possible. Just what "sense" God is "one" and "three" is beyond my understanding. It's very well possible that it's unbiblical, but I do not believe that it's illogical.

God bless,

[Guest]

Derek, you seem to be using "God" in the same was as I use "Deity". For you, "God" seems to be used in a generic sense, as a class, or an order of being, of which there are exactly three members, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of these three, and only these three, belong to an order of being called "God", just as you and I and everyone else belong to an order of being called "man". Is that a fair assessment of your position? If so, you have been using "God" only in this way, and your sentences 0 and a-f contain no contradictions.

However, in order to be consistent with Biblical statements, you are going to have to admit another use of "God", a use in which the Father alone is meant. Indeed, the word is used most often in the scriptures in the latter sense.

By maintaining that "God" is used in the same sense in both instances, John 1:1 would be a contradiction.

For in that case, the verse would mean either "The Word was with the Father and the Word was the Father" [inherent contradiction]
or it would mean "The Word was with the God class, and the Word was the God class" [just as contradictory].

In order that John 1:1 be non-contradictory, John must have used the word "theos" [God] in two different senses. And that fact is born out by the Greek construction [I'll spell this out if you wish]

The verse really says "The Word was with God the Father, and the Word was Deity [the God class]"

[_Derek]

Hi Paidion,

Derek, you seem to be using "God" in the same was as I use "Deity". For you, "God" seems to be used in a generic sense, as a class, or an order of being, of which there are exactly three members, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of these three, and only these three, belong to an order of being called "God", just as you and I and everyone else belong to an order of being called "man". Is that a fair assessment of your position? If so, you have been using "God" only in this way, and your sentences 0 and a-f contain no contradictions.

I am not useing it in a generic sense. I am using it to speak of the one true God. That is what trinitarinism states. One God in three persons.

However, in order to be consistent with Biblical statements, you are going to have to admit another use of "God", a use in which the Father alone is meant. Indeed, the word is used most often in the scriptures in the latter sense.

I have already said that "God" is used of Jesus and the Holy Spirit alone in certain contexts in addition to its use refering only to the Father (as you pointed out, it is used in the latter sense the majority of the time). I think that the term can refer to any one of, or all three of, the persons in the trinity.


So I am admitting at least three different uses of the word. Even four, if it is used of all three persons in another context. The does not equal redefining the word to me. Any more than I would be redefining "time" when used of the past as opposed to the future.

In order that John 1:1 be non-contradictory, John must have used the word "theos" [God] in two different senses. And that fact is born out by the Greek construction [I'll spell this out if you wish]

What follows is what I said about John 1:1-2.

That the Father is in mind in the first usage, is not unusual, as "the Father" and "God" are frequently used interchangably. Indeed, even in this context (1:18).

That the last usage is "God the Son" is shown by the fact that John says He was "with God", showing Him to be distinct from what is meant by the first usage. What else could it mean? It's not like the bible doesn't call Jesus God. In fact, it does many times. Sometimes more outright than others. But it does call Him that.

It's as if John is seeking to show that Jesus has always existed (in the beginning), that He was with God, showing Him to be distict from the Father, but to show that He is not less than God, or a "little God" as you put it, He goes on to say that He is God as well.

There's nothing illogical in this interpretation. Nor is it inconsistent with what I said in 0-f. above. At least if it is, it's not obvious to me.

The verse really says "The Word was with God the Father, and the Word was Deity [the God class]"

Is it the lack of the article that causes you to interpret theos as "deity" as opposed to "God" there? I mean, it is the exact same word, only used without the article.

I have always understood theios to mean "diety", or "divine nature", and theos to mean God, (sometimes used in reference to false gods as well).


Thanks for the reply brother,

[Guest]

Concerning John 1:1, Martin Luther (whatever else he was, he was a great Greek scholar) put it very succinctly ---- that the lack of an article is against Sabellianism, and that the word order is against Arianism.

William D. Mounce in his Basics of Biblical Greek puts it this way:

To state it another way [other than Luther's concise statement], look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:

kai ho logos hān ho theos -------- "and the Word was the God" (i.e. the Father; Sabellianism)

kai ho logos hān theos -------- "and the Word was a god" (Arianism)

kai theos hān ho logos--------"and the Word was God" (Orthodoxy)

Note: I have transliterated the Greek which Mounce quoted.

In other instances in the New Testament this word order is used.
For example in "God is love" ["Love" is the kind of thing or the essence of what God is]
And in "Your word is truth" ["Truth" is the kind of thing or the essence of God's word]

In a similar manner "And the Word was God" [God is the kind of thing or the essence of what the Word was]

Thus the word "God" in "The Word was God" is not being used of a person or persons, but of an essence or a class of persons. It is similar to saying that the Word was divine in the same sense as to say that you are human.

So it seems apparent that the word "God" is used in a different sense when saying "The Word was God" than it is when saying "The Word was with God".

[Guest]

I have already said that "God" is used of Jesus and the Holy Spirit alone in certain contexts in addition to its use refering only to the Father (as you pointed out, it is used in the latter sense the majority of the time). I think that the term can refer to any one of, or all three of, the persons in the trinity.

I think to say the term "God" can be used for all three persons of the trinity is contradictory to the doctrine of the one true God.
Three persons can not be God and yet still be one God because the math does'nt add up.
I think the phrase used by Paidion "diety" for Jesus is the best description i've heard.
You can call Jesus the God/man IMHO because that differentiates him from the Father.

[Guest]

Hi Guys,

I apologize that I'm really pressed for time at the moment. I hope to do better justice to this fine discussion, hopefully on Sunday.

Derek,

My understanding of trinatarian teaching is that, when it says "Jesus is fully God" it is asserting a logical equivalency. So my question to you is this: “Is Jesus logically equivalent to God?” If you’re answer is “No”, then there is no logical inconsistency, but you’ve got something other than trinitarian teaching (again, as I understand it). If you say, “yes” then you have a logical inconsistency.

No one says that height is fully space. Nor do they say that height logically equivalent to space. No one says that the past is fully time, nor that it is logically equivalent to time.

Again, sorry so brief. I’ll put more into this in the near future.

Perry

[_Derek]

Perry,

What exactly do you mean by "logically equivalent"? I looked it up, and can't understand how that would apply in this conversation.

I think that "past" is just as much "time" as "future" is. No one aspect of "time" is "more time" than another. They are all time. Also, no one part of time is the totality of time.

I also think the Son is "as much God" (whatever that means!) as the Father. Likewise for the Holy Spirit. I don't think that any one member of the trinity is "more God" than another.

I have never said that Jesus is "fully God" to my memory. Although I also don't think I would say that He's "partially God" either. I simply believe that He's God, as the bible teaches rather plainly.

If by "fully God" one means that all of the totality of God is in Jesus, and no where else, then I am not sure how that could be possible, given trinitariansim.

It would create problems when trying to understand passages where Jesus prayed to the Father, or where the Father speaks to others regarding the Son. Obviously the Father was another person, and not in Jesus' body. So "fully God" doesn't mean, "the whole trinity is in Jesus". I think it means rather "fully divine".

If I said that Jesus was "fully God", I think my meaning would be, "as much God" as the other persons in the trinity. I wouldn't say that the totality of the trinity is in any one person within it. That would be completely non-sensical.

Anyway, I am not aware of using the phrase "fully God" of any person in the trinity. If I did, the way I explained my understanding of it above would be my meaning.

If you’re answer is “No”, then there is no logical inconsistency, but you’ve got something other than trinitarian teaching (again, as I understand it).

When I say that I believe in the trinity, perhaps I need to do as Steve does and point out that it is "some form of trinity doctrine" that I believe, so as not to be misunderstood as holding to some creed or something.

I generally reject certain trinitarian (and binitarian for that matter), formulas such as "eternally begotten", "eternally the son", "100% man and 100% God", etc., all of which don't make sense of anything to me. These types of things are more the result of people trying to understand and formulize something that we don't have sufficient data to formulize, nor the capacity to fully comprehend (perhaps the trinity doctrine itself is another such thing!).

It may very well be that I don't hold to trinitarianism as you understand it.

I don't know if I answered your question or not because I don't know what "logical equivelency" is. We'll see!

God bless,