Can God do all things?

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:56 am

Trinitarinism teaches exactly that “all of the totality of God exists in Jesus and nowhere else.”
I don’t think that it teaches the “nowhere else” part, but rather that all of the whole being of God is in all three persons simultaneously. That each is “fully divine”.

I think I believe this. Because when I say that “all the totality of God is not in Jesus”, I do not mean to imply that Jesus is 1/3 of God, whereas the other persons make up the other 2/3rds. I think that God is one “being”, in three persons. There is one divine nature, that these three persons posses. When I say “all the totality of God is not in Jesus”, I mean that the “whole trinity” is not in Jesus.

That is to say, that Jesus is not the Father, the Father is not Jesus etc. They are distinct from one another. However, they all share the divine nature equally. Again, by “equally”, I do not mean, they each have a 3rd of the divine nature. They all have the “fullness” of the divine nature.

I should add, that though I believe this, this is not something that is spelled out in scripture. I am not sure exactly how it is that God is one and three. I'm not sure how "all the fullness of deity" is in the Son, and the Father at the same time. It is simply an attempt to make sense of the scritptures. I am becoming more and more inclined to simply saying "I don't know", because, really, that is closer to the truth.
My understanding of Trinitarian teaching is exactly that... “that all of the totality of God is in Jesus”. This is the “God is one” part of the doctrine. I think this is part of the “mutually indwelling” teaching that asserts that Jesus is inside God and God is inside Jesus simultaneously. The trinity doctrine teaches that this is quite literelly a mutual and simultaneous subsuming, and not just figurative.
Brother, I don’t know if I believe this or not. These are things that are simply not spelled out as such in scripture. I suppose it’s possible, and it’s not illogical as far as I can see. Could you point out what is illogical about the “mutual indwelling” doctrine?
If you agree that there is some aspect of God that exists apart from Jesus, or as, you say, “[you’re] not sure how [it] could be possible [that] all of the totality of God is in Jesus, and no where else” then (again as I understand things) you’ve just left the realm of trinitarianism.
If by “some aspect” you mean the divine nature, then I would say that there is no part of said nature that exists apart from any one person in the trinity, and would not agree.

If this “aspect” is personhood, (for lack of a better term), then I would say that there are aspects of God that exist apart from Jesus. I don’t know if I’m comfortable with “exists apart from”. I would prefer “distinct from”.

I should have said: "all of the fullness of the Godhead, or trinity does not reside in Jesus", as opposed to "God". Need to be more careful in my wording when discussing such a complicated subject!
I mean that my understanding of trinitarianism is that it asserts that Jesus is exactly God, or Jesus = God. One characteristic of such an equivalency is that it is reflexive.

3 + 2 = 5
5 = 3 + 2

Jesus is God
God is Jesus
Jesus = God
God = Jesus
I can affirm that I believe this of Jesus. Also I believe you could say this of the Father and Holy Spirit simultaneously. What’s illogical about it?
Die hard trinitarins would eschew the kind of language you’re employing here. They would say, “You can’t say things like ‘within it’ that implies a division that does not exist! Hear O Israel GOD IS ONE! You can’t go cutting up the trinity that way. It’s a tri UNITY man! It’s perichoresis!”
I still believe in tri-unity. For that's what "trinity" means.

I think that this paper by Matt Slick would be helpful. It's short, and represents pretty well what I believe.

God bless,
Last edited by _AlexRodriguez on Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:39 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:05 pm

Derek, I still maintain that "The Word was with God, and the word was God" is contradictory, unless you recognize "God" as being used in a different sense in the second occurence of the word.
Since the very first time I gave my interpretation of John 1:1-2, I have maintained that they are used in different senses. Is there something I'm not making clear here?

I think that "with God" means with the Father.

"was God", means that He is God as well, but distinct, (by biblical and logical necessity), from the Father.

What's wrong with this interpretation?
It is here that your space and time analogies appear to break down.
I'm not sure if I used the analogy in another application in this thread, but originally, it was to show that something can be "three" in one sense, and "one" in another. I also said that it would break down, as all analogies do when they are applied to God's being/nature.

God bless,
Last edited by _AlexRodriguez on Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:58 pm

Haas, you asked me this question:
Since it appears that you are arguing against the logic of a triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). What is your "logical" description of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?


Haas, I don't have any exclusively "logical" description. I gained my understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from scripture and from second-century writer Justin Martyr. Here is a testimony of my personal search, and how Justin helped me to reach my present understanding:


How I Came to Learn About the Deity from
The Dialogue With Trypho
by Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165)



The Begetting of the Son before Creation:
When, as a young man, I read in the New Testament the expression, “The only-begotten Son”, I assumed that the expression denoted the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary. Having been taught that God is a Trinity of three divine Persons, whose existence is from “eternity past” to “eternity future”, it never occurred to me that the begetting of the Son was an event at the beginning of time, before all creation and before all ages.

I used to wonder how it was possible to determine what Jesus and His apostles really meant. For there are hundreds of sects and denominations of Christendom, those in each claiming to believe the Bible in its entirety, and yet interpreting what they read in various, and even contradictory ways. How could I ever know who, if anybody, was right? I began to think that if I could read some of the early Christian writings after the days of the apostles, they would be in a better position, culturally, linguistically, and spiritually, to understand what Christ and His apostles meant, than individuals and groups who came into existence two millennia later.

In The Dialogue With Trypho, Justin describes his talks with Trypho, a Jew, and a number of Trypho’s companions. Justin explained that Jesus was the Messiah, that He had appeared to Abraham and others, that his birth and death had been predicted by the prophets, that Jesus had been generated (or “begotten”) by the Father as an event before creation, and as He was the only one who had been begotten in that way, He was in fact divine as was His Father. Justin also taught that Jesus shared the name “Yahweh” with His Father, quoting Genesis 19:24 which speaks of two “Yahwehs”, one on earth who rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah from one in heaven.

Justin used the analogy of lighting a small fire from a larger one. The smaller one is of the same substance as the larger one, and the larger one is in no way diminished from having lit the smaller one. Thus the Son of God, having been begotten by God, is of the same “substance” as God, and the Father is in no way diminished by having begotten Him.

Justin spent a great deal of his time trying to convince Trypho and the other Jews that Jesus the Messiah, was another divine Individual just like the Father, and that He had frequently appeared to the saints of old. For example, Justin stated that of the three angels who appeared to Abraham, Christ was the one who remained behind and was addressed by Abraham as “Yahweh”.

Both Justin and Trypho spoke of the Holy Spirit. Certainly Trypho, a Jew, when using the term “Holy Spirit” did not have in mind another divine Person. For He believed in a single divine Person only, namely “Yahweh”. At no time did Justin suggest that the Holy Spirit was a third divine Individual. Indeed, at one point, he asked Trypho an amazing question:

“Do you think that any other one is said to be worthy of worship and called Lord and God in the scriptures, except the Maker of all, and Messiah, who by so many scriptures was proved to you to have become man?”

And Trypho replied, “How can we admit this, when we have instituted so great an inquiry as to whether there is any other than the Father alone?”

Here would have been the perfect occasion for Justin to have introduced the Holy Spirit as a third divine Individual. But he didn’t. He just said the following:

“I must ask you this also, that I may know whether or not you are of a different opinion from that which you admitted some time ago.”

Justin sometimes referred to the Holy Spirit “speaking from the Person of the Father” or “speaking from the Person of the Son.” This caused me to wonder whether the Holy Spirit was the very Persons of the Father and the Son, extending throughout the world, and speaking to people.

After I realized that Justin Martyr taught that Jesus was begotten as a single act “before all created things”, and that he didn’t teach that the Holy Spirit was a third divine Individual, I began to look at the scriptures to see whether they said the same thing. Justin and other second century Christian writers taught that Proverbs 8:22-31 was a record of the begetting of the Son and His activities in the beginning. He is called “Wisdom” in that record, and it was believed that Christ was the personification of wisdom, and that “Wisdom” was actually one of His names. Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 1:30 that “Christ has been made wisdom to us from God”, a statement which could refer to his generation in the beginning as recorded in Proverbs 8.

The apostle John records Jesus as having said, “I emerged out of the Father and have come into the cosmos…” That sounds a lot like a statement about his having been generated (begotten) from the Father ---- the little fire that came out from the greater one.

Concerning the Holy Spirit, I notice that Jesus said to His disciples:

Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. John 14:23

If Jesus and His Father make their home within us, is that not the Holy Spirit?

In John 14:16, 14:18, 15:26, and 16:7, John refers to the Holy Spirit as “The Paraclete” [advocate, encourager (literally “one who is called to one’s side”). For example John 14:18

John 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

The same apostle states that Jesus is the Paraclete:

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

The Spirit of God is not a mere “force” as some claim. Rather the Spirit is personal ---- the very Persons of the Father and the Son. Indeed, Paul states in 2 Corinthians 3:17 that the Lord [Jesus] is the Spirit! So why is a third divine Individual supposed?

Even the Nicene Creed in its original form as set out in 325 A.D. did not assign the Holy Spirit as “the Third Person of the Trinity”. All that was stated in that creed was, “We believe in the Holy Spirit.”

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send it to you.

If the Spirit is a Third Divine Person, why could He not come to the apostles until Jesus departed from this life? But if Jesus was sending His very Person to them, it was necessary for Him to die first. For while He lived as a human being, His person was confined to His body. But after His death, His spirit could be extended anywhere in the Universe!

You will point out to me, perhaps, that John 16:7 says, “I will send him to you” not “it”. Yes, the word has been so translated perhaps because the Spirit is assumed to be a Third Divine Person. The Greek pronoun is the masculine accusative singular, but that doesn’t necessarily mean “him”.
In Greek, a pronoun’s number and gender must agree with that of its antecedent. In this case, its antecedent is “Counselor”, a word which is masculine singular in Greek. So whether or not “it” or “him” is meant, the pronoun must be masculine singular. Actually the word in question is not a personal pronoun but the demonstrative pronoun “ekeinos” [that one].

Actually, Augustus Strong points out in his volume Systematic Theology that in John 16:14, the masculine pronoun “ekeinos” is used in John 16:14 with the neuter antecedent “pneuma” [spirit]. For Strong, this is proof the Holy Spirit is a person. It is possible that John, was not careful in making the pronoun agree in gender with its antecedent according to the rules of Greek grammar. Yet, even if Strong is right, the “he” does not prove that the Holy Spirit is a third Person. I have no difficulty with the idea of referring to the Spirit as “he”. If my personality were not limited to my body, and I could extend it to you and speak with you, would you not say “he” [Paidion] spoke with me today even though I was not bodily present? So the writers of the New Testament may be using “he” for the spirit of the Father, or the spirit of the Son. The Father and the Son share the same spirit, just as they share the same name “Yahweh”. They share all things. So even though the Father and the Son both dwell within us, they share One Spirit, which we may call either “it” or “he.”
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:07 pm

Post moved to Misc. Theological Topics: "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ---- What does the Bible teach?"
Last edited by _AlexRodriguez on Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

User avatar
_Paidion
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Chapple, Ontario

Post by _Paidion » Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:45 pm

Derek, we seem to have gotten off topic here.

Please repost your reply to me in the thread "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ---- What does the Bible teach?"

We can carry on from there.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald

_Perry
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 5:50 pm

Post by _Perry » Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:10 am

Hi Derek.
Derek wrote: I should have said: "all of the fullness of the Godhead, or trinity does not reside in Jesus", as opposed to "God". Need to be more careful in my wording when discussing such a complicated subject!
So…

All of the fullness of the Godhead does not reside in Jesus.
Jesus and God are logically equivalent.

Therefore… logically…

All the fullness of the Godhead does not reside in God.

:?:

Perry
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Perry
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 5:50 pm

Post by _Perry » Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:39 am

Matt Slick in above linked article wrote:It is the way of the cults to reduce biblical truth to make God comprehensible and understandable by their minds. To this end, they subject God's word to their own reasoning and end in error.
It seems Matt is saying that, in order to accept the Trinity Doctrine, it is necessary to abandon my own reasoning. This is exactly what I meant waaaay back in the discussion when I said, "I may come to think of the trinity as true, but I don't think I will ever think of it as logical."

Perry
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:24 pm

Perry wrote:Hi Derek.
Derek wrote: I should have said: "all of the fullness of the Godhead, or trinity does not reside in Jesus", as opposed to "God". Need to be more careful in my wording when discussing such a complicated subject!
So…

All of the fullness of the Godhead does not reside in Jesus.
Jesus and God are logically equivalent.

Therefore… logically…

All the fullness of the Godhead does not reside in God.

:?:

Perry
By "all the fullness of the Godhead" I mean to say that the Persons of the trinity are not each other. The Father is not the Son, etc.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Perhaps you could explain further?
Last edited by _AlexRodriguez on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:40 pm

Perry wrote:
Matt Slick in above linked article wrote:It is the way of the cults to reduce biblical truth to make God comprehensible and understandable by their minds. To this end, they subject God's word to their own reasoning and end in error.
It seems Matt is saying that, in order to accept the Trinity Doctrine, it is necessary to abandon my own reasoning. This is exactly what I meant waaaay back in the discussion when I said, "I may come to think of the trinity as true, but I don't think I will ever think of it as logical."

Perry
He's not saying to abandon your reasoning, only to subject it to
God's word.

He is very clear that he thinks the trinity is not illogical.
Last edited by _AlexRodriguez on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

_Perry
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 5:50 pm

Post by _Perry » Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:55 am

Hi Derek,

My point is that I don't see how you can have it both ways and claim logical consistency.

If Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are each logically equivalent to God, then by defintion they are logically equivalent to each other.

You can't maintain that there is a disinction, and simultaneously maintain that each of them are exactly equal to the same thing.

I don't see how I can be more clear than that.

Maybe you can explain to me how three things can be exactly equal to the same thing, and yet distinguishable (distinct) from one another and at the same time BE the thing that they are exactly equal to.

Perry
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Christian Evidences & Challenges”