ECT Our triune God

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Lon said that 'Christ is GOD'.

And that is okay with me since we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and we share in the glory our Father gave to his Son.

But not everyone believes God has flesh and bones.

Whatever Jesus Christ is so are we and he is joint heir with us of all that belongs to the Most High.
 

JosephR

New member
And that is okay with me since we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and we share in the glory our Father gave to his Son.

But not everyone believes God has flesh and bones.

Whatever Jesus Christ is so are we and he is joint heir with us of all that belongs to the Most High.

no one is going to get that, and the ones that do are going to reject it.

but I do :)
 

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
no one is going to get that, and the ones that do are going to reject it.

Paul said, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive..."

I would like to see posters on TOL promote the unity of faith. If those who believe God is three persons I understand what they are saying and why they believe that.

The fact is that in the biblical context of spirituality there are only three types of beings. There is God, there are angelic sons of God to minister to believers, and there are unbelievers.

People are going to believe what they choose to believe and argument is futile. All we can do is to present the scriptures and let each person decide what to believe.
 

JosephR

New member
Paul said, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive..."

I would like to see posters on TOL promote the unity of faith. If those who believe God is three persons I understand what they are saying and why they believe that.

The fact is that in the biblical context of spirituality there are only three types of beings. There is God, there are angelic sons of God to minister to believers, and there are unbelievers.

People are going to believe what they choose to believe and argument is futile. All we can do is to present the scriptures and let each person decide what to believe.

dear woman never let the hope diminish from your words.

you inspire me.
 

Lon

Active member
I'll quote it for you,
Lon said:
"Er, "God" created the Heavens and the Earth, therefore Christ is God." (Lon)
But you may be right, Lon is not a trinitarian he is a tri-unitarian. I'm not sure what the difference is but you probably know.
Basically it is a better term that better embraces the simplicity and one-ness of God. It isn't a disagreement with Trinitarians, but a reminder that "...the Lord our God is One..."
 

Lon

Active member
THREE QUESTIONS TO DETERMINE IF THE TRINITY IS BIBLICALLY TRUE OR FALSE. If any one of these questions can be answered 'no,' then the Trinity can be rejected as an unbiblical belief. But if all three can be answered 'yes,' then the concept of the Trinity should be accepted as biblical truth.

1. Does the Bible mention three distinct persons?

2. Does the Bible refer to each of these persons as God?

3. Does the Bible teach there is only one God?

The answers:

1. Are three distinct persons mentioned? YES.
A. The Father (1 John 3:1)
B. The Son (1 John 1:3)
C. The Holy Spirit (14:26; 15:26; 16:13- 14; Romans 15:30; Ephesians 4:30)


2. Are each of these persons referred to as God? YES.
A. God the Father (1 Thessalonians 1:1)
B. God the Son (John 1:1; 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9)
C. God the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4)

3. Is there only one God? YES.
(see Deuteronomy 4:35-39; Psalm 86:10; Isaiah 45:5; 45:22)
 

Lon

Active member
It does represent 3 distinctions at given moments in scriptural history. We've had the 'person' discussion before and I share some of that concern, but I don't see this as a huge necessity for contest. Spirit is indivisible, but the presence of the Father, Spirit descending as a Dove, and the person of Jesus Christ displays as three distinctions that persons can help explain. We are then talking about better ways to say things, but I don't think we need to be knocking laymen, but maybe tweeking and helping out.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
It does represent 3 distinctions at given moments in scriptural history. We've had the 'person' discussion before and I share some of that concern, but I don't see this as a huge necessity for contest. Spirit is indivisible, but the presence of the Father, Spirit descending as a Dove, and the person of Jesus Christ displays as three distinctions that persons can help explain. We are then talking about better ways to say things, but I don't think we need to be knocking laymen, but maybe tweeking and helping out.

It's too easy and prevalent for the shallow English perception of "persons" (hypostases) to be conceptualized as "beings" (ousios).

Multiple minds/wills with sentient conscious volition are multiple souls, meaning multiple beings.

God's inherent transcendent Self-existence cannot be measured or quantified in cardinal numbers; and God isn't comprised of constituent parts. Perichoresis is permeating "glue" for parts.

;)
 

TFTn5280

New member
It does represent 3 distinctions at given moments in scriptural history. We've had the 'person' discussion before and I share some of that concern, but I don't see this as a huge necessity for contest. Spirit is indivisible, but the presence of the Father, Spirit descending as a Dove, and the person of Jesus Christ displays as three distinctions that persons can help explain. We are then talking about better ways to say things, but I don't think we need to be knocking laymen, but maybe tweeking and helping out.

This may actually be an instance that does not speak so much to "laymen" as it does about those Patristics who used the term "hypostasis" to identify those distinctions. One thing is certain: they saw them and argued vociferously and successfully for their existence, both under and within the "ousia" of the one God.

Laymen see that distinction too and rightly interpret it.

Perhaps our word "person," although not a wholly satisfactory translation of hypostasis, better captures the essence of those distinctions than the very word it substitutes: "hypostasis."

God Bless.

T
 

TFTn5280

New member
It does represent 3 distinctions at given moments in scriptural history. We've had the 'person' discussion before and I share some of that concern, but I don't see this as a huge necessity for contest. Spirit is indivisible, but the presence of the Father, Spirit descending as a Dove, and the person of Jesus Christ displays as three distinctions that persons can help explain. We are then talking about better ways to say things, but I don't think we need to be knocking laymen, but maybe tweeking and helping out.

If we as twenty-first century English speakers have to rethink those primitive formulations of Trinity in order to better capture the constitutions of the God of the Scriptures, so be it. I have the greatest respect for the Patristics and that which they accomplished and for which they stood, but a greater respect still I have for God. My heart, our heart, should be to speak of him in terms appropriate to the Son's interpretation of his Father in and through the Holy Spirit as recorded in the scriptures. I say, out with ousia and hypostasis both if those terms do not accurately represent the reality of those relations.

I see three by way of union interrelating with and interpenetrating each other. How to best articulate that union is yet open in my vocabulary ~ but they are there nonetheless.
 
Last edited:

Cross Reference

New member
If we as twenty-first century English speakers have to rethink those primitive articulations of Trinity in order to better capture the constitutions of the God of the Scriptures, so be it. I have the greatest respect for the Patristics and that which they accomplished and for which they fought, but a greater respect still for God. My heart, our heart should be to speak of him in terms that hold true to the Son's interpretation of his Father in and through the Holy Spirit as recorded in the scriptures. I say out with ousia and hypostasis both if those terms do not capture the reality of those relations.

I see three by way of union interrelating with and interpenetrating each other. How to best articulate that is yet open in my vocabulary ~ but they are there nonetheless.


Do they teach you all to speak like that in seminary?
 

TFTn5280

New member
Do they teach you all to speak like that in seminary?

I started my theological studies at University, where we only spoke of the Trinity in English terms, attempting to understand Greek nuances from within an English frame of reference. By the time of my third year of Seminary, I was studying, and more importantly thinking in, Greek constructs almost exclusively. That said, my ministry will never be to Koine Greek speakers, so I see it as incumbent upon me to communicate in English in terms as close to Greek equivalents as precisely as I possibly can.

Why, you don't like something I said?
 
Last edited:

Cross Reference

New member
I started my theological studies at University, where we only spoke of the Trinity in English terms, attempting to understand Greek nuances from within an English frame of reference. By the time of my third year of Seminary, I was studying, and more importantly thinking, in Greek contracts almost exclusively. That said, my ministry will never be to Koine speakers of Greek, so I see it as incumbent upon me to communicate in English in terms as close to Greek equivalents as precisely as I possibly can.

Why, you don't like something I said?

No offense but, I didn't understand a thing either of you were attempting to say to make a determination as to whether you were for or against whatever it was you were discussing. To me it was "psychobabble". I must add, if that is what is needed for understanding the Bible, can it be any wonder why the Christian religion is in trouble?
 

TFTn5280

New member
No offense but, I didn't understand a thing either of you were attempting to say to make a determination as to whether you were for or against whatever it was you were discussing. To me it was "psychobabble". I must add, if that is what is needed for understanding the Bible, can it be any wonder why the Christian religion is in trouble?

No offense taken. I busted in on a discussion between Lon and PPS and addressed them in near the same language they were speaking. It is not at all my belief that you, as an English speaker, should be expected to "ascend unto the ivory towers," so to speak, in order to speak meaningfully about God-stuff. Rather, those who can should to the best of their ability communicate in ways appropriate to those with whom they converse.

The other side of that coin, I believe just as strongly: those who do not speak the ancient languages should respect and seek to learn from those who do; this because there are advantages to the study of Scripture that are only met from within those primal constructs. That too is truly incontrovertible.

The resolution, I believe, will be met when both sides become more willing and efficient at moving to the middle.

Agreed?
 
Last edited:

Cross Reference

New member
No offense taken. I busted in on a discussion between Lon and PPS and addressed them in near the same language they were speaking. It is not at all my belief that you, as an English speaker, should be expected to "ascend unto the ivory towers," so to speak, in order to speak meaningfully about God-stuff. Rather, those who can should to the best of their ability communicate in ways appropriate to those with whom they converse.

The other side of that coin, I believe just as strongly: those who do not speak the ancient languages should respect and seek to learn from those who do; this because there are advantages to the study of Scripture that are only met from within those primal constructs. That too is truly incontrovertible.

The resolution, I believe, will be met when both sides are more efficient at moving to the middle.

Agreed?

No. It seems to me you all are trying to diminish the need for understanding by the Holy Spirit, believing He is no longer available to give it [cessationism/dispensationalism] and seek to let 'knowledge' [so-called] replace Him. I tend to believe the latter considering the times and because of the lengths you all go with your "oneupsmanship".. Verboseness is an understatement. Again, no offense intended by me in this.
 

TFTn5280

New member
No. It seems to me you all are trying to diminish the need for understanding by the Holy Spirit, believing He is no longer available to give it [cessationism/dispensationalism] and seek to let 'knowledge' [so-called] replace Him. I tend to believe the latter considering the times and because of the lengths you all go with your "oneupsmanship".. Verboseness is an understatement. Again, no offense intended by me in this.

Again none taken. There is no doubt an apparent verbosity which takes place from some who know the ancient languages, while others of the same ilk seek to distance themselves from that stuff; just as there is pride amongst some who refuse to give those readers their due respect, as well do considerable opportunities avail to those who don't exhibit disrespect, to gain insight into studies otherwise unavailable to them.

A question for you: do you think it is only to English-only readers that the Holy Spirit intercedes; in other words, do you think he has nothing to "say" to those who study and seek to know our Lord in Greek too?

I guess I already know that you see no value in obtaining a well-rounded liberal arts education.

That said, a second question, I came to the awareness of a quite distinct interpretation of Romans 5.15-19 via, not only my knowledge of the Greek language, but from my studies into primitive-Mediterranean social worlds ~ their literary conventions and social constructs ~ through my studies relative to gaining a philosophy degree. Do you mind if I post it now, and then do you mind as well telling me if you think you could have come to a similar conclusion yourself, by reading only English texts with no background in ancient world studies?
 
Last edited:

Cross Reference

New member
Again none taken. There is no doubt an apparent verbosity which takes place from some who know the ancient languages, while others seek to distance themselves from that stuff; just as there is pride amongst some of those who refuse to give those speakers their due respect, as well that considerable opportunities avail themselves to those who don't, to gain insight into their studies, otherwise unavailable to them.

I give them their due respect for what they say and not how they say it. In that regard verbiage means everything.

A question for you: do you think it is only to English-only readers that the Holy Spirit intercedes; in other words, do you think he has nothing to "say" to those who study and seek to know our Lord in Greek too?

Sure He does, if allowed. I have gleaned much from such scholars.

I guess I already know that you see no value in obtaining a well-rounded liberal arts education.

To the contrary, I do if it is from one without religious reform agenda.

I am thankful for the material free of "smothering subjective" thinking others have proffered for my benefit. There is quite a selection out there to chose from including some very good concordances that no one should need to have to struggle any longer to understand the message contained within the ancient languages especially to see it is still the same message..
My issue is with insight or lack of it when using 'plain' language when delivering it. It is useless info unless delivered for understanding. I am never impressed with how many letters one has after his name unless he can do that and does it. Here is an example of verse that is inspired while the other is worthless when put up against what Paul was always attempting to convey:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20 (KJV)

"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Galatians 2:20 (ESV)

Which one impresses you as insightful? Can you say why?

That said, a second question, I came to the awareness of a quite distinct interpretation of Romans 5.15-19 via, not only my knowledge of the Greek language, but from my studies into primitive-Mediterranean social worlds ~ their literary conventions and social constructs ~ through my studies towards a philosophy degree. Do you mind if I post it now, and then do you mind as well telling me if you think you could have come to a similar conclusion yourself, by reading only English texts with no background in ancient world studies?

If I can use the KJV, sure. Be happy to.
 
Top