Trinity.

[Singalphile]

By the way, I wasn't at all trying to express my own view. I was just trying to give a possible answer to Dwight92070's question, which was "What am I missing?"

It seems like you don't get into Trinitarianism until you start talking about hypostases and persons or essences and natures vs. dispositions and modes and so on.

[dwight92070]

I spent close to 3 hours over 2 days writing out proof verses for each of my 2 sentences, and there are a ton of them. Finally I clicked on "Save Draft" and I lost everything! How frustrating! I don't have the energy to start over, at least not now. I have tried to find where it was saved, but can't. For now, please see my list of 112 verses where the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all mentioned together. I believe that is on page 42 on January 12.

[dwight92070]

Correction, that is page 41, on January 12. I believe these verses clearly demonstrate the distinction between each of the 3 persons in the Godhead, as well as their unity, since they are mentioned together so often. As for each of them being God, the Bible is filled with verses that show this. Like I said, I spent 3 hours with my Strong's Concordance and found tons of them. That was looking up "Father", "Holy Spirit", and "Spirit".

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[dwight92070]

Thanks dizerner, I did all that and it says "No drafts Saved", even though I clicked on the "Save Drafts" button. I wonder if anyone else has had a problem saving a draft. Thanks for your concern.

[Paidion]

In order to reject the doctrine of the Trinity, it seems to me that you have to do one of two things:
1. Either you reject that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are EACH God,
2. Or you reject that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate and distinct from one another.
However, the Bible clearly shows us both to be true, that the three are each God, and yet each is distinct from the other.
What am I missing?

Hi Dwight,
In writing the three senses in which the word "God" is used in the Bible (see my previous post in this thread), I came to understand classic Trinitarianism for the first time in my life. Previously I could not make sense of "God is one in three or three in one", "The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God, yet God is not the Father; God is not the Son, God is not the Holy Spririt, for God is a Trinity." Yet when I see how the word "God" is used in the Bible, it refers to the Father alone in most cases and NEVER to a Trinity.

But for Sense #2, I stated:

Sense #2 The word "God" is used in the sense of being "God material" or "God essence"
... and the Logos was God (John 1:1)

So I began to think that when Trinitarians use the word "God" they refer to the divine Essence. Indeed, it is my belief that Jesus is God in THAT sense. But I do not believe He is God in sense #1, for He is not the Father (Trinitarians would agree with this, but Modalists would not, for they believe that He is the same Individual as the Father).

However, when I look at your second test for non-Trinitarians, I see that I fit with that one:

2. Or you reject that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate and distinct from one another.
However, the Bible clearly shows us both to be true, that the three are each God, and yet each is distinct from the other.

I do agree that the Father and the Son are distinct from each other, in that each is a different divine Individual. I doubt that they are "separate" for they are in complete harmony in every other respect. However, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a third divine Individual, but that the Spirit is the extention of the Persons of the Father and the Son. I came to this belief in part from Jesus words to his disciples that He and the Father would come to them and dwell with them (John 14:23). Also the fact that the Spirit could not come until Jesus departed. Why was that? Was it not that the Son WAS the Spirit? Indeed, in 2Cor 3:17, we read that the Lord (referring to Jesus) IS the Spirit. If the Spirit is distinct from the Son, how can the Son BE the Spirit?

[jriccitelli]

Yet when I see how the word "God" is used in the Bible, it refers to the Father alone in most cases and NEVER to a Trinity’ (Jan 19, Paidion, above)

Note those other cases, some of these also include our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ the Son of God. That is no mistake. Jesus sometimes puts Himself in the place, name and position of God Alone, with no reference to the Father.

‘So I began to think that when Trinitarians use the word "God" they refer to the divine Essence…’ (Paidion, above)

Formal Trins. do not speak of a ‘divine essence’. There is no ‘divine essence’ or part of God that is not God. The Trin/bible belief is that any part of God is God. God is not made up of things that are of some other non-God substance.

‘… we read that the Lord (referring to Jesus) IS the Spirit. If the Spirit is distinct from the Son, how can the Son BE the Spirit?’ (Paidion)

Because God is One. That is a precept, we do not leave the precepts because we come upon a following verse. God does 'not change' this is also a precept. Trins would all be Modalists, if were not for the facts that: Jesus talks to the Father / The Father to Him / they refer to each other as different persons / and that Jesus speaks of the Spirit/Comforter as another person.

We have to reconcile all this together, or we have to discount either the Divinity of Jesus and the Comforter altogether, and or the conversations between Jesus and the Father. Like I say below, all other propositions are other gods.

Dwight, I think what you are missing is the proof of either of your propositions’ (Darin, pg 43, Jan 17)

It is a matter of deduction, if they are not God, then they are not God (nor in any sense God, but in every sense then ‘other or false gods. There is no alternative, is there)

‘… What we do imperfectly, Christ does perfectly, but the extent to which that is exsistential identity is where we don't have much clear revelation and where "reasonable inference" might not be sufficient to proclaim "TRUTH" and dogma’ (Darin, Jan 18)

This would be true if you are a Hindu, Mind Science, New Ager, but scripture separates The God of the Israelites from all Eastern religious beliefs and gods. Like Diz said;

I'm a little wary of "moving the ancient landmarks," so to speak, in shifting word meanings around’ (Diz)

True, I am not grasping how some here are not seeing the un-movables concerning the unmoved mover:
‘God was before all other matter’
‘God created all other matter’
‘God is not a man’
'God does not change'
There is Only one God, and one Lord’ Etc. etc.
Everything that is not the One God – is not God. There is no other option with the God of Jacob and Abraham.
Darin, Editor, other non’s, what are ‘your’ propositions? It seems easy to say you don’t know, but I think the precepts and context demand Jesus be identified for who He really is, and that we make a decision. I know Paidion’s proposition, Jesus is God in a ‘sense’. I think Paul addressed that ‘sense’ of other gods with: ‘For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ’ (1Cor 8:5)

‘Sense #2 The word "God" is used in the sense of being "God material" or "God essence" ‘… The word order and the lack of the article before "God" indicate the meaning as "God stuff" or "the kind of thing the Logos is" (Paidion, Jan 18)

I am not seeing the sense in this sense, because there is no sense in anything being God, that is not God. It is not necessary to look for an article immediately preceding the word anyways; we have been given 500 articles concerning the Oneness and Only-ness of God throughout the proceeding 39 books of the Old Testament.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Paidion]

Why can't the Spirit be called Lord just like the Father and Son are called Lord.

That is not the question. The question is, "How can the Lord Jesus be declared to BE the Spirit, if the Spirit is distinct from Him as an individual person?

"And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever; "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. "I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you."

Jesus is on first, and he is praying to the Father on second, but who is this person on third base? Could it be some metaphor for the personality of the Father and Son combined together into an essence? Would this be the best way to express that idea? Christ is already saying that he, himself, Christ, will come back and not leave them as orphans. Why would another clear identity and personal pronoun be introduced?

Jesus speaks of the Spirit as "another Helper" because Jesus in the form of the Spirit is not the same as Jesus in the flesh who is speaking to his disciples. So the Spirit is "another helper" (actually "another advocate"). This is what Jesus means when He says, ""I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you..." This is how Jesus will come to the disciples—by coming in the Spirit. He will extend his very Person to his disciples and communicate with them and guide them. He didn't mean his second coming. That hasn't occurred yet. Well... I guess it has for the full Preterists, but even for them, He didn't come to comfort and encourage his disciples here on earth; He came to destroy Jerusalem, and rapture all his disciples.

[jriccitelli]

‘Jesus is on first, and he is praying to the Father on second, but who is this person on third base?’ (Diz)

That is great! Three Whos, who all make Their home in us, and us in Them. We need to be Abbott on this one, and not Costello.