Trinity.

Discuss topics raised by callers on the radio program
User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Trinity.

Post by Homer » Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:09 pm

Jose,

You wrote:
It seems that He is saying to worship (proskyneo - give honor, respect) and serve only God (latreuo - in a religious manner). Perhaps anyone who is worthy of honor and respect (because they are an authority) can be "proskyneo", but only God should be "latreuo" (served religiously).
It seems that TheEditor was correct when he said that "latreuo" is not used when referring to Jesus.
As I understand you (and Brenden whom you quoted), proskuneo means paying honor and respect to a person while latreuo is the only word meaning "worship" in a religious sense?

The New World translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses curiously translates proskuneo consistently as "obeisance" in regard to Jesus and consistently as "worship" when used in regard to God. I suppose they could be said to be consistently inconsistent. :)

But getting to the point of it all is it your position that Jesus is not to be worshipped and that only the Father is to receive our worship?

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: Trinity.

Post by BrotherAlan » Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:12 pm

On Jan. 17, Paidion wrote:
If God is outside of time, then how can He in anyway act within time? It seems to me that He would be unable to act at all. And yet the scriptures indicate that He is very active in the world, and not only active but has a relationship with his people, and IS ACTED UPON by His people and that this makes a difference to his choices and actions. But a timeless being could not make plans and carry them out for mankind who lives in a temporal mode.
So, we are hitting on a very fundamental question; a question so fundamental that it must necessarily be answered well before any sane doctrine on the Trinity can either be presented or understand. And, so, we need to deal with this here and now.


Question: Whether God is eternal and immutable?
Objection 1: According to the Scriptures, God acts in time, but anything that acts in time is not eternal; thus, God is not eternal.

Objection 2: According to the Scriptures, God seems to be changed by the actions of creatures, eg., the prayers of holy men, repentance of sinners, etc., changes the course of action that He otherwise would have taken. But, anyone that is changed is not immutable, and so God is not immutable.

But, contrary to these objections, we have the clear testimony of Scripture, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting thou art God,” (Ps. 90:2) and, “Now to the King eternal…the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. “(1 Tim. 1:17) And so God is eternal. Likewise, Holy Writ states, “I, the LORD, do not change…” (Mal. 3:6) And, so, likewise, God is also immutable.

My answer to this question is that God is both eternal and immutable, as the aforementioned Scripture passages—along with many others—clearly show. But, in addition to this truth being revealed by God through Divine Revelation, it is also a truth that can be known by man’s reason alone.

For, reason can know that God is the First Cause of all motion and change. But the First Cause of all motion and change can not Himself be moved or change (else, this “First” Cause would need another being who put Him into motion and change, and that being would either Himself be the absolute First Cause of motion and change, or, if not, there’d have to be another being causing motion and change—but this chain cannot go on forever, and so there must be a FIRST Cause of motion and change, which Being deserves the name “God”). Thus, God is immutable.

And, with this being the case, the following argument can also be made: God can not be changed, i.e., He is immutable. But, anything that can not be changed is outside of time (for, a thing is said to be in time if and only if it is subject to motion and change, for time is simply a measurement of motion).
Thus, God is eternal, i.e., He exists and acts outside of time, not subject to any motion or change Himself, even while also being the First Cause of motion of things within time.

And, so it is, that both the Divine Scriptures and man’s reason testify to the truth that the attributes of eternity and immutability belong to God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—to Whom belongs all glory and honor, now and into eternity. Amen.


Reply to Above Objection 1:
To say that God acts in time is not the same as saying that God Himself is subject to the constraints of time and motion; rather, Himself being outside of time, He Himself is the cause of time itself, and all of the motion that exists therein.

Reply to Above Abjection 2:
It is true to say that the actions of creatures, eg., prayers and acts of penance, affect the outcome of events in salvation history; for, God, in His Providence, has deigned that these actions serve as secondary causes in carrying out the plan which He, as the First Cause, willed to carry out for all eternity (even as He, in a similar way in the material world, uses secondary causes to bring about His ends, eg., the generation of children destined for heaven is brought about by the freely-consented union of husband and wife). To manifest the fact that these events are true, even if only secondary, causes in reality, the Scriptures make healthy use of metaphor to teach this truth; for, it ought to be known that the Scriptures frequently use metaphors to communicate truths about God, with such expressions as, “God is a Rock,” God “roars like a lion”, “The Lord is my Shepherd,” “I [Jesus] am the Gate,” etc. By applying these terms to God, it is not the Author’s intent—whether we are speaking of the sacred human author or the Divine Author of Scripture Himself—to apply any kind of notion of these things to God, eg., it is not intended that some kind of definition of “rock”, “roaring”, “lion”, “shepherd”, “gate”, etc., be applied to God, but, rather, such expressions are used in order to communicate a certain likeness between God and these things (or, rather, between these things and God). Thus, for example, God can be called a “rock” because He is firm, unchanging like a rock; and He “roars like a lion” for He is fearless in His attacks against the enemies of Him and His People. And similarly with the other metaphors used in Scripture; among which must be included the expressions which state that God “repented” or “changed his mind”. For, it is not as if Scripture intends to communicate the idea that God repented or changed is mind in the strict sense of the word, i.e., having one decision in His eternal mind and then changing that decision (either because of actions done by creatures or because of “new information” presented to Him), but, rather, Holy Writ uses these expressions metaphorically, i.e., to communicate the fact that God sometimes acts in creation like a man would act when man changes his mind or repents of one of his decisions.
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Trinity.

Post by Homer » Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:20 pm

BrotherAlan,

Good to see you back:

You wrote:
Likewise, Holy Writ states, “I, the LORD, do not change…” (Mal. 3:6) And, so, likewise, God is also immutable.

My answer to this question is that God is both eternal and immutable, as the aforementioned Scripture passages—along with many others—clearly show. But, in addition to this truth being revealed by God through Divine Revelation, it is also a truth that can be known by man’s reason alone.

For, it is not as if Scripture intends to communicate the idea that God repented or changed is mind in the strict sense of the word, i.e., having one decision in His eternal mind and then changing that decision (either because of actions done by creatures or because of “new information” presented to Him), but, rather, Holy Writ uses these expressions metaphorically, i.e., to communicate the fact that God sometimes acts in creation like a man would act when man changes his mind or repents of one of his decisions.
Can God, being immutable and outside time, ever think a new thought?

If Jesus is God, how could He come into time and act?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Trinity.

Post by Paidion » Mon Jan 26, 2015 6:03 pm

But, contrary to these objections, we have the clear testimony of Scripture, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting thou art God,” (Ps. 90:2)
You cannot establish doctrine from a translation. Both in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in the Greek Septuagint text, the translation should be "from age to age you are God."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Trinity.

Post by TheEditor » Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:47 pm

The New World translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses curiously translates proskuneo consistently as "obeisance" in regard to Jesus and consistently as "worship" when used in regard to God. I suppose they could be said to be consistently inconsistent.


Not that I am wanting to defend the JWs nor the NWT (though on the whole, it's not a bad translation; far more maligned than it need be), but their choice to render it that way is in keeping with a consistent Arian theology, much the same way trinitarian scholars consistently render any questionable passage with a decided trinitarian "tilt".

"At once Jehosh′aphat bowed low with his face to the earth, and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem themselves fell down before Jehovah to do obeisance to Jehovah." (2 Chronicles 20:18) Of course, this word is specifically referencing "bowing". I found it odd that "to bow" was the more common rendering in the NWT for this word.

Either way, proskuneo is used too liberally as "worship" by most translations. By making a distinction between worship given to a deity and mere "bowing" in respect, there is a subtlety that is conveyed in my opinion.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

Jose
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2014 1:42 pm

Re: Trinity.

Post by Jose » Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:49 am

Homer wrote:As I understand you (and Brenden whom you quoted), proskuneo means paying honor and respect to a person while latreuo is the only word meaning "worship" in a religious sense?
Well, I hope I'm not seeming to be dogmatic about it, this is all very nuanced so I'm only pondering possibilities. I think both terms can probably be used in reference to both, because to serve and honor Christ is to do so to the Father also.
Homer wrote:The New World translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses curiously translates proskuneo consistently as "obeisance" in regard to Jesus and consistently as "worship" when used in regard to God. I suppose they could be said to be consistently inconsistent. :)
Yes, although I think I can see why they do that. Obeisance is synonymous with bowing so maybe they chose that to distinguish it from "latreuo" because for us in the west, the English word "worship," has a stronger connotation of something that is done with regard to a deity. (I began drafting this yesterday, and it seems that Brenden beat me to the punch in making a similar observation.) :)
Homer wrote:But getting to the point of it all is it your position that Jesus is not to be worshipped and that only the Father is to receive our worship?
No, certainly not.

I believe scripture is clear that we are to worship both, but maybe we are to do so for different reasons.

It appears that the Father is worshiped because He is the creator and sustainer of all things. In Revelation 4, God the Almighty is sitting on a throne with elders and creatures all worshiping Him, and at the end of the chapter they proclaim, "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."

Jesus is clearly worshiped because of his obedience and sacrifice which ransomed mankind. He was also greatly exalted and rewarded for overcoming. In Revelation chapter 5, elders and creatures fell down before the Lamb and they "sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. "You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth." And, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing."

Just as a side note: In this throne room scenario, there are two identities. One is Jesus, the other one is "God the Almighty." The word almighty is "pantokratōr" and as far as I can tell, it is never used when referring to Jesus.

Jesus is the one whom God made ruler of all the earth. He is king of all kings, and his name is above every name, but he is still under God. (1 Cor 15:27-28, 1 Cor 11:3). I think a perfect illustration of this is Joseph. Pharaoh gave Joseph complete authority but yet Pharaoh was greater than Joseph "only in the throne." No one could lift a finger to do anything in all of Egypt without Joseph's permission, but Pharaoh was still Pharaoh. (Gen 41:38-44)

I believe Jesus is divine in some sense, as He is a glorified, immortalized, human being who shares in some way, the spirit (power and presence?) of his Father. I don't consider that He was a "mere" man as He was the only human being in existence who was conceived supernaturally in the womb of a virgin directly by God. That is unique and extraordinary!

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Trinity.

Post by jriccitelli » Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:47 pm

I believe Jesus is divine in some sense, as He is a glorified, immortalized, human being who shares in some way, the spirit’ (Jose)
In some sense? What sense. Scripture does not allow for ‘any’ being or human to be like God.
No creature or angel can be equal with God :!: The term 'son of god' was nothing new to ancient people. The term equated a 'son of god' as a god (have you not heard of the Iliad?). Jesus was not introducing a ‘new’ spin on a word, or somehow creating a ‘new’ category of being. People of that Judean/Greek/Roman time and culture were clear what The Son of God was meant to imply. Jesus was saying: He was a God.
‘I know you believe Jesus is God, but simply stating so over and over doesn't make it true’ (Jose, Jan 24 p.48)
If we were debating whether or not earth was the center of the Universe, and you said ‘the earth goes around the Sun’ and I said ‘the Sun goes around the earth’; it is true that the premise of both ideas are also the statements of our facts, and the answer to the question.

I said you have to consider all the previous verses, such as chap. 1 in Rev for instance. In the same way, you don’t gather all the characteristics and revelations about ‘God’ from one verse or a few, do you? All the scriptures have to be considered, and then a decision made that makes sense of the majority of them all, and predominantly the clearest precepts. Is Rev 4:11 the first mention of God in the bible? That is like quoting Isaiah 42:14 and saying ‘see God is a woman’. Just the same, Mormons are great at pulling out all the anthropomorphic descriptions of God to justify their belief that God is a man.
Could you please point out, where exactly, the passage that I quoted (Rev 5:1-14) calls Jesus Lord and creator? (Jose, Jan 24 p.48)
Rev 5 speaks of a Lord and Creator. Jose, tell me then who is The Lord, and who is The Creator? We know "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being" "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth" Scripture puts Jesus in the same exact ‘exact’ context as The Lord of Creation. And since there is Only One Creator and One Lord, and Only One Lord of Creation, that means Jesus is God. There is no way to have two Lords or Creators from the context of Gods Word.

I said the first chapter of Revelation verifies Jesus as God: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty”… “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! (Rev.1:8, 17-18) "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Rev 22:12-13) (This pre-eminence of first and last is thrice claimed for the Lord Jehovah in Isaiah 41:4; Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 48:12, and thrice for the Lord Jesus in this book. As in this passage, in Revelation 2:8, and Revelation 22:13. Ellicott Commentary)
Jose, there are literally hundreds of verses that equate Jesus with God – yet scripture demands we not equate anything with God.

Jose, isn’t it clear that we obey the 10 Commandments?
You shall have no other gods before Me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” NASB (You shall not bow down to them or serve them’ ESV) Exodus 20:5. And Exodus 23:24, Duet 5:9, Joshua 23:7, 2 kings 17:35

It is clear the context above is bowing before and the worship of gods and deities. The contexts of Boaz, David and others are not Deities or worship (yet it is interesting that most these references are types or possibly Christophanies). Any biblical saint would know the difference, when bowing before Boaz for instance Ruth knows she is just recognizing him as lord of the vineyard, she is not worshiping him in any sense close to that of the worship and adoration attributed to God. All the biblical saints that Unitarians and such argue in these contexts, knew ‘the difference’ between worshiping God and bowing before others, as we read of them worshiping only ‘God as God’ in other passages. Note that Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Joshua, Ruth, David knew the Lord as God, and the God of their fathers who alone was worshiped as God. For instance, there is no indication that Boaz received Ruth’s bowing as worship of himself; he was a faithful Israelite after all. Joseph only saw his brothers bowing before him 'in a vision', Joseph did not consider he should receive worship as God from this. He was bewildered, this was a sign of him being a ruler in Egypt. This is your proof text? David worshiped Jonathan? Is that really your proof text? You think David received Jonathans bowing as akin to worship? You don’t really believe Abigail worshiped David? Or that David received Abigail’s bowing to David as worship, do you? Yet Jesus truly does receive the worship of a Deity in scripture, and Jesus is clearly in the place of God in this respect, and truly receives HOLY worship by saints, angels, and all the host of heaven. This is all done with no indication by any person or thing that this is wrong. With literally hundreds of direct associations of Jesus with God over and over, many making it impossible in many cases to distinguish Jesus from God, or one from the other, and with no indication anywhere that we must 'not' confuse Jesus with God, where all the writers would have to have seen that they were continually making Jesus equal with God.

The disciples and all the Church worshiped and prayed to Jesus. And they prayed and worshiped Jesus as Lord King and God.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Trinity.

Post by TheEditor » Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:38 pm

JR,

You are setting up a straw man with your argument towards Jose's issue with the word "worship". Anyone who reads the post can see he is making a case for a difference in the use of the word "worship"; that it can be used for respect. The only reason the word takes on a different meaning is based upon the mindset of the worshipper. If an ancient Near East woman such as Sarah "worshipped" Abraham and it meant in her heart an homage that belonged only to God, then it is clearly different than the kind of "worship" Sarah gave Abraham (even calling him "Lord" in her heart).

Jose's (and my) point is simply that the use of "worship" as a term of honor to Christ isn't as pregnant with meaning as a trinitarian needs it to be in order for it to be an argument at all. I think you know that this is the point.

Scripture does not allow for ‘any’ being or human to be like God. . . .Jesus was not introducing a ‘new’ spin on a word, or somehow creating a ‘new’ category of being.


It appears that Jose is a Socinian. I am not. However, your statement above is incorrect. Indeed, the "New Creation" in Christ is a "new" category of being. Rom 8:29 "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers."

Jesus is the "firstborn among many brothers". It would seem that prior to this, God did not share His Divine Nature with any in the material universe. But God did purpose to make a new creation, of the material realm, so that that which was mortal could put on immortality. Is this not a "new creation"? Jesus, the Head of the "Christ" was the firstborn of creation to become a partaker of this divine nature after having clothed himself with the mortal, material nature. Now we have a chance to, not only resemble God in His moral, rational, just and loving nature, but to also be clothed, like our Eldest Brother, with the "divine nature". (2 Pet. 1:4) Is this not a 'new category of being' JR? Innaugurated by Christ?

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: Trinity.

Post by BrotherAlan » Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:42 pm

Homer,
You wrote:
Can God, being immutable and outside time, ever think a new thought?

If Jesus is God, how could He come into time and act?
To answer the first question: Since God understands and knows all things all in one eternal act (in His “eternal present moment”, if you will), it is not possible for Him to ever think a new thought, since all that is or ever could be is eternally known to Him in His eternal understanding of Himself through Himself.

To answer the second question: When God became Man in the Incarnation, there was no change in God but, rather, there was a change in that individual human nature which is hypostatically to the Word of God, i.e., the human nature of Christ (the change to this human nature of Christ being its very own creation as a human nature and, at that very same instant of its creation, its being hypostatically united to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity).

Obviously, a lot of theology behind both of those answers, but, well, there you go for now!

In Christ, the Son of God and Son of Mary,
BrotherAlan
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

dizerner

Re: Trinity.

Post by dizerner » Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:31 am

Something I just learned, the belief that Christ's two natures blended into one is called Monophysitism.
Last edited by dizerner on Sat Jan 31, 2015 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Radio Program Topics”