Trinity.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

I have been considering your view regarding Jesus relationship to the Father. I still think you have two Gods. Perhaps you can explain it but it seems that there could be two beings who are "divine" as you say, but if they are of the exact same substance, again as you say, but separate individuals they would seem to be two Gods. But then I considered that the difference in your thinking might be that of office rather than substance. But if God has given "all authority in heaven and earth" to Jesus that would seem to eliminate the office from being the issue. So how do you not have two Gods?

[Paidion]

Dizerner, first of all I want to make clear that I am not making fun of you, ridiculing you, or in my heart calling you "a stupid ninny". I don't hold these attitudes toward anyone. However, when I see statements seemingly ignored (though I understand they may not have been read carefully rather than ignored) or when I see what appears to be illogical, I feel I must protest. Again, I have NOTHING against you personally. I don't even know you, so on what basis would I oppose you as a person?

I believe I tried to quote your views as accurately as I could. Can you please show me your post in this thread (which I completely read) that says "Christ is not a created being."

I didn't search all my posts. But here is the most recent one in which I so affirm:

The fact that Jesus is divine, having been begotten (or generated, not created) by God and out of God, before all ages, doesn't imply that He is a second God or that God created Him. Rather God has sent Him, whom He had begotten to Earth as Lord.

Now... how can you deny Christ is a created being??? Then he is no longer a man. Wow, this destroys so many teachings and truths in Scripture. If Christ is not a man (and surely all men are created?) then I have lot of problems harmonizing that with Scripture, and it would seem to tread on some kind of gnostic territory. There is only two classes of being, Creator, and created. There is no "in-between uncreated but not God" being.

So now you are saying that Christ IS a created being in the sense of his having been born? I find this an odd way of looking at it. No—not all men were created. In fact only two human beings were created: Adam and Eve. All of their offspring were begotten or generated. Jesus was also begotten as a human being in the womb of Mary his mother. But this is not the begetting to which I referred. I affirm, as did the early Christians, that He was begotten by God before all ages. Begetting is different from creating. An artist can create a painting of a person. The painting is essentially different from the person he painted. The painting is not human. But if the artist begets a child, the child is human like himself. So it is with the begetting of the Son. When God created the first dogs, they were not divine like Himself. They were canine. When God created Adam and Eve, they were not divine like Himself; they were human. When God created angels, they were not divine like Himself; they were angelic. But when God begat his Son, the first of God's acts before all ages, his Son was divine like Himself. This is the reason the early Christians believed that the Son was "begotten not created". This statement was made even as late as 325 A.D. in the original Nicene creed.

[Paidion]

I have been considering your view regarding Jesus relationship to the Father. I still think you have two Gods. Perhaps you can explain it but ...

Hi Homer,

First, I would like to know why you do not think Trinitarians have three Gods? They believe in three divine Individuals, albeit compounded into one divine essence which they call "God". Indeed, I have heard Modalists affirm that Trinitarians believe in three Gods (since they believe in three divine Individuals).

Homer, in other posts you seem to have indicated that God is a single Individual who expresses Himself in three ways: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is a Modalist position, and that is why I suggested to you that you might be a Modalist, rather than a Trinitarian. Actually it is quite common that people who take a Modalist position think they are Trinitarians.

When I was only 19, I was a Trinitarian, and I was trying to make sense of the Scriptures concening the Trinity. I was attending a strong and very spiritual Baptist Church at the time. I asked a question about the Trinity (I don't remember what it was), but the pastor's wife said to me, "There's only one God, you know." Somehow I realized that she meant there was only one Person (or divine Individual). So I asked her to whom Jesus was praying, if not to another Person. She replied, "Don, haven't you ever talked to yourself?" So what do you think, Homer? Is your belief Modalist rather than Trinitarian?

But to briefly explain my position again. I believe:

1) that the Son is fully divine, just as divine as the Father, and bears the exact stamp of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3).

2) That the Son is a different Individual from the Father, but in all other respects is "the mirror image" of the Father, being exactly like Him in personality, love, will, etc., so that He could say, "Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9)

3) That in the proper sense, there is only one God — the Father. Jesus prayed:

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3)

...for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1Cor 8:6)

4) Yet there is a sense in which Jesus may be called "God". He is called "the only-begotten God" in earliest manuscripts of John 1:18.
As recorded in John 20:28, Thomas seems to have addressed Him as "my God".

Also the word for "God" in the OT is "elohim", a plural word, and this Elohim says, "Let us create man in our own image." This seems to indicate a plurality. So there seems to have been a divine coöperation in creation, the Father having created all things THROUGH the Son.

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3)

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

Except for Christ's origin I do not see much difference between your view of the relation of Christ to God and that of the Trinitarians.

You asked:

So what do you think, Homer? Is your belief Modalist rather than Trinitarian?

No, I'm not modalist. I believe God is three persona simultaneously that can interact with each other. Perhaps I am one of a kind? But I'm always open to being shown my error.

[Paidion]

Three persona? But not three Persons, eh? Persona refers to the outward protrayal of a person, the role a person plays. So do you believe that God is a single Individual or Person who plays three different roles? If so, you are a Modalist. Some Modalists believe that God plays these three roles, or "wears these three masks" simultaneously. I believe that to be the position of the United Pentecostal Church. But even UPC teachers do not admit to being Modalists, because they think that the Modalist position requires the belief that God plays the three roles consecutively and not simultaneously.

The classic Trinitarian position is that God is a compound Being who exists as three individual Persons. The classic Trinitarian position could be represented fairly well by the following three-headed god:

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

The following from Wikipedia are supposed to be about orthodox Trinitarian belief. Note the underlined in each:

This consensus, however, was not achieved without some confusion at first in the minds of "Western" theologians, who had translated hypo-stasis as "sub-stantia" (substance. See also Consubstantiality) and understood the "Eastern" Christians, when speaking of three "Hypostases" in the Godhead, to mean three "Substances," i.e. they suspected them of Tritheism. From the middle of the fourth century onwards the word came to be contrasted with ousia and used to mean "individual reality," especially in the Trinitarian and Christological contexts. The Christian view of the Trinity is often described as a view of one God existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons. The Latin "persona" is not the same as the English "person" but is a broader term that includes the meaning of the English "persona."
[/u]

Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation of Logos (or the divine word) and consequently possesses all of the inherent, ineffable perfections which religion and philosophy attribute to the Supreme Being. Three distinct and infinite minds or substances, three co-equal and eternal realities, participate in (or share) the same, single Divine Essence (ousia).

Divine Essence (ousia) is said to be synonymous with entity or being. I am in agreement with all this, I think. The only thing I have trouble with is the "three persons" which sounds like three individuals to me. Do you believe the Father and Jesus share the same divine essence? It seems to me your view of Jesus is similar to a clone; exactly the same but separate.

It is my understanding that hypostasis can mean manifistation, as in Emanuel, "God with us".

[TheEditor]

HI Dizerner,

I wasn't trying to pick on you, just offering some levity.

Either way, maybe all of this comes down to language and the ideas that our minds hold to when certain words are used.

I am human. You are human. But we are not the same human. If we were bound in some metaphysical sense (as in the Body of Christ) I could rightly say that you and I are "one". But we would still be two seperate humans. With Jesus and the Father, they are both "god" (like we are "human") and they are "one". But they are two seperate persons. The problem is, the Creeds state that each member of this supposed trinity is "fully god" apart from the others. So it's not, 1+1+1=1, it's 1=1 and 1=1 and 1=1, as well as 1+1+1=1. A bit difficult.


Th Athannasian Creed:


"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost.

The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.

For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ.

One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved."


Well, that clears up that....

[darinhouston]

Yes, that could be a problem but in my view Jesus existed as he Word prior to his self-abnegation when He became the Son through Mary and He will forever be the Son; He will always be Jesus.

You would no doubt affirm both, but do you see it as a fair distinction in saying that the Word existed prior to Creation and then became Jesus compared with Jesus himself being equated as that Word prior to the so-called incarnation? One seems clear from Scripture, the other seems like a slight twist on what Scripture affirms which is twisted to make it seem that Scripture affirms a particular view. I can affirm the preexistence of the Word, which leads to another discussion on what that means, but that common paraphrase seems to assume one of the very fundamental issues.

[Paidion]

Jesus said, “Who do people say that I am?”

His disciples replied, “Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elijah or another of the prophets.”

Jesus replied, “But who do you say that I am?”

Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as his rationality and then, by an act of his will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only because Scripture speaks of a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple.”

And Jesus answered, saying, “Huh?”

[Homer]

Darin,

You wrote:

Homer wrote:
Yes, that could be a problem but in my view Jesus existed as he Word prior to his self-abnegation when He became the Son through Mary and He will forever be the Son; He will always be Jesus.

Darin:

You would no doubt affirm both, but do you see it as a fair distinction in saying that the Word existed prior to Creation and then became Jesus compared with Jesus himself being equated as that Word prior to the so-called incarnation? One seems clear from Scripture, the other seems like a slight twist on what Scripture affirms which is twisted to make it seem that Scripture affirms a particular view. I can affirm the preexistence of the Word, which leads to another discussion on what that means, but that common paraphrase seems to assume one of the very fundamental issues.

What I think is that Jesus existed as The Word, being coetaneous (of equal age, duration, or period; coeval) with the Father. God was never without the Word, nor the Word without God. The Word become the Son (became flesh) at the time He was begotten in the virgin Mary and from that point forward will forever be the Son. I also believe God manifested Himself in the OT by the Word becoming the "Angel of the Lord". It must be admitted there is a degree of speculation in this so I do not hold these ideas as a test of who is a Christian and who is not, but certainly some ideas about who Jesus is are critical:

Romans 10:8-13 (NASB)

8. But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9. that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” 12. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13. for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.

So do we call on Jesus' name, v. 13, or is the "Lord" in this verse different than v. 9, or are they one and the same (one entity manifested in multiple ways)? As JR has been repeatedly pointing out, there is only one Lord.