Trinity.

[mattrose]

Matt, on what basis do you suppose that in my theology I don't recognize that God IS love?
\

Actually... I said that 'it seems to me'. I was indicating that I personally don't understand how you can say that 'God is love' if, in your view, God is not inherently relational. I find it interesting that you are able to build a theology of love from a non-trinitarian starting point. Most love-centered theologies flow naturally out of trinitarianism.

My bad. Here is the revised version:

1. There is only 1 God
2. Yet there are 3 Persons
3. Each of the 3 Persons is the one and only God

Trinitarians say that the one true God is a Trinity. They also make statements such as, "God was born on the earth as a man." But clearly they don't mean, "The Trinity was born on the earth as a man." So what do they mean by "God" when they make this statement?

First two lines are good now. The third line is still incorrect.

And that brings me back to the statement that I made in the middle of my previous post. I said "What you take advantage of, rhetorically, is that trinitarians use language flexibly." And here is more evidence that you do just that. In practice, the word 'God' is applied to both the trinity and to any person within the trinity. This linguistic flexibility need not be considered overly problematic. People use the same word in different senses all the time. Technical language requires nuance, but we don't always speak technically.

[Paidion]

Actually... I said that 'it seems to me'. I was indicating that I personally don't understand how you can say that 'God is love' if, in your view, God is not inherently relational.

I still don't get it. It is my belief that God has always related in mutual love with his Son.

I said "What you take advantage of, rhetorically, is that trinitarians use language flexibly." And here is more evidence that you do just that. In practice, the word 'God' is applied to both the trinity and to any person within the trinity. This linguistic flexibility need not be considered overly problematic. People use the same word in different senses all the time.

Yes, I do the same. I use "God" with reference to the Most High—the Father, and I use "God" with reference to the Son in indicating his Deity, and the fact that He is the exact imprint of the Father's essence. (Heb 1:3). However, Trinitarians make statements such as "God was born on earth as a human being." How are they using the word "God" when they say this? I have never heard them explain it, and most people find it confusing. They don't mean "The Trinity" was born as a human being, and they don't mean the Father was born as a human being. So what DO they mean?

I would never say, ""God was born on earth as a human being," since naturally people would think I meant God the Father. Though I believe that Jesus, being the Son of God is fully divine—just as divine as the Father, I even avoid calling Him "God" because of the confusion this can cause. Yet I acknowledge that He is "the only-begotten God" (John 1:18).

[darinhouston]

Today in our bible study class, we were exploring Abraham's encounter with the Lord and the other men before the Sodom judgment. Depending on translation (some seem to add the number 2 at places), it's somewhat ambiguous whether Abraham first encounters Yahweh and THEN looks up, or whether Yahweh is one of the 3 men. However, regardless of this issue, it also raised the issue of the visitation of Yahweh to Abraham (and Sarah).

We discussed whether God could have visited earth without a pre-incarnate Christ. I suggested we had no basis to deny God's ability to come in any form He deemed necessary even though He was Spirit. The following text takes this position and discusses this issue in the context of Abraham's visitors.

Genesis 18:1-2
(1) The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day.
(2) Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. (NIV)

1. These verses pose a problem for Christians who have been taught that no one has ever seen God. The Hebrew text clearly says that Yahweh appeared to Abraham in the form of a man, and He was with two angels, who also took on human appearance. This is not a problem. God created mankind so He could intimately fellowship with us. It is reasonable that He would occasionally becomes visible and take on human form to be intimate with His creation. In fact, Scripture records a number of people to whom God appeared: Adam and Eve (they heard His footsteps, Gen. 3:8), Abraham (Gen. 12:7;15:1;17:1;18:1), Jacob (Gen. 28:13), Moses and the elders of Israel (Ex. 24:9-11), Samuel (1 Sam. 3:10), Solomon twice (1 Kings 3:5;9:2;11:9), Micaiah (1 Kings 22:19-22), Isaiah (Isa. 6:1-5), Ezekiel (Ezek. 1:26-28), Daniel (Dan. 7:9-14), Amos (Amos 7:7), Stephen (Acts 7:56) and the Apostle John (Rev. 5:1-8).

2. A study of Genesis 18:1 in Christian commentaries reveals that most theologians do not believe that Yahweh can appear in the form of a man. Before we examine why they say that, we must remember that, difficult to believe or not, that is exactly what the text says. Many theologians who do not believe that the text can be literal have postulated other explanations. The standard explanations of the verse are: it was actually a dream and not real; it was the pre-incarnate Christ who appeared; it was an angel that appeared carrying the name of Yahweh.

Some theologians teach that the record of Genesis 18:1ff was a dream because of the circumstances, i.e., it was the heat of the day and the time for naps. However, the Bible never says it was a dream, and there certainly was no time when Abraham “woke up.” The record of Sodom and Gomorrah is certainly not a dream. The angels left Abraham and went to the city of Sodom where they rescued Lot and his daughters from God’s judgment. There is just no solid Scriptural evidence that Yahweh’s appearance was a dream. Neither would this account for the many other times Yahweh appears.

Many Trinitarian theologians say that Genesis 18:1 is an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ. The evidence they give for their conclusion is twofold: Yahweh is invisible and no one has or can see Him, so it cannot be He; and the record clearly says it is Yahweh, so it must be the pre-incarnate Christ since “Christ is a member of the Godhead.” However, if it could be shown that Yahweh does indeed occasionally appear in the form of a man, then there would be no reason not to take the Bible literally. Furthermore, the fact that Scripture never says that the one appearing is Christ is strong evidence that this is not Christ. And there are at least two occasions where Yahweh and Christ appear together (Dan. 7 and Rev. 5). This seems to us to force the conclusion that Yahweh cannot be Christ. The major reason to make the “Yahweh” of this record into an angel is the same as the reason to make the record a dream or to make Yahweh into the pre-incarnate Christ. It comes from the preconceived idea that Yahweh just cannot appear in human form. Therefore, the temptation here is to make Yahweh of necessity a dream, an angel or Christ. Even though in other records angels are called God, this record is different. We have seen from other verses that angels are occasionally called “God” (see the notes on Gen. 16:7-13). However, a study of the records where the angel of the Lord is called “God” shows that he was always clearly identified as an angel, and it was clear that he was bringing a message from God. This record, and the others mentioned above in which Yahweh appears, are decidedly different. The “man” identified as Yahweh is among other angels, and the entire record identifies Him as Yahweh. And while other records show the angel of the Lord carefully avoiding the use of the first person, “I,” “me” and “my,” referring to God, the “Yahweh” in this record uses the first person over and over.

3. Most Christians have not been taught that God can appear in a form resembling a person. They have always heard, “no one has seen God at any time.” In Don’t Blame God!, the language of that phrase is examined and explained. John 1:17 and 18 states: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God…” We write:

Please note that truth, in its fullness, came not with Moses, but with Jesus Christ. It was he who for the first time in history made God truly understandable. It is not that the Old Testament believers knew nothing of God, but rather that their knowledge and understanding of Him were quite limited (“veiled”). Since truth came by Jesus Christ (“For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus,”), we believe that the first part of John 1:18—“no man hath seen God at anytime”—means that no man had “known” God [as He truly is] at any previous time. It is Jesus Christ who reveals, or makes known, God to man.

In many languages, “to see” is a common idiom for “to know.” In the Hebrew language, one of the definitions for “see” (Hebrew = ra’ ah) is “see, so as to learn, to know.” Similarly, the Greek word translated “see” in verse 18 (horao) can be “to see with the eyes” or “to see with the mind, to perceive, know.” Even in English, one of the definitions for “see” is “to know or understand.” For example, when two people are discussing something, one might say to the other, “I see what you mean.”

The usage of “see” as it pertains to knowing is found in many places in the New Testament. Jesus said to Philip, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Here again the word “see” is used to indicate knowing. Anyone who knew Christ (not just those who “saw” him) would know the Father. In fact, Christ had made that plain two verses earlier when he said to Philip, “If you really knew me you would know my Father as well” (John 14:7). [1]

Further evidence that “see” means “know” in John 1:18 is that the phrase “no man has seen God” is contrasted with the phrase “has made Him known.” The verse is not talking about “seeing” God with one’s eyes, it is saying that the truth about God came by Jesus Christ. Before Jesus Christ came, no one really knew God as He truly is, a loving heavenly Father. Jesus Christ made that known in its fullness. Our study has led us to conclude that verses seeming to say that no one has ever “seen” God are either using the word “seen” as meaning “to know,” and thus referring to knowing Him fully, or they are referring to seeing Him in all His fullness as God, which would be impossible. We agree with the text note on John 1:18 in the NIV Study Bible, which says, “Since no human being can see God as He really is, those who saw God saw Him in a form He took on Himself temporarily for the occasion.”

Another point should be made about the word “seen” in John 1:18. If Trinitarians are correct in that Jesus is “God incarnate,” “God the Son” and “fully God,” then it seems to us that they would be anxious to realize that “seen” means “known” because it makes no sense to say that no man has seen God with his eyes and then say Jesus is God. Theologians on both sides of the Trinitarian debate should realize the idiom of “seen” meaning “known” in John 1:18.

The Bible also calls God “the invisible God.” This is true, and God’s natural state is invisible to us. However, that does not prevent Him from occasionally becoming visible. Angels and demons are also naturally invisible, but they can and do become visible at certain times. If angels and demons can sometimes become visible, then God certainly can too. We remind the reader that the Bible plainly says, “Yahweh appeared to Abraham,” and to others as well.

It is often stated that the people could not have really seen Yahweh because a person will die if he sees God. This idea comes mainly from the conversation Moses had with God. Moses asked to see the glory of God, and God responded, “You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (Ex. 33:20). It is clear from the context that the “face” of God was the “glory” of God, because that is what Moses asked to see. We would concur that human beings are not equipped to comprehend God in all His fullness, and exposure to all that God is would be lethal. However, we know that God did create mankind so He could fellowship with us, and we assert that the human-like form that He has sometimes assumed in order to be near us is not His fullness in any way.

There are two records very important to this subject because they describe God and also show Jesus Christ with Him. The first is a revelation vision of the future that Daniel the prophet had.

Daniel 7:9,10,13 and 14
(9) As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze.
(10) A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened.
(13) In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.
(14) He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

The “Ancient of Days” is Yahweh. Note his description as a man. Into his presence comes “a son of man” who is given authority and dominion. It is quite universally agreed among Christians that the “Ancient of Days” is God the Father, and the “son of man” is Jesus Christ, who receives his authority from God. Note that in this passage there is no hint of the Trinity. There is no “Holy Spirit” and no indication that the “son of man” is co-equal or co-eternal with the Father. On the contrary, while God is called the “Ancient of Days,” a title befitting His eternal nature, Christ is called “a son of man,” meaning one who is born from human parents. This prophecy is one of many that shaped the Jewish belief about their Messiah: he was not foretold as “God in the flesh,” but rather a man like themselves who would receive special honor and authority from God. For our purposes in understanding Genesis 18:1, these verses in Daniel demonstrate very clearly that God can and does appear in human form. And because in Daniel’s vision He is with the Messiah when He does so, there is no reason to assume that the other times He appears it is actually Jesus Christ.

The other very clear record is Revelation 4 and 5. The length of the record prohibits us from printing it here, but the reader is encouraged to read those two chapters. They portray God sitting on a throne surrounded by elders and creatures who repeat, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty.” God is holding in His right hand a scroll that is written on both sides but sealed shut with seven seals. An angel calls out to summon those who could open the scroll, but no one was worthy. As John began to weep, an angel comforted him with the words, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll.” Then “a Lamb” (the context makes it clear it is Jesus Christ) “came and took the scroll from the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.” At that point the creatures and the elders fell down before the Lamb and started singing a “new song.”

The record is clear. God is described as sitting on a throne and even holding in His hand a scroll that Jesus comes and takes from Him. This record again shows that God can and does occasionally take on human form so that we can better identify with Him.

4. This record and the others like it show a glimpse of what Christians have to look forward to. God loves us and created us to have a deep and abiding relationship with Him. He will not always remain as distant as He now sometimes seems. The Bible tells of a time when “the dwelling of God is with men, and He will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God” (Rev. 21:3).

[TheEditor]

The only thing that puzzles me is the statement, "I did not manifest to them my name Yahweh", for Abraham addressed the One who appeared on earth as "Yahweh".

Hi Paidion,

Berry’s interlinear translation puts it in question form: "By my name Jehovah did I not make myself known to them?"

This is one possbility, but it is an exceptional rendering. Another possibility could be that since YHWH connotes "causing to be", it may be that Jehovah was saying "I did not show them fully my ability to deliver, but I will now", or something to that effect.

"And Jehovah said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for by a strong hand shall he let them go, and by a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land. And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him,
I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings, wherein they sojourned. And moreover I have heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.
Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am Jehovah, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments: and I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God, who bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land which I sware to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for a heritage: I am Jehovah." --Ex 6:1-8

Maybe like a person who is thought to be a generous person, but has up until the current moment not shown exactly how generous they could be, but will soon.

Just some thoughts.

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

Berry’s interlinear translation puts it in question form: "By my name Jehovah did I not make myself known to them?"

Thank you, Brenden. That may be the answer. I don't know Hebrew, but I know that in Greek, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish a statement and a question, for there was no punctuation in the koine Greek papyri (between 300 B.C. and 300 A.D). It was all written in capitals with no punctuation and no spaces between words. This includes the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament and other Hebrew writings. I think it was translated somewhere around 200 B.C.

[mattrose]

I still don't get it. It is my belief that God has always related in mutual love with his Son.

I was under the impression that you believe that there was logically (not necessarily 'chronologically) a 'time' when the Father existed and not the Son. Perhaps I got the wrong impression somewhere along the line? Is it, then, your belief that the Father & Son are both eternal but that only the Father may be rightly called the Most High God???

Yes, I do the same. I use "God" with reference to the Most High—the Father, and I use "God" with reference to the Son in indicating his Deity, and the fact that He is the exact imprint of the Father's essence. (Heb 1:3). However, Trinitarians make statements such as "God was born on earth as a human being." How are they using the word "God" when they say this? I have never heard them explain it, and most people find it confusing. They don't mean "The Trinity" was born as a human being, and they don't mean the Father was born as a human being. So what DO they mean?

I don't really understand your issue here. You state that you sometimes use "God' with reference to the Son b/c you're simply indicating his Deity. But then you wonder how Trinitarians can do the same thing? Why can't it also be a reference to the deity of the Son when they say that He was born on earth as a human being?

I would never say, ""God was born on earth as a human being," since naturally people would think I meant God the Father. Though I believe that Jesus, being the Son of God is fully divine—just as divine as the Father, I even avoid calling Him "God" because of the confusion this can cause. Yet I acknowledge that He is "the only-begotten God" (John 1:18).

You said above that you use "God" in reference to the Son in indicating his Deity. But now you say you avoid calling Him "God" because of the confusion this can cause. Was it a typo, above? Or is your way of describing God just as confusing as the Trinitarians? I don't mean that to sound snarky... I'm just trying to figure out the language barrier we're experiencing in talking about this.

It seems to me that confusion of language when trying to describe divine beings is inevitable... SO, that fact shouldn't be held against Trinitarians any more than other points of view (like your own).

[mattrose]

We discussed whether God could have visited earth without a pre-incarnate Christ. I suggested we had no basis to deny God's ability to come in any form He deemed necessary even though He was Spirit.

For the record, I personally see no problem with the idea of the Father coming in any form He deems necessary. There's no compelling reason to interpret Old Testament passages like that as the Son rather than the Father.

[jriccitelli]

I honestly have no problem comprehending the trinity. I appreciate that we are all wired differently, and three persons speaking as one may be troubling for some people, but it does not confuse me in the least. My kids did not understand why they have to do certain things, yet I certainly understood why, and I explained to them very clearly why. Their inability to believe something had nothing to do with my reasoning or logic.
I seem to have a good grasp of electricity, still I admit it’s basic form is sometimes very hard to grasp and 'explain' to some people, yet it works for me and I seldom have problems discerning its basic functions. Yet, indeed there are ‘many’ elements of electricity that even physicists struggle with.

"God was born on earth as a human being." How are they using the word "God" when they say this? I have never heard them explain it, and most people find it confusing. (Paidion)

That is confusing, I can’t imagine any wise Protestant theologian saying "God was born on earth as a human being", you may as well say Mary is the mother of God. God has made the Son equal to God: that fact alone makes Jesus God, or it makes God a liar. You may argue the fact, but we are not confused.
God has no equal, if Jesus is equal with God then Jesus is God, you see One you see the Other.
(You still confuse the term ‘person’ with ‘God’. I am not sure if Darin and Brenden have a problem with the distinction, but your view of mans dichotomy may effect on your inability to see Gods trichotomy)

Put aside for a minute that the husband is the head of the household, in my relationship with my wife: I am her lord and she is my lord, because our love and respect for each other ultimately honors the other equally, thus literally there is only one lord in our home, because we are one (the difference is that we are far from perfect, and it sometimes takes abit of arguing to see that our oneness is greater than our separateness)

The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are perfect (does someone argue they are not?), thus they are perfectly in agreement and, if they have no differences other than their personhood, why can they not be One God (note, we did not say one person, they are One God). I suppose if something else was perfect as they are, then they could be in God with them too. God says God alone is Holy and without equal, so I will believe God. I believe God before I believed Jesus, and I will not put aside God for Jesus. I will not worship Jesus unless He is God. I recommend that you not worship Jesus unless he is God. To worship someone other than God would be dangerous. I don’t care how great and wonderful Jesus is I will not worship or equate anything to God. How could you reason to do so if you say you believe in the God of Abraham?

[Paidion]

Hi Matt,
For now I'll just respond to this one point:

I was under the impression that you believe that there was logically (not necessarily 'chronologically) a 'time' when the Father existed and not the Son. Perhaps I got the wrong impression somewhere along the line? Is it, then, your belief that the Father & Son are both eternal but that only the Father may be rightly called the Most High God???

No I do not believe in the odd concept of a "time" before time. I see no logic in that any more that a logic in the concept of an infinite regression of time into the past (though that is what, as a young man, I believed).

I don't think there was a "time" in any sense in which the Father existed and not the Son. For this would mean that the Father existed in some sense "before" the Son. The word "before" implies a time before. What else could "before" mean?

In my present thinking, I think it makes as much sense to say, "God begat the Son", and yet didn't exist before the Son in any sense, as to state that He was "before" the Son in some incomprehensible sense of "before". So I have no problem in saying that the Son always existed.

But even if someone does believe that the Father existed prior to the Son, I don't see how that means that the Father couldn't have mutual love with the Son. Indeed, in that case, might not that be one of the primary reasons that He begat the Son?

[mattrose]

In my present thinking, I think it makes as much sense to say, "God begat the Son", and yet didn't exist before the Son in any sense, as to state that He was "before" the Son in some incomprehensible sense of "before". So I have no problem in saying that the Son always existed.

Thanks for clarifying your views for me. It's hard to keep track of everyone on here

Since the word 'begat' doesn't really communicate anything substantial to my mind... and since you admit the sense in which it is to be taken is incomprehensible... I will leave it at that. I guess I prefer a greater sense of equality between the Father & Son. I think the passages that lead you to think of some sort of hierarchy of essence only lead me to believe in some sort of voluntarily submissive authority structure.

But even if someone does believe that the Father existed prior to the Son, I don't see how that means that the Father couldn't have mutual love with the Son. Indeed, in that case, might not that be one of the primary reasons that He begat the Son?

I recognize that we have different intuitions on this point. I might be wrong. To my mind, if there was ever a 'time' (sequentially or logically) where the Son wasn't.... then whatever God was prior to that sequence/logic is who God really is. And if God really is the Unitarian God, then He is not inherently loving in my opinion. Love would be something He does (beget a Son) rather than someone God is (Father & Son).

As far as I can tell... your view (at least in regard to the Father & Son) is basically identical to Arminius with the interesting exception that he felt very comfortable with the label trinity and you do not.