Trinity.

[Jose]

Hi JR,

I set out to read this thread from the beginning to familiarize myself with what had already been discussed, and although I'm only about a third through it, I have found that others have done a far greater job than I in presenting strong biblical evidence for a non trinitarian understanding of all the "hundreds of verses" that you claim prove the trinity. I doubt that anything I add to this discussion will inch you any closer to even considering the possibility that unitarianism might be true. I really don't think we'd be having this discussion if the trinity was as obvious as you think it is.

I'd like to ask you a question. Do you think Jesus was a Trinitarian?

[jriccitelli]

(I hope you don't find my responses here, uncaring or mean, as this kind of study is intense. I have to compliment you for even caring to study at this level. I wish I had more time, but i didn't get very far in my answers this morning)
=======================

You are setting up a straw man with your argument towards Jose's issue with the word "worship" (Brenden)

I believe you are attempting to make a strawman out of a logical defense.
Numerous times here the charge has been made on this forum that defending the Deity of The Lord is extreme and unnecessary.

The only reason the word takes on a different meaning is based upon the mindset of the worshipper’ (Brenden)

The contexts do give us some information, and in some cases enough information, though.

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)’ (Brenden)

Lord = Head over, ruler over: people, things, with understandable restrictions. So I agree, It is easy enough to understand what ‘lord’ refers too in many contexts. How much, what, and who a lord is head or ruler over, and to what extent can be easily enough understood from most all of these contexts. Sarah would obviously recognize Abe as head of her, their clan, and their belongings. Yet I do not perceive that Sarah saw Abe as head over a thousand hills, over Egypt, all Creation, or much else. Otherwise we would have to declare Sarah as crazy (not that crazy is not impossible in some peoples case, but we have no indication that Sarah, or Jacob, or Abraham, or Joseph or anyone in these contexts were crazy or idolaters themselves). We can see that in the case of many others in Israel, idolatry was existent, profuse, and condemned. For example Rachel, and possibly many who came out from Egypt.

Jesus though is worshiped, and worshiped in the same contexts of God (and using the same passages and terms reserved for God). Jesus and the Lamb are worshiped as being Lord over 'all' Creation, Kingdoms, Rulers, principalities, even life itself. Where as scripture reserves and commands that The Lord God is the sole Ruler and Lord over all, and will be forever.

[Paidion]

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.

I don't understand this "eternal present moment" outside of time, in which God knows all events past, present, and future. Indeed I ought not to understand it. For it contradicts logic as well as experience. Is the whole of time analagous to our seeing a movie? We can look at the end and see how it turns out. If all events in time are like that, then the future is settled, and cannot be otherwise. And this implies no free will. For example, if it is settled (or true) that I eat an apple tomorrow at 2 P.M. then when that time comes, I cannot refrain from eating an apple; so where is my ability to choose? And so with all other future events (if they have all been settled).

As for God thinking new thoughts, there is plenty of scriptural evidence of this. Here is just one example:

God changed His mind

Jonah prophesied as God told him, “In 40 days Ninevah shall be destroyed” But because of Jonah’s warnng, the Ninevites repented. So Yahweh changed His mind and didn’t destroy them.

At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.

And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jeremiah 18:7-10 NRSV)

God Himself declares that He changed His mind. In the first instance, if He had known all along that the people of that nation or kingdom were going to repent, He would have changed his mind about the disaster He had intended to bring on it. In the second instance, if He had known all along that the people of the nation or kingdom was going to do evil in his sight, He would not have changed his mind about the good that He had intended to do to it. Thus when He saw that the nation or kingdom did the unexpected, He must have had new thoughts.

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).

First, there is no indication in the Bible that "God became Man in the incarnation". The vast majority of cases in scripture which speak of "God" are references to the Father alone. According to the scripture, it was the Son of God who became man, and He is a different Individual from the Father. It is not that Messiah was created as a human being and was "hypostatically united to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity." Nothing scriptural about that idea; it is pure theological and philosophical reasoning. It is true that the Son of God has alway shared the same hypostasis as the Father, but that is the case, not because He is part of some Trinity, but because He was begotten by the Father before all ages and is the Father's only true Son. He is the ONLY-BEGOTTEN Son of God. God did not beget any other childen. Oh yes, we Christians are said to have been "begotten by God" also, but that is in a spiritual sense in that we have received a new nature—not that we were directly begotten, as was God's only Son.

Jesus, as a human being, did not have two natures: He had ONE nature, the human nature. If He had retained his divine nature, He could never have been " in all points tempted as we are" (Heb 4:15). Jesus could perform no miracles; rather the Father did the miracles THROUGH Him. He said, "I do nothing from myself" (John 8:28). After Jesus emptied Himself of all his divine attributes (Philippians 2:7 RSV), He retained only his identity as the Son of God. He did not have divine powers any more than any other human being. Sometimes God performed miracles through Him; and sometimes God gave Him special knowledge of people—but all these things were done not from Himself, but through his complete trust in his Father, were granted to Him.

After his resurrection, Jesus regained his divine attributes, and was also specially glorified by the Father.

[Jose]

Here are a couple of videos directly relating to the discussion of worshiping God and Jesus. It presents a unitarian perspective and attempts to answer some of the trinitarian objections that have been raised. Just some more food for thought.

Who should Christians worship?

Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IPJq1kcDuc

Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCrHrsrdV70

[Paidion]

Jose, I suppose I could be called a unitarian—in the same sense that Jesus was one when He said:

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

However, unlike classic unitarians, I don't believe Jesus was a mere man who did not pre-exist his conception in Mary. As you probably know already, I believe God begat Him before all ages, the first thing God ever did. The writer to the Hebrews affirms in 1:3 that He is the exact image of God's essence [hypostasis].
No doubt He shares the divine essence with the Father because of his being the divine offspring of the Father. Jesus said, as recorded in John 16:28 I emerged out of the Father and have come into the universe, and now I am leaving the universe and going to the Father.”

Just as our offspring is human, so God's offspring is divine. Just as the offspring of man is also called "man", so the offspring of God is also called "God". But that use of "God" is a different sense from that which is used to refer to the Father alone. Though probably over 95% of instances of the word "God" in the New Testament refer to the Father alone, I think the word refers to the Son in the second occurrence in John 1:1 and also in John 1:18, in which the earliest mansuscripts refer to the Son as "the only-begotten God."

[BrotherAlan]

Jose wrote:

Do you think Jesus was a Trinitarian?

If by “Trinitarian” is meant one who knows that God is a Trinity of Divine Persons, then Jesus is a “Trinitarian”. But, more than that, Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, and He revealed the Trinity to us (although, even in the Old Testament, one can find at least implications of the Trinity, eg., the generation of the Son from the Father is found in Ps. 2:7). “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” said Christ the Lord.

Paidion wrote:

I don't understand this "eternal present moment" outside of time, in which God knows all events past, present, and future. Indeed I ought not to understand it. For it contradicts logic as well as experience.

Any God that is subject to change and time is no God at all. That God is eternal, i.e., not subject to motion and therefore not subject to time (for time is a measurement of motion), is a basic conclusion of natural philosophy and metaphysics, and is confirmed by the Scriptures. Those statements—to state it once again—which refer to God as changing His mind are to be understood metaphorically, in the same way one understands the Scriptures when they speak of God sleeping, or forgetting things, or being a rock. We mustn’t check our reason at the door when we read the Scriptures; and far from being contradictory to reason, the notion that God is eternal is able to be, and has been, discovered by reason, as, for example, the ancient Greek philosophers demonstrated (and, so, the claim that these are contradictory to reason is either a rash judgment, or, at least, one that stems from a lack of understanding of what is being stated). It is necessary to see these basic conclusions of philosophy in order to do theology well (and, so, one who is not able to see the truth of these conclusions does well to undertake a study of natural philosophy and metaphysics prior to trying to tackle the more difficult questions of theology, eg., the Trinity of Persons in God).

Paidion wrote:

And this implies no free will. For example, if it is settled (or true) that I eat an apple tomorrow at 2 P.M. then when that time comes, I cannot refrain from eating an apple; so where is my ability to choose? And so with all other future events (if they have all been settled).

We need to return to logic here. The statement, “I have free will,” is contradicted by the statement, “I do NOT have free will.” Now, the statement, “I do NOT have free will,” is NOT equivalent to, “God knows all things, past, present, and future.” Thus, the claim that God knows all things (past, present, and future) does not contradict the claim that I have free will. So, one can – and, indeed, should—hold both statements as being true. For, the fact is that God sees all actions, even our FREE actions which we are going to perform in the future; and the fact that He sees these actions, performed by our free will, does not make them any less free (even on the natural level, a parent is often able to predict how his child is going to freely act and choose, without taking away that child’s free will; in a similar, but more perfect way, God not only predicts, but actually knows, what we will freely choose, without taking away our free will).

Paidion wrote:

First, there is no indication in the Bible that "God became Man in the incarnation".

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:1, 14)

Paidion wrote:

It is not that Messiah was created as a human being and was "hypostatically united to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity." Nothing scriptural about that idea; it is pure theological and philosophical reasoning.

First, the idea that theological and philosophical reasoning is somehow opposed to Scripture is a false idea. Theology, since it is “faith seeking understanding,” is simply an explanation of the Scriptures, utilizing sound philosophy, in order that we might understand the Scriptures more clearly.

Secondly, the hypostatic union—the union of the human nature of Christ with His Divine Nature in the Person of Christ (i.e., the Second Person of the Trinity)—occurred at the very same instant as the creation of Christ’s human nature. Again, “The Word became flesh,” i.e., the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, took to Himself a human nature (at the moment that that nature was created in the womb of Blessed Mary).
Paidion wrote:

It is true that the Son of God has alway shared the same hypostasis as the Father, but that is the case, not because He is part of some Trinity, but because He was begotten by the Father before all ages and is the Father's only true Son. He is the ONLY-BEGOTTEN Son of God. God did not beget any other childen. Oh yes, we Christians are said to have been "begotten by God" also, but that is in a spiritual sense in that we have received a new nature—not that we were directly begotten, as was God's only Son.

That first sentence is only true if by “hypostasis” is meant “nature” or “substance” (for the Son of God has always shared the same substance as the Father); but, at least in Christian theological tradition, “hypostasis” has come to mean “Person”, and the Son is not the same Person as the Father.
Once again, there are no “parts” to the Trinity; there are Persons in the Trinity, but not “parts”. To think of the Trinity as having “parts” is to fundamentally (and fatally) misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity.

Christ is the only-begotten Son of God—there is no argument there (and, that Christians are “begotten of God” is not said in the exact same way as it is said of Christ; Christ naturally and fully possesses the Divine Nature, while Christians “merely” have a share in that Nature by grace... Christians are, thus, “adopted sons” of God, adopted only because of their union with Christ-- Christians are “sons in the Son”). And, that Christ is the only-begotten Son of God (i.e., of God the Father), and a true Son of the Father, necessarily shows that He is, with the Father, true God—for a son is only a true son if he has the same nature as his father (and, so, as the Father possesses the Divine Nature, i.e., He is the one true God, so, too, the Son possesses the Divine Nature, i.e., He, too, with the Father, is the one true God).

Paidion wrote:

Jesus, as a human being, did not have two natures: He had ONE nature, the human nature…He retained only his identity as the Son of God. He did not have divine powers any more than any other human being….After his resurrection, Jesus regained his divine attributes, and was also specially glorified by the Father.

Again, the fundamental issue—and problem-- here is the notion that God is susceptible to change. Thus, knowing that God is eternal and impassible is fundamental to understanding the Incarnation and the Trinity (and, indeed, the entire Christian Faith and all sound Christian theology).

And, again, all this goes to show why it is necessary that there be a Teaching Authority in the Church of Christ to decide these issues (and to declare, among other things, the authentic Christian understanding of the Scriptures, and to state which Scripture passages take primacy over others). If the Church that Christ founded has no ability or authority to authentically (and even infallibly) judge on matters as fundamental as these, then what was the purpose for Christ founding a Church? But, Christ did found a Church, and He founded this Church (His Bride) on the Apostle Peter, whose successors have been the Popes of Rome. And, under the authority and with the approval of the Popes, the Church of Christ, in her Councils (eg., Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc.) and other teachings, has already (and long ago) passed judgment on these theological matters, declaring, in the Creeds and decrees of these Councils (as well as other of her authentic teachings), the authentic Christian understanding of the Scriptures…namely, that God is a Trinity of Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and that the Son of God, while retaining His Divine Nature, took to Himself-- in the womb of Blessed Mary, the Virgin-- a human nature, that is, a Body and Soul like ours. To this Son, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be all power and glory for all ages of ages. Amen.

In Christ, the Son of God and Son of Mary,
BrotherAlan

[Jose]

It appears that Jose is a Socinian.

Hi Brenden,

I think that your observation is fairly accurate based on the more general points of their theology. I'm just vaguely familiar with who they were, and I haven't read any of their work, so I'm not completely sure about all they believed. I've been influenced by Anthony Buzzard and other unitarians with similar views and I've heard him speak of his belief as somewhat Socinian, so there you go.

I think the new creation motif that you mentioned is sorely overlooked. It seems that scripture speaks volumes more about man being transformed into the image of God, than God taking on the nature of man. The Second Adam - God's starting over with a new humanity, via a new creation, seems to get muddled within the concepts of dual natures and hypostases.

Thanks for reemphasizing the main point of my comments, I can use all the help I can get.

Peace, Jose

[TheEditor]

@Jose,

I have read some of Anthony Buzzards material before. I believe the Church of God, Abrahamic Faith uses them. I know of several ex-JWs that have gravitated towards him. I am not persuaded enough to embrace his views, but can understand them. One of the problems with Orthodox Evangelicalism is it's lack of a wide enough tent to allow folks such as yourself and myself a place to fellowship without feeling as though we are viewed as heretics. What happens is, people that feel the need for church fellowship will go church-hopping and finally find one that accepts them, but probably also accepts alot of errors, or doesn't think beliefs amount for much of anything, or worse, who wed some truths to some nutty ideas. Then the Evangelicals sit back and go "See, that's what happens when you don't believe in the trinity", but fail to see they've caused the dynamic and created the vacuum.

@Brother Alan,

You wrote:

And, again, all this goes to show why it is necessary that there be a Teaching Authority in the Church of Christ to decide these issues (and to declare, among other things, the authentic Christian understanding of the Scriptures, and to state which Scripture passages take primacy over others)

Of course, this is the argument that has been used for centuries, and you and other loyal Catholics need for this to be true in order to hold any faith in the myriad of uniquely Catholic teachings, for wihtout this authority, who would be persuaded to believe them? Jesus said that you have "made the word of God invalid because of your tadition". It seems to me that Jesus did not put tradition on a par with Scripture. On what basis then does the Catholic Church do so? And secondly, a sincere question; Could you envision a scenario in which you would go out from the midst of the Catholic Church and suffer the sword of Damocloes as did Elijah in ancient Israel? or are you a loyalist that is in for the long-haul regardless of how whoreish the Church may ever become?

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

We need to return to logic here. The statement, “I have free will,” is contradicted by the statement, “I do NOT have free will.” Now, the statement, “I do NOT have free will,” is NOT equivalent to, “God knows all things, past, present, and future.” Thus, the claim that God knows all things (past, present, and future) does not contradict the claim that I have free will.

I agree with your premise, but your conclusion does not logically follow from it.
Here is your premise:
Now, the statement, “I do NOT have free will,” is NOT equivalent to, “God knows all things, past, present, and future.”

Your premise is logically equivalent to:
It is not the case that "I do not have free will" implies "God knows all things, etc." AND "God knows all things, etc. implies "I do not have free will."

So your premise simply states that it is not the case that BOTH implications are true. From that fact you cannot conclude that the second implication is not true.

[Paidion]

"The fact that He sees these actions, performed by our free will, does not make them any less free."

How can these actions be seen, when they haven't yet been done? And if it WERE possible for agent A to see some act C prior to person P doing it at time T, tell me how P could refrain from doing it at time T? If He could refrain, the A didn't see it after all.

No one is suggesting that God's knowledge CAUSES human actions. It's just that in this case act C is not settled prior to time T (whether anyone "sees" it or not). For if it were already true that P will perform A at T, then how can P refrain from doing A at T? It follows logically that if it is NOW true that P will perform A at time T, the P does not have the ability to refrain from doing A at time T, and therefore doesn't have the free will to do so. If P DOES have the power to refrain from doing A at T and actually DOES refrain, then it was not true prior to T that he would do A at T.