The Trinity ..
Carl
with detailed evidence supporting it from Scripture by noted Christian
theologian Charles Hodge. It is interesting that the cultists who deny the
Holy Trinity (even though the Bible clearly teaches it when one take the
Bible in totality) shy away from
acknowledging the overwhelming Scriptural evidence whenever brough up by
Christians who follow orthodox Christian teachings.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
The Trinity
by Charles Hodge
The doctrine of the Trinity is peculiar to the religion of the Bible. The
Triad of the ancient world is only a philosophical statement of the
pantheistic theory which underlies all the religion of antiquity. With the
Hindus, simple, undeveloped, primal being, without consciousness or
attributes, is called Brahm. This being, as unfolding itself in the actual
world, is Vishnu; as returning into the abyss of unconscious being, it is
Shiva. In Buddhism we find essentially the same ideas, in a more dualistic
form. Buddhism makes more of a distinction between God, as the spiritual
principle of all things, and nature. The soul of man is a part, or an
existence-form, of this spiritual essence, whose destiny is, that it may be
freed from nature and lost in the infinite unknown. In Platonism, also, we
find a notional Trinity. Simple being (?? ??) has its ?????, the complex of
its ideas, the reality in all that is phenomenal and changing. In all these
systems, whether ancient or modern, there is a Thesis, Antithesis, and
Synthesis; the Infinite becomes finite, and the finite returns to the
Infinite. It is obvious, therefore, that these trinitarian formulas have no
analogy with the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity, and serve neither to
explain nor to confirm it.
The design of all the revelations contained in the Word of God is the
salvation of men. Truth is in order to holiness. God does not make known his
being and attributes to teach men science, but to bring them to the saving
knowledge of Himself. The doctrines of the Bible are, therefore, intimately
connected with religion, or the life of God in the soul. They determine the
religious experience of believers, and are presupposed in that experience.
This is specially true of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is a great mistake
to regard that doctrine as a mere speculative or abstract truth, concerning
the constitution of the Godhead, with which we have no practical concern, or
which we are required to believe simply because it is revealed. On the
contrary, it underlies the whole plan of salvation, and determines the
character of the religion (in the subjective sense of that word) of all true
Christians. It is the unconscious, or unformed faith, even of those of God's
people who are unable to understand the term by which it is expressed. They
all believe in God, the Creator and Preserver against whom they have sinned,
whose justice they know they cannot satisfy, and whose image they cannot
restore to their apostate nature. They therefore, as of necessity, believe
in a divine Redeemer and a divine Sanctifier. They have, as it were, the
factors of the doctrine of the Trinity in their own religious convictions.
No mere speculative doctrine, especially no doctrine so mysterious and so
out of analogy with all other objects of human knowledge, as that of the
Trinity, could ever have held the abiding control over the faith of the
Church, which this doctrine has maintained. It is not, therefore, by any
arbitrary decision, nor from any bigoted adherence to hereditary beliefs,
that the Church has always refused to recognize as Christians those who
reject this doctrine. This judgment is only the expression of the deep
conviction that Antitrinitarians must adopt a radically and practically
different system of religion from that on which the Church builds her hopes.
It is not too much to say with Meyer[1], that "the Trinity is the point in
which all Christian ideas and interests unite; at once the beginning and the
end of all insight into Christianity."
This great article of the Christian faith may be regarded under three
different aspects: (1.) The Biblical form of the doctrine. (2.) The
ecclesiastical form, or the mode in which the statements of the Bible have
been explained in the symbols of the Church and the writings of theologians.
(3.) Its philosophical form, or the attempts which have been made to
illustrate, or to prove, the doctrine on philosophical principles. It is
only the doctrine as presented in the Bible, which binds the faith and
conscience of the people of God.
Biblical Form of the Doctrine.
A. What that Form is.
The form in which this doctrine lies in the Bible, and in which it enters
into the faith of the Church universal, includes substantially the following
particulars.
1. There is one only living and true God, or divine Being. The religion of
the Bible stands opposed not only to Atheism, but to all forms of
polytheism. The Scriptures everywhere assert that Jehovah alone is God.
(Deut. vi. 4.) "The Lord our God is one Lord." "I am the first, and I am the
last; and besides me there is no God." (Is. xliv. 6.) "Thou believest that
there is one God; thou doest well." (James ii. 19.) The Decalogue, which is
the foundation of the moral and religious code of Christianity, as well as
of Judaism, has as its first and greatest commandment., "Thou shalt have no
other God before me." No doctrine, therefore, can possibly be true which
contradicts this primary truth of natural as well as of revealed religion.
2. In the Bible all divine titles and attributes are ascribed equally to the
Father, Son, and Spirit. The same divine worship is rendered to them. The
one is as much the object of adoration, love, confidence, and devotion as
the other. It is not more evident that the Father is God, than that the Son
is God; nor is the deity of the Father and Son more clearly revealed than
that of the Spirit.
3. The terms Father, Son, and Spirit do not express different relations of
God to his creatures. They are not analogous to the terms Creator,
Preserver, and Benefactor, which do express such relations. The Scriptural
facts are, (a.) The Father says I; the Son says I; the Spirit says I. (b.)
The Father says Thou to the Son, and the Son says Thou to the Father; and in
like manner the Father and the Son use the pronouns He and Him in reference
to the Spirit. (c.) The Father loves the Son; the Son loves the Father; the
Spirit testifies of the Son. The Father, Son, and Spirit are severally
subject and object. They act and are acted upon, or are the objects of
action. Nothing is added to these facts when it is said that the Father,
Son, and Spirit are distinct persons; for a person is an intelligent subject
who can say I, who can be addressed as Thou, and who can act and can be the
object of action. The summation of the above facts is expressed in the
proposition, The one divine. Being subsists in three persons, Father, Son,
and Spirit. This proposition adds nothing to the facts themselves; for the
facts are, (1.) That there is one divine Being. (2.) The Father, Son, and
Spirit are divine. (3.) The Father, Son, and Spirit are, in the sense just
stated, distinct persons. (4.) Attributes being inseparable from substance,
the Scriptures, in saying that the Father, Son, and Spirit possess the same
attributes, say they are the same in substance; and, if the same in
substance, they are equal in power and glory.
4. Notwithstanding that the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same in
substance, and equal in power and glory, it is no less true according to the
Scriptures, (a.) That the Father is first, the Son second, and the Spirit
third. (b.) The Son is of the Father (?? ????, the ?????, ?????, ?????????,
??? ????); and the Spirit is of the Father and of the Son. (c.) The Father
sends the Son, and the Father and Son send the Spirit. (d.) The Father
operates through the Son, and the Father and Son operate through the Spirit.
The converse of these statements is never found. The Son is never said to
send the Father, nor to operate through Him nor is the Spirit ever said to
send the Father, or the Son, or to operate through them. The facts contained
in this paragraph are summed up in the proposition: In the Holy Trinity
there is a subordination of the Persons as to the mode of subsistence and
operation. This proposition again adds nothing to the facts themselves.
5. According to the Scriptures, the Father created the world, the Son
created the world, and the Spirit created the world. The Father preserves
all things; the Son upholds all things; and the Spirit is the source of all
life. These facts are expressed by saying that the persons of the Trinity
concur in all acts ad extra. Nevertheless there are some acts which are
predominantly referred to the Father, others to the Son, and others to the
Spirit. The Father creates, elects, and calls; the Son redeems; and the
Spirit sanctifies. And, on the other hand, there are certain acts, or
conditions, predicated of one person of the Trinity, which are never
predicated of either of the others. Thus, generation belongs exclusively to
the Father, filiation to the Son, and procession to he Spirit. This is the
form in which the doctrine of the Trinity lies in the Bible. The above
statement involves no philosophical element. It is simply an arrangement of
the clearly revealed facts bearing on this subject. This is the form in
which the doctrine has always entered into the faith of the Church, as a
part of its religious convictions and experience.
To say that this doctrine is incomprehensible, is to say nothing more than
must be admitted of any other great truth, whether of revelation or of
science. To say that it is impossible that the one divine substance can
subsist in three distinct persons, is certainly unreasonable, when,
according to that form of philosophy which has been the most widely
diffused, and the most persistent, everything that exists is only one of the
innumerable forms in which one and the same infinite substance subsists; and
when, according to the Realists, who once controlled the thinking world, all
men are the individualized forms of the numerically same substance called
generic humanity.
B. Scriptural Proof of the Doctrine.
No such doctrine as that of the Trinity can be adequately proved by any
citation of Scriptural passages. Its constituent elements are brought into
view, some in one place, and some in another. The unity of the Divine Being;
the true and equal divinity of the Father, Son, and Spirit; their distinct
personality; the relation in which they stand one to the other, and to the
Church and the world, are not presented in a doctrinal formula in the Word
of God, but the several constituent elements of the doctrine are asserted,
or assumed, over and over, from the beginning to the end of the Bible. It
is, therefore, by proving these elements separately, that the whole doctrine
can be most satisfactorily established. All that is here necessary is, a
reference to the general teachings of Scripture on the subject, and to some
few passages in which everything essential to the doctrine is included.
The Progressive Character of Divine Revelation.
1. The progressive character of divine revelation is recognized in relation
to all the great doctrines of the Bible. One of the strongest arguments for
the divine origin of the Scriptures is the organic relation of its several
parts. They comprise more than sixty books written by different men in
different ages, and yet they form one whole; not by mere external historical
relations, nor in virtue of the general identity of the subjects of which
they treat. but by their internal organic development. All that is in a
full-grown tree was potentially in the seed. All that we find unfolded in
the fulness of the gospel lies in a rudimental form in the earliest books of
the Bible. What at first is only obscurely intimated is gradually unfolded
in subsequent parts of the sacred volume, until the truth is revealed in its
fulness. This is true of the doctrines of redemption; of the person and work
of the Messiah, the promised seed of the woman; of the nature and office of
the Holy Spirit; and of a future state beyond the grave. And this is
specially true of the doctrine of the Trinity. Even in the book of Genesis
there are intimations of the doctrine which receive their true
interpretation in later revelations. That the names of God are in the plural
form; that the personal pronouns are often in the first person plural ("Let
us make man in our image"); that the form of benediction is threefold, and
other facts of like nature, may be explained in different ways. But when it
becomes plain, from the progress of the revelation, that there are three
persons in the Godhead, then such forms of expression can hardly fail to be
recognized as having their foundation in that great truth.
2. Much more important, however, is the fact, that not only in Genesis, but
also in all the early books of Scripture, we find a distinction made between
Jehovah and the angel of Jehovah, who himself is God, to whom all divine
titles are given, and divine worship is rendered. As the revelation is
unfolded, such distinction becomes more and more manifest. This messenger of
God it called the word, the wisdom, the Son of God. His personality and
divinity are clearly revealed. He is of old, even from everlasting, the
Mighty God, the Adonai, the Lord of David, Jehovah our Righteousness, who
was to be born of a virgin, and bear the sins of many.
3. In like manner, even in the first chapter of Genesis, the Spirit of God
is represented as the source of all intelligence, order, and life in the
created universe; and in the following books of the Old Testament He is
represented as inspiring the prophets, giving wisdom, strength, and goodness
to statesmen and warriors, and to the people of God. This Spirit is not an
agency, but an agent, who teaches and selects; who can be sinned against and
grieved; and who, in the New Testament, is unmistakably revealed as a
distinct person. When John the Baptist appeared, we find him speaking of the
Holy Spirit as of a person with whom his countrymen were familiar, as an
object of divine worship and the giver of saving blessings. Our divine Lord
also takes this truth for granted, and promised to send the Spirit, as a
Paraclete, to take his place; to instruct, comfort, and strengthen them,
whom they were to receive and obey. Thus, without any violent transition,
the earliest revelations of this mystery were gradually unfolded, until the
Triune God, Father, Son, and Spirit, appears in the New Testament as the
universally recognized God of all believers.
The Formula of Baptism.
4. In the formulas of Baptism and of the Apostolic Benediction, provision
was made to keep this doctrine constantly before the minds of the people, as
a cardinal article of the Christian faith. Every Christian is baptized in
the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The personality,
the divinity, and consequently the equality of these three subjects, are
here taken for granted. The association of the Son and Spirit with the
Father, the identity of relation, so far as dependence and obedience are
concerned, which we sustain to the Father, Son, and Spirit respectively; the
confession and profession involved in the ordinances; all forbid any other
interpretation of this formula than that which it has always received in the
Church. If the expression, "In the name of the Father," implies the
personality of the Father, the same implication is involved when it is used
in reference to the Son and Spirit. If we acknowledge our subjection and
allegiance to the one, we acknowledge the same subjection and allegiance to
the other divine persons here named.
The Apostolic Benediction.
In the apostolic benediction a prayer is addressed to Christ for his grace,
to the Father for his love, and to the Spirit for his fellowship. The
personality and divinity of each are therefore solemnly recognized every
time that this benediction is pronounced and received.
5. In the record of our Lord's baptism, the Father addresses the Son, and
the Spirit descends in the form of a dove. In the discourse of Christ,
recorded in the 14th, 15th, and 16th chapters of John's Gospel, our Lord
speaks to and of the Father, and promises to send the Spirit to teach,
guide, and comfort his disciples. In that discourse the personality and
divinity of the Father, Son, and Spirit are recognized with equal clearness.
In 1 Cor. xii. 4-6, the Apostle speaks of diversity of gifts, but the same
Spirit; of diversity of administration, but the same Lord; and of
diversities of operations, but the same God.
It is not to be forgotten, however, that the faith of the Church in the
doctrine of the Trinity, does not rest exclusively or principally on such
arguments as those mentioned above. The great foundation of that faith is
what is taught everywhere in the Bible of the unity of the Divine Being; of
the personality and divinity of the Father, Son, and Spirit; and of their
mutual relations.
The Transition Period.
A. The Necessity for a more Definite Statement of the Doctrine.
The Biblical form of the doctrine of the Trinity, as given above, includes
everything that is essential to the integrity of the doctrine, and all that
is embraced in the faith of ordinary Christians. It is not all, however,
that is included in the creeds of the Church. It is characteristic of the
Scriptures, that the truths therein presented are exhibited in the form in
which they address themselves to our religious consciousness. To this
feature of the Word of God, its adaptation to general use is to be
attributed. A truth often lies in the mind of the Church as an object of
faith, long before it is wrought cut in its doctrinal form; that is, before
it is analyzed, its contents clearly ascertained, and its elements stated in
due relation to each other. When a doctrine so complex as that of the
Trinity is presented as an object of faith, the mind is forced to reflect
upon it, to endeavour to ascertain what it includes, and how its several
parts are to be stated, so as to avoid confusion or contradiction. Besides
this internal necessity for a definite statement of the doctrine, such
statement was forced upon the Church from without. Even among those who
honestly intended to receive what the Scriptures taught upon the subject, it
was inevitable that there should arise diversity in the mode of statement,
and confusion and contradiction in the use of terms. As the Church is one,
not externally merely, but really and inwardly, this diversity and confusion
are as much an evil, a pain, and an embarrassment, troubling its inward
peace, as the like inconsistency and confusion would be in an individual
mind. There was, therefore, an inward and outward necessity, in the Church
itself, for a clear, comprehensive, and consistent statement of the various
elements of this complex doctrine of Christian faith.
B. Conflict with Error.
Besides this necessity for such a statement of the doctrine as would satisfy
the minds of those who received it, there was a further necessity of
guarding the truth from the evil influence of false or erroneous exhibitions
of it. The conviction was deeply settled in the minds of all Christians that
Christ is a divine person. The glory which He displayed, the authority which
He assumed, the power which He exhibited, the benefits which He conferred,
necessitated the recognition of Him as the true God. No less strong,
however, was the conviction that there is only one God. The difficulty was,
to reconcile these two fundamental articles of the Christian faith. The mode
of solving this difficulty, by rejecting one of these articles to save the
other, was repudiated by common consent. There were those who denied the
divinity of Christ, and endeavoured to satisfy the minds of believers by
representing Him as the best of men; as filled with the Spirit of God; as
the Son of God, because miraculously begotten; or as animated and controlled
by the power of God: but, nevertheless, merely a man. This view of the
person of Christ was so universally rejected in the early Church, as hardly
to occasion controversy. The errors with which the advocates of the doctrine
of the Trinity had to contend were of a higher order. It was of course
unavoidable that both parties, the advocates and the opponents of the
doctrine, availed themselves of the current philosophies of the age.
Consciously or unconsciously, all men are more or less controlled in their
modes of thinking on divine subjects by the metaphysical opinions which
prevail around them, and in which they have been educated. We accordingly
find that Gnosticism and Platonism coloured the views of both the advocates
and the opponents of the doctrine of the Trinity during the Ante-Nicene
period.
The Gnostics.
The Gnostics held that there was a series of emanations from the primal
Being, of different orders or ranks. It was natural that those addicted to
this system, and who professed to be Christians, should represent Christ as
one of the highest of these emanations, or Eons. This view of his person
admitted of his being regarded as consubstantial with God, as divine, as the
creator of the world, as a distinct person, and of his having at least an
apparent or docetic union with humanity. It therefore suited some of the
conditions of the complicated problem to be solved. It, however, represented
Christ as one of a series of emanations, and reduced Him to the category of
dependent beings, exalted above others of the same class in rank, but not in
nature. It moreover involved the denial of his true humanity, which was as
essential to the faith of the Church, and as dear to his people as his
divinity. All explanations of the Trinity, therefore, founded on the Gnostic
philosophy were rejected as unsatisfactory and heretical.
The Platonizers.
The Platonic system as modified by Philo, and applied by him to the
philosophical explanation of the theology of the Old Testament, had far more
influence on the speculations of the early Fathers than Gnosticism.
According to Plato, God formed, or had in the divine reason, the ideas,
types, or models of all things, which ideas became the living, formative
principles of all actual existences. The divine reason, with its contents,
was the Logos. Philo, therefore, in explaining creation, represents the
Logos as the sum of all these types or ideas, which make up the ??????
??????, or ideal world. In this view the Logos was designated as ??????????
(mente conceptus). In creation, or the self-manifestation of God in nature,
this divine reason or Logos is born, sent forth, or or projected; becoming
the ????? ??????????, giving life and form to all things. God, as thus
manifested in the world, Philo called not only ?????, but also ????, ?????,
???? ?????????, ??????????, ????, ??????????, ????, ????????, ????, and
???????? ????. In the application of this philosophy to the doctrine of
Christ, it was easy to make him the ????? ??????????, to assume and assert
his personality, and to represent him as specially manifested or incarnate
in Jesus of Nazareth. This attempt was made by Justin Martyr, Tatian, and
Theophilus. It succeeded so far as it exalted Christ above all creatures; it
made him the creator and preserver of all things, the light and life of the
world. It did not satisfy the consciousness of the Church, because it
represented the divinity of Christ as essentially subordinate; it made his
generation antemundane, but not eternal; and especially because the
philosophy, from which this theory of the Logos was borrowed, was utterly
opposed to the Christian system. The Logos of Plato and Philo was only a
collective term for the ideal world, the ???? ??? ?????; and therefore the
real distinction between God and the Logos, was that between God as hidden
and God as revealed. God in himself was ? ????; God in nature was the Logos.
This is, after all, the old heathen, pantheistic doctrine, which makes the
universe the manifestation, or existence form of God.
Origen's Doctrine.
Origen presented the Platonic doctrine of the generation and nature of the
Logos in a higher form than that in which it had been exhibited in the
speculations of others among the fathers. He not only insisted, in
opposition to the Monarchians or Unitarians, upon the distinct personality
of the Son, but also upon his eternal, as opposed to his antemundane,
generation. Nevertheless, he referred this generation to the will of the
Father. The Son was thus reduced to the category of creatures, for according
to Origen, creation is from eternity. Another unsatisfactory feature of all
these speculations on the Logos-theory was, that it made no provision for
the Holy Spirit. The Logos was the Word, or Son of God, begotten before
creation in order to create, or, according to Origen, begotten from
eternity; but what was the Holy Spirit? He appears in the baptismal service
and in the apostolic benediction as a distinct person, but the Logos-theory
provided only for a Dyad, and not a Triad. Hence the greatest confusion
appears in the utterances of this class of writers concerning the Holy
Ghost. Sometimes, He is identified with the Logos; sometimes, He is
represented as the substance common to the Father and the Son; sometimes, as
the mere power or efficiency of God; sometimes, as a distinct person
subordinate to the Logos, and a creature.
The Sabellian Theory.
Another method of solving this great problem and of satisfying the religious
convictions of the Church, was that adopted by the Monarchians,
Patripassians, or Unitarians, as they were indifferently called. They
admitted a modal trinity. They acknowledged the true divinity of Christ, but
denied any personal distinctions in the Godhead. The same person is at once
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; these terms expressing the different relations
in which God reveals Himself in the world and in the Church. Praxeas, of
Asia Minor, who taught this doctrine in Rome, A.D. 200; Noetus, of Smyrna,
A.D. 230; Beryll, bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, A.D. 250; and especially
Sabellius, a presbyter of Ptolemais, A.D. 250, after whom this doctrine was
called Sabellianism, were the principal advocates of this theory. The only
point as to which this doctrine satisfied the religious convictions of
Christians, was the true divinity of our Lord. But as it denied the distinct
personality of the Father and of the Spirit, to whom every believer felt
himself to stand in a personal relation, to whom worship and prayers were
addressed, it could not be received by the people of God. Its opposition to
Scripture was apparent. In the Bible the Father is represented as constantly
addressing the Son as "Thou," as loving Him, as sending Him, as rewarding
and exalting Him; and the Son as constantly addresses the Father and refers
everything to his will, so that their distinct personality is one of the
most clearly revealed doctrines of the Word of God. Sabellianism was,
therefore, soon almost universally rejected.
Arianism.
Although Origen had insisted on the distinct personality of the Son, and
upon his eternal generation, and although he freely called him God,
nevertheless he would not admit his equality with God. The Father, alone,
according to him was ? ????, the Son was simply ????. The Son was ???? ??
???? and not ????-????. And this subordination was not simply as to the mode
of subsistence and operation, but as to nature; for Origen taught that the
Son was of a different essence from the Father, ?????? ???? ??????, and owed
his existence to the will of the Father. His disciples carried out his
doctrine and avowedly made Christ a creature. This was done by Dionysius of
Alexandria, a scholar of Origen, who spoke of the Son as ?????? and ??????,
a mode of representation, however, which he subsequently retracted or
explained away. It is plain, however, that the principles of Origen were
inconsistent with the true divinity of Christ. It was not long, therefore,
before Arius, another presbyter of Alexandria, openly maintained that the
Son was not eternal, but was posterior to the Father; that He was created
not from the substance of God, but ?? ??? ?????, and therefore was not
????????? with the Father. He admitted that the Son existed before any other
creature, and that it was by Him God created the world.
It is to be constantly remembered that these speculations were the business
of the theologians. They neither expressed nor affected to express the mind
of the Church. The great body of the people drew their faith, then, as now,
immediately from the Scriptures and from the services of the sanctuary. They
were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. They addressed themselves to the Father as the creator of heaven and
earth, and as their reconciled God and Father, and to Jesus Christ as their
Redeemer, and to the Holy Ghost as their sanctifier and comforter. They
loved, worshipped, and trusted the one as they did the others. This was the
religious belief of the Church, which remained undisturbed by the
speculations and controversies of the theologians, in their attempts to
vindicate and explain the common faith. This state of confusion was,
however, a great evil, and in order to bring the Church to an agreement as
to the manner in which this fundamental doctrine of Christianity should be
stated, the Emperor Constantine summoned the First Ecumenical Council, to
meet at Nice, in Nicomedia, A.D. 325.
The Church Doctrine as presented by the Council of Nice.
A. The Objects for which that Council was convened.
The object for which the Council was called together was three-fold. (1.) To
remedy the confusion which prevailed in the use of several important words
employed in discussions on the doctrine of the Trinity. (2.) To condemn
errors which had been adopted in different parts of the Church. (3.) To
frame such a statement of the doctrine as would include all its Scriptural
elements, and satisfy the religious convictions of the mass of believers.
This was an exceedingly difficult task.
1. Because the usus loquendi of certain important terms was not then
determined. The word ?????????, for example, was used in two opposite
senses. It was often taken, in its etymological sense, for substance, and is
used by the Council itself as synonymous with ?????. But it had already
begun to be used in the sense of person. As it expresses reality, as opposed
to what is phenomenal or apparent, or mode of manifestation, it came to be
universally used in the Greek Church, in the latter sense, as a safeguard
against the idea of a mere modal Trinity. It will be admitted that great
confusion must prevail, if one man should say there is only one ????????? in
the Godhead, and another affirm that there are three, when both meant the
same thing, the one using the word in the sense of substance, and the other
in that of person.
In the Latin Church the same difficulty was experienced in the use of the
words substantia and subsistentia. These words were often interchanged as
equivalent, and both were used, sometimes in the sense of substance, and
sometimes in that of suppositum. Usage finally determined the former to mean
substance or essence, and the latter a mode in which substance exists, i.e.,
suppositum. According to established usage, therefore, there is one
substance, and there are three subsistences in the Godhead.
To express the idea of a suppositum intelligens, or self-conscious agent,
the Greeks first used the word ????????. But as that word properly means the
face, the aspect, and as it was used by the Sabellians to express their
doctrine of the threefold aspect under which the Godhead was revealed, it
was rejected, and the word ????????? adopted. The Latin word persona (from
per and sono) properly means a mask worn by an actor and through which he
spoke; and then the role or character which the actor sustained. On this
account the word had a struggle before it was adopted in the terminology of
theology.
The celebrated term ?????????, so long the subject of controversy, was not
free from ambiguity. It expressed plainly enough sameness of substance, but
whether that sameness was specific or numerical, the usage of the word left
undecided. Porphyry is quoted as saying, that the souls of men and of
irrational animals are ?????????, and Aristotle as saying that the stars are
?????????, and men and brutes are said to be ????????? as to their bodies;
and in like manner angels, demons, and human souls, are said to be all
?????????. In this sense, Peter, James, and John are ?????????, as having
the same nature in kind. On this account the use of the word was objected
to, as admitting of a Tritheistic interpretation. The Council, however,
determined the sense in which it was to be understood in their decisions, by
saying that the Son was begotten ?? ??? ?????? ??? ??????, and by denying
that He was created. As God is a spirit, and as we are spirits, we are said,
in Scripture, to be like Him, and to be his children, to be of the same
nature. But with regard to the Son it was declared that He was of the same
numerical essence with the Father; He is truly God, possessing the same
attributes and entitled to the same homage. Thus explained, the word became
an insuperable barrier against the adoption of the Nicene Creed by any who
denied the true divinity of the Son of God.
Difference of Opinion among the Members of the Council.
2. A second difficulty with which the Council had to contend was diversity
of opinion among its own members. All the conflicting views which had
agitated the Church were there represented. The principal parties were,
first, the Arians, who held, (1.) That the Son owed his existence to the
will of the Father. (2.) That He was not eternal; but that there was a time
when He was not. (3.) That He was created ?? ??? ?????, out of nothing, and
was therefore ?????? ??? ??????. (4.) That He was not immutable, but ???????
?????. (5.) That his pre�minence consisted in the fact that He alone was
created immediately by God, whereas all other creatures were created by the
Son. (6.) He was not God of Himself, but was made God, ??????????; that is,
on account of his exalted nature, and the relation in which He stands to all
other creatures, as Creator and Governor, He was entitled to divine worship.
One of the passages of Scripture on which the Arians principally relied was
Prov. viii. 22, which in the Septuagint is rendered: ?????? ?? ????? ????
????? (He created me in the beginning of his ways). As Wisdom, there spoken
of, was universally understood to be the Logos, and as the Septuagint was
regarded as authoritative, this passage seemed to prove, beyond dispute,
that the Logos or Son was created. The Orthodox were forced to explain away
this passage by saying that ??????? was here to be taken in the sense of
??????, the word elsewhere used to express the relation between the Father
and the Son. Ignorance, or neglect of the Hebrew, prevented their answering
the argument of the Arians by showing that the word ?????, here rendered by
the Septuagint ??????, means not only to establish, but to possess. The
Vulgate, therefore, correetly renders the passage, "Dominus possidet me;"
and the English version also reads, "The Lord possessed me." The Arians
proper constituted a small minority of the Council.
The Semi-Arians.
The second party included the Semi-Arians and the disciples of Origen. These
held with the Arians, (1.) That the Son owed his existence to the will of
the Father. (2.) That He was not of the same essence, but ?????? ????
??????. They seemed to hold that there was an essence intermediate between
the divine substance and created substances. It was in reference to this
form of opinion that Augustine afterwards said,[2] "Unde liquido apparet
ipsum factum non esse per quem facta sunt omnia. Et si factus non est,
creatura non est: si autem creatura non est, ejusdem cum Patre substanti�
est. Omnis enim substantia qu� Deus non est, creatura est; et qu� creatura
non est, Deus est."
(3) The Son was, therefore, subordinate to the Father, not merely in rank or
mode of subsistence, but in nature. He belonged to a different order of
beings. He was not ????????, ? ????, or ? ???????? ????; but simply ????, a
term which, according to Origen, could be properly applied to the higher
orders of intelligent creatures.
(4.) The Son, although thus inferior to the Father, having life in Himself,
was the source of life, i.e., the Creator.
(5.) The Holy Spirit, according to most of the Arians and to Origen, was
created by the Son, - the first and highest of the creatures called into
being by his power.
The Orthodox.
The third party in the Council were the Orthodox, who constituted the great
majority. All Christians were the worshippers of Christ. He was to them the
object of supreme love and the ground of their confidence; to Him they were
subject in heart and life. They looked to Him for everything. He was their
God in the highest sense of the word. He was, moreover, in their
apprehension, a distinct person, and not merely another name for the Father.
But as the conviction was no less deeply rooted in the minds of Christians,
that there is only one God or divine Being, the problem which the Council
had to solve was to harmonize these apparently incompatible convictions,
namely, that there is only one God, and yet that the Father is God, and the
Son, as a distinct person, is God, the same in substance and equal in power
and glory. The only thing to be done was, to preserve the essential elements
of the doctrine, and yet not make the statement of it self-contradictory. To
meet these conditions, the Council framed the following Creed, namely, "We
believe in one God, the Father almighty, the maker of all things visible and
invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only begotten,
begotten of the Father, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,
Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten and not made, consubstantial
with the Father, by whom all things were made whether in heaven or on earth;
who for us men and our salvation came down from heaven; and was incarnate
and became man, suffered and rose again on the third day; ascended into
heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead. And we believe in
the Holy Ghost. But those who say, that there was a time when He (the Son)
was not, that He was not before He was made, or was made out of nothing, or
of another or different essence or substance, that He was a creature, or
mutable, or susceptible of change, the Holy Catholic Church anathematizes."
B. Council of Constantinople.
The so-called Athanasian Creed.
The most obvious deficiency in the Nicene Creed is the omission of any
definite statement concerning the Holy Spirit. This is to be accounted for
by the fact that the doctrine concerning the Son, and his relation to the
Father, was then the absorbing subject of controversy. Athanasius, however,
and other expounders and defenders of the Nicene Creed, insisted that the
Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, and that such was the
mind of the Council. As this, however, was disputed, it was distinctly
asserted in several provincial Councils, as in that of Alexandria, A.D. 362,
and that of Rome, A.D. 375. It was opposition to this doctrine which led to
the calling of the Second Ecumenical Council, which met in Constantinople,
A.D. 381. In the modification of the Nicene Creed, as issued by that
Council, the following words were added to the clause, "We believe in the
Holy Ghost," namely: "Who is the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from
the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and
glorified, who spoke by the prophets." Some of the Greek and the great body
of the Latin fathers held that the Spirit proceeded from the Son as well as
from the Father, and by the Synod of Toledo, A.D. 589, the words filioque
were added to the creed. This addition was one of the causes which led to
the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches.
The Athanasian Creed.
After the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, the controversies which
agitated the Church had reference to the constitution of the person of
Christ. Before the questions involved in those controversies were
authoritatively decided, the so-called Athanasian Creed, an amplification of
those of Nice and of Constantinople came to be generally adopted, at least,
among the Western Churches. That creed was in these words, namely: "Whoever
would be saved, must first of all take care that he hold the Catholic faith,
which, except a man preserve whole and inviolate, he shall without doubt
perish eternally. But this is the Catholic faith, that we worship one God in
trinity, and trinity in unity. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing
the substance. For the person of the Father is one; of the Son, another; of
the Holy Spirit, another. But the divinity of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit, is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal. Such as
is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit. The Father is
uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is
infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite. The Father is
eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are
not three eternal Beings, but one eternal Being. As also there are not three
uncreated Beings, nor three infinite Beings, but one uncreated and one
infinite Being. In like manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is
omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. And yet, there are not three
omnipotent Beings, but one omnipotent Being. Thus the Father is God, the
Son, God, and the Holy Spirit, God. And yet there are not three Gods, but
one God only. The Father is Lord, the Son, Lord, and the Holy Spirit, Lord.
And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only. For as we are
compelled by Christian truth to confess each person distinctively to be both
God and Lord, we are prohibited by the Catholic religion to say that there
are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made by none, nor created, nor
begotten. The Son is from the Father alone, not made, not created, but
begotten. The Holy Spirit is not created by the Father and the Son, nor
begotten, but proceeds. Therefore, there is one Father, not three Fathers;
one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in
this Trinity there is nothing prior or posterior, nothing greater or less,
but all three persons are coeternal, and coequal to themselves. So that
through all, as was said above, both unity in trinity, and trinity in unity
is to be adored. Whoever would be saved, let him thus think concerning the
Trinity."
It is universally agreed that Athanasius was not the author of this creed.
It appears only in the Latin language in its original form; and it has modes
of expression borrowed from the writings of Augustine, and of Vincent of
Lerins. A.D. 434. As it also contains allusions to subsequent controversies
concerning the person of Christ, it is naturally referred to some period
between the middle of the fifth and the middle of the sixth centuries.
Although not issued with the authority of any Council, it was soon
universally admitted in the West, and subsequently in the East, and was
everywhere regarded as an ecumenical symbol.
The Doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in these three ancient creeds, -
the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, and Athanasian (so-called), - is the
Church Form of that fundamental article of the Christian faith. There is no
difference, except as to amplification, between these several formulas.
Points decided by these Councils.
A. Against Sabellianism.
These Councils decided that the terms Father, Son, and Spirit, were not
expressive merely of relations ad extra, analogous to the terms, Creator,
Preserver, and Benefactor. This was the doctrine known as Sabellianism,
which assumed that the Supreme Being is not only one in essence, but one in
person. The Church doctrine asserts that Father, Son, and Spirit express
internal, necessary, and eternal relations in the Godhead; that they are
personal designations, so that the Father is one person, the Son another
person, and the Spirit another person. They differ not as ???? ??? ????, but
as ????? ??? ?????; each says I, and each says Thou, to either of the
others. The word used in the Greek Church to express this fact was first
????????, and afterwards, and by general consent ?????????; in the Latin
Church, "persona," and in English, person. The idea expressed by the word in
its application to the distinctions in the Godhead, is just as clear and
definite as in its application to men.
B. Against the Arians and Semi-Arians.
The Councils held that the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same in
substance, and equal in power and glory. Whatever divine perfection, whether
eternity, immutability, infinity, omnipotence, or holiness, justice,
goodness, or truth, can be predicated of the one, can in the same sense and
measure be predicated of the others. These attributes belonging to the
divine essence, and that essence being common to the three persons, the
attributes or perfections are in like manner common to each. It is not the
Father as such, nor the Son as such, who is self-existent, infinite, and
eternal, but the Godhead, or divine essence, which subsists in the three
persons. The Greek words used to express that which was common to the three
persons of the Trinity were, as we have seen, ?????, ?????, and at first,
?????????; to which correspond the Latin words substantia, or essentia, and
natura; and the English, substance, essence, and nature. The word selected
by the Nicene fathers to express the idea of community of substance, was,
?????????. But this word, as we have already seen, may express either
specific sameness, or numerical identity. In the former sense, all spirits,
whether God, angels, or men, are ?????????. They are similar in essence,
i.e., they are rational intelligences. That the Council intended the word to
be taken in the latter sense, as expressing numerical identity, is plain,
(1.) Because in its wider sense ????????? does not differ from ??????????,
which word the Council refused to adopt. The Arians were willing to admit
that the Father, Son, and Spirit were ??????????, but refused to admit that
they were ?????????. This proves that the words were used in radically
different senses. (2.) Because this Council declares that the Son was
eternal; that He was not created or made, but begotten ?? ??? ?????? ???
??????, "of the very essence of the Father." (3.) This is implied in the
explanation of "eternal generation" universally adopted by the Nicene
fathers, as "the eternal communication of the same numerical essence whole
and entire, from the Father to the Son." (4.) If the term ????????? be taken
in the sense of specific sameness, then the Nicene Creed teaches Tritheism.
The Father, Son, and Spirit are three Gods in the same sense that Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob are three men, for all men in that sense of the term are
?????????. It is the clear doctrine of these Councils that the same
numerical, infinite, indivisible essence subsists in the three persons of
the Trinity. This is still further evident from the inadequate illustrations
of this great mystery which the early fathers sought for in nature; as of
the light, heat, and splendor of the sun; the fountain and its streams; and
especially from memory, intelligence, and will in man. In all these
illustrations, however inadequate, the point of analogy was unity (numerical
identity) of essence with triplicity.
C. The Mutual Relation of the Persons of the Trinity.
On this subject the Nicene doctrine includes, -
1. The principle of the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the
Spirit to the Father and the Son. But this subordination does not imply
inferiority. For as the same divine essence with all its infinite
perfections is common to the Father, Son, and Spirit, there can be no
inferiority of one person to the other in the Trinity. Neither does it imply
posteriority; for the divine essence common to the several persons is
self-existent and eternal. The subordination intended is only that which
concerns the mode of subsistence and operation, implied in the Scriptural
facts that the Son is of the Father, and the Spirit is of the Father and the
Son, and that the Father operates through the Son, and the Father and the
Son through the Spirit.
2. The several persons of the Trinity are distinguished by a certain
"property," as it is called, or characteristic. That characteristic is
expressed by their distinctive appellations. The first person is
characterized as Father, in his relation to the second person; the second is
characterized as Son, in relation to the first person; and the third as
Spirit, in relation to the first and second persons. Paternity, therefore,
is the distinguishing property of the Father; filiation of the Son; and
procession of the Spirit. It will be observed that no attempt at explanation
of these relations is given in these ecumenical creeds, namely, the Nicene,
that of Constantinople, and the Athanasian. The mere facts as revealed in
Scripture are affirmed.
3. The third point decided concerning the relation of the persons of the
Trinity, one to the other, relates to their union. As the essence of the
Godhead is common to the several persons, they have a common intelligence,
will, and power. There are not in God three intelligences, three wills,
three efficiencies. The Three are one God, and therefore have one mind and
will. This intimate union was expressed in the Greek Church by the word
???????????, which the Latin words inexistentia, inhabitatio, and
intercommunio, were used to explain. These terms were intended to express
the Scriptural facts that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the
Son; that where the Father is, there the Son and Spirit are; that what the
one does the others do (the Father creates, the Son creates, the Spirit
creates), or, as our Lord expresses it, "What things soever" the Father
"doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John v. 19.) So also what the
one knows, the others know. "The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep
things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of
man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the
Spirit of God." (1 Cor. ii. 10, 11.) A common knowledge implies a common
consciousness. In man the soul and body are distinct, yet, while united,
they have a common life. We distinguish between acts of the intellect, and
acts of the will, and yet in every act of the will there is an exercise of
the intelligence; as in every act of the affections there is a joint action
of the intelligence and will. These are not illustrations of the relations
of the persons of the Trinity, which are ineffable, but of the fact that in
other and entirely different spheres there is this community of life in
different subsistences, - different subsistences, at least so far as the
body and soul are concerned.
This fact - of the intimate union, communion, and inhabitation of the
persons of the Trinity - is the reason why everywhere in Scripture, and
instinctively by all Christians, God as God is addressed as a person, in
perfect consistency with the Tripersonality of the Godhead. We can, and do
pray to each of the Persons separately; and we pray to God as God; for the
three persons are one God; one not only in substance, but in knowledge,
will, and power. To expect that we, who cannot understand anything, not even
ourselves, should understand these mysteries of the Godhead, is to the last
degree unreasonable. But as in every other sphere we must believe what we
cannot understand; so we may believe all that God has revealed in his Word
concerning Himself, although we cannot understand the Almighty unto
perfection.
Examination of the Nicene Doctrine.
A. Subordination.
A distinction must be made between the Nicene Creed (as amplified in that of
Constantinople) and the doctrine of the Nicene fathers. The creeds are
nothing more than a well-ordered arrangement of the facts of Scripture which
concern the doctrine of the Trinity. They assert the distinct personality of
the Father, Son, and Spirit; their mutual relation as expressed by those
terms; their absolute unity as to substance or essence, and their consequent
perfect equality; and the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the
Spirit to the Father and the Son, as to the mode of subsistence and
operation. These are Scriptural facts, to which the creeds in question add
nothing; and it is in this sense they have been accepted by the Church
universal.
But the Nicene fathers did undertake, to a greater or less degree, to
explain these facts. These explanations relate principally to the
subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father, and to what is meant by
generation, or the relation between the Father and the Son. These two points
are so intimately related that they cannot be considered separately. Yet as
the former is more comprehensive than the latter, it may be expedient to
speak of them in order, although what belongs to the one head, in a good
degree belongs also to the other.
The ambiguity of the word ????????? has already been remarked upon. As
?????,a may mean generic nature common to many individuals, not unum in
numero, but ens unum in multis, so ????????? (consubstantial) may mean
nothing more than sameness of species or kind. It is therefore said, that
"the term homoousion, in its strict grammatical sense differs from
monoousion or toutoousion, as well as from heteroousion, and signifies not
numerical identity, but equality of essence or community of nature among
several beings."[3] "The Nicene Creed," Dr. Schaff adds, "does not expressly
assert the singleness or numerical unity of the divine essence (unless it be
in the first article: 'we believe in one God'), and the main point with the
Nicene fathers was to urge against Arianism the strict divinity and
essential equality of the Son and Holy Ghost with the Father. If we press
the difference of homoousion from monoousion, and overlook the many passages
in which they assert with equal emphasis the monarchia or numerical unity of
the Godhead, we must charge them with tritheism."
Gieseler goes much further, and denies that the Nicene fathers held the
numerical identity of essence in the persons of the Trinity. The Father,
Son, and Spirit were the same in substance as having the same nature, or
same kind of substance. This he infers was their doctrine not only from the
general style of their teaching, and from special declarations, but from the
illustrations which they habitually employed. The Father and the Son are the
same in substance as among men father and son have the same nature; or as
Basil says, Father and Son differ in rank, as do the angels, although they
are the same in nature. Gieseler says that the numerical sameness of nature
in the three divine persons, was first asserted by Augustine. It was he,
according to Gieseler, who first excluded all idea of subordination in the
Trinity.[4] "Athanasius and Hilary understood the proposition, 'There is
one God' of the Father. Basil the Great and the two Gregories understood by
the word God a generic idea (Gattungsbegriff), belonging equally to the
Father and the Son. Basil in the 'Apologia ad C�sarienses,' says, ????? ???
????, c? ?? ??????, ???? ?? ????? ???????????, and endeavours to show that
there can be no question of number in reference to God, as numerical
difference pertains only to material things. Augustine on the contrary
expressly excludes the idea of generic unity,[5] and understands the
proposition 'there is one God' not of the Father alone, but of the whole
Trinity,[6] and, therefore, taught that there is one God in three persons."
This, however, is the precise doctrine of the Nicene Creed itself, which
affirms faith "in one God," and not in three. Basil in the place quoted is
refuting the charge of Tritheism. His words are, ???? ?? ???? ????????????
???? ?? ???????, ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ????, etc.[7] On page
reasons have already been given for assuming that the sameness of substance
taught by the Nicene fathers was not simply generic but numerical. On this
subject Pearson, a thorough advocate of the Nicene Creed, says, "As it (the
divine nature) is absolutely immaterial and incorporeal, it is also
indivisible; Christ cannot have any part of it only communicated unto Him,
but the whole, by which He must be acknowledged co-essential, of the same
substance with the Father; as the Council of Nice determined, and the
ancient fathers before them taught."[8] If the whole divine essence belongs
equally to the several persons of the Trinity, there is an end to the
question, whether the sameness be specific or numerical. Accordingly the
Bishop says: "The Divine essence being by reason of its simplicity not
subject to division, and in respect of its infinity uncapable of
multiplication, is so communicated as not to be multiplied; insomuch that He
which proceedeth by that communication hath not only the same nature, but is
also the same God. The Father God, and the Word God; Abraham man, and Isaac
man: but Abraham one man, Isaac another man; not so the Father one God, and
the Word another, but the Father and the Word both the same God."[9]
Gieseler says that Augustine effectually excluded all idea of subordination
in the Trinity by teaching the numerical sameness of essence in the persons
of the Godhead. This does indeed preclude all priority and all superiority
as to being and perfection. But it does not preclude subordination as to the
mode of subsistence and operation. This is distinctly recognized in
Scripture, and was as fully taught by Augustine as by any of the Greek
fathers, and is even more distinctly affirmed in the so-called Athanasian
Creed, representing the school of Augustine, than in the Creed of the
Council of Nice. There is, therefore, no just ground of objection to the
Nicene Creed for what it teaches on that subject. It does not go beyond the
facts of Scripture. But the fathers who framed that creed, and those by whom
it was defended, did go beyond those facts. They endeavoured to explain what
was the nature of that subordination. While denying to the Father any
priority or superiority to the other persons of the Trinity, as to being or
perfection, they still spoke of the Father as the Monas, as having in order
of thought the whole Godhead in Himself; so that He alone was God of Himself
(????????, in that sense of the word), that He was the fountain, the cause,
the root, fons, origo, principium, of the divinity as subsisting in the Son
and Spirit; that He was greater than the other divine persons. They
understood many passages which speak of the inferiority of the Son to the
Father, of the Logos as such; and not of the historical Son of God clothed
in our nature. Thus Waterland[10] says of these fathers, "The title of ?
????, being understood in the same sense with ????????, was, as it ought to
be, generally reserved to the Father, as the distinguishing personal
character of the first person of the Holy Trinity. And this amounts to no
more than the acknowledgment of the Father's prerogative as Father. But as
it might also signify any Person who is truly and essentially God, it might
properly be applied to the Son too: and it is so applied sometimes, though
not so often as it is to the Father."
Hilary of Poictiers expresses the general idea of the Nicene fathers on this
point, when he says: "Et quis non Patrem potiorem confitebitur, ut ingenitum
a genito, ut patrem a filio, ut eum qui miserit ab eo qui missus est, ut
volentem ab ipso qui obediat? Et ipse nobis erit testis: Pater major me est.
H�c ita ut sunt, intelligenda sunt, sed cavendum est, ne apud imperitos
gloriam Filii honor Patris infirmet."[11] Bishop Pearson [12] says the
pre�minence of the Father "undeniably consisteth in this: that He is God not
of any other but of Himself, and that there is no other person who is God,
but is God of Himself. It is no diminution to the Son, to say He is from
another, for his very name imports as much; but it were a diminution to the
Father to speak so of Him; and there must be some pre�minence, where there
is place for derogation. What the Father is, He is from none; what the Son
is, He is from Him; what the first is, He giveth; what the second is, He
receiveth. The First is Father indeed by reason of his Son, but He is not
God by reason of Him; whereas the Son is not so only in regard of the
Father, but also God by reason of the same." Among the patristical
authorities quoted by Pearson, are the following from Augustine:[13] "Pater
de nullo patre, Filius de Deo Patre. Pater quod est, a nullo est: quod autem
Pater est, propter Filium est. Filius vero et quod Filius est, propter
Patrem est, et quod est, a Patre est." "Filius non hoc tantum habet
nascendo, ut Filius sit, sed omnino ut sit. . . . . Filius non tantum ut sit
Filius, quod relative dicitur, sed omnino ut sit, ipsam substantiam nascendo
habet."[14]
The Reformers themselves were little inclined to enter into these
speculations. They were specially repugnant to such a mind as Luther's. He
insisted on taking the Scriptural facts as they were, without any attempt at
explanation. He says: "We should, like the little children, stammer out what
the Scriptures teach: that Christ is truly God, that the Holy Ghost is truly
God, and yet that there are not three Gods, or three Beings, as there are
three Men, three Angels, three Suns, or three Windows. No, God is not thus
divided in his essence; but there is one only divine Being or substance.
Therefore, although there are three persons, God the Father, God the Son,
and God the Holy Ghost, yet the Being is not divided or distinguished; since
there is but one God in one single, undivided, divine substance."[15]
Calvin also was opposed to going beyond the simple statement of the
Scriptures.[16] After saying that Augustine devotes the fifth book on the
Trinity to the explanation of the relation between the Father and the Son,
he adds: "Longe vero tutius est in ea quam tradit relatione subsistere, quam
subtilius penetrando ad sublime mysterium, per multas evanidas speculationes
evagari. Ergo quibus cordi erit sobrietas et qui fidei mensura contenti
erunt, breviter quod utile est cognitu accipiant: nempe quum profitemur nos
credere in unum Deum, sub Dei nomine intelligi unicam et simplicem
essentiam, in qua comprehendimus tres personas vel hypostaseis: ideoque
quoties Dei nomen indefinite ponitur, non minus Filium et Spiritum, quam
Patrem designari: ubi autem adjungitur Filius Patri, tunc in medium venit
relatio: atque ita distinguimus inter personas. Quia vero proprietates in
personis ordinem secum ferunt, ut in Patre sit principium et origo: quoties
mentio sit Patris et Filii simul, vel Spiritus, nomen Dei peculiariter Patri
tribuitur. Hoc modo retinetur unitas essenti� et habetur ratio ordinis, qu�
tamen ex Filii et Spiritus deitate nihil minuit: et certe quum ante visum
fuerit Apostolos asserere Filium Dei illum esse, quem Moses et Prophet�
testati sunt esse Jehovam, semper ad unitatem essenti�, venire necesse est."
We have here the three essential facts involved in the doctrine of the
Trinity, namely, unity of essence, distinction of persons, and subordination
without any attempt at explanation.
Calvin was accused by some of his contemporaries of teaching the
incompatible doctrines of Sabellianism and Arianism. In a letter to his
friend Simon Gryn�e, rector of the Academy of Basle, dated May, 1537, he
says the ground on which the charge of Sabellianism rested, was his having
said that Christ was "that Jehovah, who of Himself alone was always
self-existent, which charge," he says, "I was quite ready to meet." His
answer is: "If the distinction between the Father and the Word be
attentively considered, we shall say that the one is from the other. If,
however, the essential quality of the Word be considered, in so far as He is
one God with the Father, whatever can be said concerning God may also be
applied to Him the Second Person in the glorious Trinity. Now, what is the
meaning of the name Jehovah? What did that answer imply which was spoken to
Moses? I AM THAT I AM. Paul makes Christ the author of this saying." [17]
This argument is conclusive. If Christ be Jehovah, and if the name Jehovah
implies self-existence, then Christ is self-existent. In other words,
self-existence and necessary existence, as well as omnipotence and all other
divine attributes, belong to the divine essence common to all the persons of
the Trinity, and therefore it is the Triune God who is self-existent, and
not one person in distinction from the other persons. That is,
self-existence is not to be predicated of the divine essence only, nor of
the Father only, but of the Trinity, or of the Godhead as subsisting in
three persons. And, therefore, as Calvin says, when the word God is used
indefinitely it means the Triune God, and not the Father in distinction from
the Son and Spirit.
B. Eternal Generation.
As in reference to the subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father, as
asserted in the ancient creeds, it is not to the fact that exception is
taken, but to the explanation of that fact, as given by the Nicene fathers,
the same is true with regard to the doctrine of Eternal Generation. It is no
doubt a Scriptural fact that the relation between the First and Second
persons of the Trinity is expressed by the relative terms Father and Son. It
is also said that the Son is begotten of the Father; He is declared to be
the only begotten Son of God. The relation, therefore, of the Second Person
to the First is that of filiation or sonship. But what is meant by the term,
neither the Bible nor the ancient creeds explain. It may be sameness of
nature; as a son is of the same nature as his father. It may be likeness,
and the term Son be equivalent to ?????, ?????????, ????????, or ?????, or
revealer. It may be derivation of essence, as a son, in one sense, is
derived from his father. Or, it may be something altogether inscrutable and
to us incomprehensible.
The Nicene fathers, instead of leaving the matter where the Scriptures leave
it, undertake to explain what is meant by sonship, and teach that it means
derivation of essence. The First Person of the Trinity is Father, because He
communicates the essence of the Godhead to the Second Person; and the Second
Person is Son, because He derives that essence from the First Person. This
is what they mean by Eternal Generation. Concerning which it was taught, -
1. That it was the person not the essence of the Son that was generated. The
essence is self-existent and eternal, but the person of the Son is generated
(i.e., He becomes a person) by the communication to Him of the divine
essence. This point continued to be insisted upon through the later periods
of the Church. Thus Turrettin[18] says, "Licet Filius sit a Patre, non minus
tamen ???????? dicitur, non ratione Person�, sed ratione Essenti�; non
relate qua Filius, sic enim est a Patre, sed absolute qua Deus, quatenus
habet Essentiam divinam a se existentem, et non divisam vel productam ab
alia essentia, non vero qua habens essentiam illam a seipso. Sic Filius est
Deus a seipso, licet non sit a seipso Filius."
Again, "Persona bene dicitur generare Personam, quia actiones sunt
suppositorum; sed non Essentia Essentiam, quia quod gignit et gignitur
necessario multiplicatur, et sic via sterneretur ad Tritheismum. Essentia
quidem generando communicatur; sed generatio, ut a Persona fit originaliter,
ita ad Personam terminatur." This is the common mode of representation.
2. This generation is said to be eternal. "It is an eternal movement in the
divine essence."
3. It is by necessity of nature, and not by the will of the Father.
4. It does not involve any separation or division, as it is not a part, but
the whole and complete essence of the Father that is communicated from the
Father to the Son.
5. It is without change.
The principal grounds urged in support of this representation, are the
nature of sonship among men, and the passage in John v. 26, where it is
said, "As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to
have life in Himself."
It is admitted that the relation between the First and Second persons in the
Trinity is expressed by the words Father and Son, and therefore while
everything in this relation as it exists among men, implying imperfection or
change, must be eliminated, yet the essential idea of paternity must be
retained. That essential idea is assumed to be the communication of the
essence of the parent to his child; and, therefore, it is maintained that
there must be a communication of the essence of the Godhead from the Father
to the Son in the Holy Trinity. But, in the first place, it is a gratuitous
assumption that, so far as the soul is concerned, there is even among men
any communication of the essence of the parent to the child. Traducianism
has never been the general doctrine of the Christian Church. As, therefore,
it is, to say the least, doubtful, whether there is any communication of the
essence of the soul in human paternity, it is unreasonable to assume that
such communication is essential to the relation of Father and Son in the
Trinity.
In the second place, while it is admitted that the terms Father and Son are
used to give us some idea of the mutual relation of the First and Second
persons of the Trinity, yet they do not definitely determine what that
relation is. It may be equality and likeness. Among men Father and Son
belong to the same order of beings. The one is not inferior in nature,
although he may be in rank, to the other. And the son is like his father. In
the same manner in the Holy Trinity the Second Person is said to be the
?????, the ?????????, the ????????, the ?????, the Word or Revealer of the
Father, so that he who hears the Son hears the Father, he who hath seen the
one has seen the other. Or the relation may be that of affection. The
reciprocal love of father and son is peculiar. It is, so to speak,
necessary; it is unchangeable, it is unfathomable; it leads, or has led, to
every kind and degree of self-sacrifice. It is not necessary to assume in
reference to the Trinity that these relations are all that the relative
terms Father and Son are intended to reveal. These may be included, but much
more may be implied which we are not now able to comprehend. All that is
contended for is, that we are not shut up to the admission that derivation
of essence is essential to sonship.
As to the passage in John v. 26, where it is said the Father hath given to
the Son to have life in Himself, everything depends on the sense in which
the word Son is to be taken. That word is sometimes used as a designation of
the ?????, the Second Person of the Trinity, to indicate his eternal
relation to the First Person as the Father. It is, however, very often used
as a designation of the incarnate ?????, the Word made flesh. Many things
are in Scripture predicated of the Godman, which cannot be predicated of the
Second Person of the Trinity as such. If in this passage the Son means the
Logos, then it does teach that the First Person of the Trinity communicated
life, and therefore the essence in which that life inheres, to the Second
Person. But if Son here designates the Theanthropos, then the passage
teaches no such doctrine. That it is the historical person, Jesus of
Nazareth here spoken of, may be argued not only from the fact that He is
elsewhere so frequently called the Son of God, as in the comprehensive
confession required of every Christian in the apostolic age, "I believe that
Jesus is the Son of God;" but also from the context. Our Lord had healed an
impotent man on the Sabbath. For this the Jews accused Him of breaking the
Sabbath. He vindicated Himself by saying that He had the same right to work
on the Sabbath that God had, because He was the Son of God, and therefore
equal with God. That He had power not only to heal but to give life, just as
the Father had life in Himself, so had He given to the Son to have life in
Himself. He had also given Him authority to execute judgment. He was to be
the judge of the quick and dead, because He is the Son of man, i.e., because
He had become man for us and for our salvation. His accusers need not be
surprised at what He said, because the hour was coming when all who are in
the grave shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they who have done
good, unto the resurrection of life, and they who had done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation. The subject of discourse, therefore, in the
context, is the historical person who had healed the impotent man, and who
with equal propriety could be called God or man, because He was both God and
man. What the passage teaches, therefore, concerns the constitution of
Christ's person as He appeared on earth, and not the nature of the relation
of the Father and Son in the Godhead.
C. Eternal Sonship.
There is, therefore, a distinction between the speculations of the Nicene
fathers, and the decisions of the Nicene Council. The latter have been
accepted by the Church universal, but not the former. The Council declared
that our Lord is the Eternal Son of God, i.e., that He is from eternity the
Son of God. This of course involves the denial that He became the Son of God
in time; and, consequently, that the primary and essential reason for his
being called Son is not his miraculous birth, nor his incarnation, nor his
resurrection, nor his exaltation to the right hand of God. The Council
decided that the word Son as applied to Christ, is not a term of office but
of nature; that it expresses the relation which the Second Person in the
Trinity from eternity bears to the First Person, and that the relation thus
indicated is sameness of nature, so that sonship, in the case of Christ,
includes equality with God. In other words, God was in such a sense his
Father that He was equal with God. And consequently every time the
Scriptures call Jesus the Son of God, they assert his true and proper
divinity. This does not imply that every time Christ is called the Son of
God, what is said of Him is to be understood of his divine nature. The fact
is patent, and is admitted that the person of our Lord may be designated
from either nature. He may be called the Son of David and the Son of God.
And his person may be designated from one nature when what is predicated of
Him is true only of the other nature. Thus, on the one hand, the Lord of
Glory was crucified; God purchased the Church with his blood; and the Son is
said to be ignorant; and, on the other hand, the Son of Man is said to be in
heaven when He was on earth. This being admitted it remains true that Christ
is called the Son of God as to his divine nature. The Logos, the Second
Person of the Trinity as such and because of his relation to the First
Person, is the Son of God. Such is the doctrine of the Nicene Council, and
that it is no less the doctrine of the Scriptures, is plain from the
following considerations : -
1. The terms Father, Son, and Spirit, as applied to the persons of the
Trinity, are relative terms. The relations which they express are mutual
relations, i.e., relations in which the different persons stand one to
another. The First Person is called Father, not because of his relation to
his creatures, but because of his relation to the Second Person. The Second
Person is called Son, not because of any relation assumed in time, but
because of his eternal relation to the First Person. And the Third Person is
called Spirit because of his relation to the First and Second.
2. If, as the whole Christian Church believes, the doctrine of the Trinity
is a Scriptural doctrine, and if, as is also admitted by all the parties to
this discussion, it was the purpose of God to reveal that doctrine to the
knowledge and faith of his people, there is a necessity for the use of terms
by which the persons of the Trinity should be designated and revealed. But
if the terms Father, Son, and Spirit do not apply to the persons of the
Trinity as such, and express their mutual relations, there are no such
distinctive terms in the Bible by which they can be known and designated.
3. There are numerous passages in the Scriptures which clearly prove that
our Lord is called Son, not merely because He is the image of God, or
because He is the object of peculiar affection, nor because of his
miraculous conception only; nor because of his exaltation, but because of
the eternal relation which He sustains to the First Person of the Trinity.
These passages are of two kinds. First, those in which the Logos is called
Son, or in which Christ as to his divine nature and before his incarnation
is declared to be the Son of God; and secondly, those in which the
application of the term Son to Christ involves the ascription of divinity to
Him. He is declared to be the Son of God in such a sense as implies equality
with God. To the former of these classes belong such passages as the
following: Rom. i. 3, 4, where Christ is declared to be ???? ?????, the Son
of David, and ???? ?????? ?????????, the Son of God. That ?????? ?????????
does not here mean the Holy Spirit, much less a pneumatic state, but the
higher or divine nature of Christ, is evident from the antithesis. As to his
human nature, He is the Son of David; as to his divine nature, He is the Son
of God. As to his humanity, He is consubstantial with man; as to his
divinity, He is consubstantial with God. If his being the Son of David
proves He was a man, his being the Son of God proves that He is God. Hence
Christ was called Son before his incarnation, as in Gal. iv. 4, "God sent
forth his Son, made of a woman." It was the Logos that was sent, and the
Logos was Son. Thus in John i. 1-14, we are taught that the Logos was in the
beginning with God, that He was God, that He made all things, that He was
the light and life of men, and that He became flesh, and revealed his glory
as the Son of God. Here it is plain that the Logos or Word is declared to be
the Son. And in the eighteenth verse of that chapter it is said, "No man
hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of
the Father (? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??????, He hath declared Him." Here the
present tense, ? ??, expresses permanent being; He who is, was, and ever
shall be, in the bosom of the Father, i.e., most intimately united with Him,
so as to know Him, as He knows Himself, is the Son. According to Chrysostom,
this language implies the ????????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? of the Father and
the Son, which were not interrupted by his manifestation in the flesh. To
the latter class belong such passages as the following: John v. 18-25, where
Christ calls God his Father in a sense which implied equality with God. If
sonship implies equality with God, it implies participation of the divine
essence. It was for claiming to be the Son of God in this sense, that the
Jews took up stones to stone Him. Our Lord defended Himself by saying that
He had the same power God had, the same authority, the same life-giving
energy, and therefore was entitled to the same honour. In John x. 30-38
there is a similar passage, in which Christ says that God is his Father in
such a sense that He and the Father are one. In the first chapter of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, it is argued that Christ does not belong to the
category of creatures; that all angels (i.e., all intelligent creatures
higher than man) are subject to Him, and are required to worship Him because
He is the Son of God. As Son He is the brightness of the Father's glory, the
express image of his person, upholding all things by the word of his power.
Because He is the Son of God, He is the God who in the beginning laid the
foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of his hands. They
are mutable, but He is unchangeable and eternal.
There can, therefore, be no reasonable doubt that according to the
Scriptures, the term Son as applied to Christ expresses the relation of the
Second to the First Person in the adorable Trinity. In other words, it is
not merely an official title, but designates the Logos and not exclusively
the Theanthropos.
4. Another argument in proof of this doctrine is derived from the fact that
Christ is declared to be "the only-begotten Son of God," "his own Son,"
i.e., his Son in a peculiar and proper sense. Angels and men are called the
sons of God, because He is the Father of all spirits. Holy men are his sons
because partakers of his moral nature, as wicked men are called children of
the devil. God's people are his sons and daughters by regeneration and
adoption. It is in opposition to all these kinds of sonship that Christ is
declared to be God's only Son, the only person in the universe to whom the
word can be applied in its full sense as expressing sameness of essence.
Objections to the Doctrine.
The speculative objections to this doctrine of eternal sonship have already
been considered. If Christ is Son, if He is God of God, it is said He is not
self-existent and independent. But self-existence, independence, etc., are
attributes of the divine essence, and not of one person in distinction from
the others. It is the Triune God who is self-existent and independent.
Subordination as to the mode of subsistence and operation, is a Scriptural
fact; and so also is the perfect and equal Godhead of the Father and the
Son, and therefore these facts must be consistent. In the consubstantial
identity of the human soul there is a subordination of one faculty to
another, and so, however incomprehensible to us, there may be a
subordination in the Trinity consistent with the identity of essence in the
Godhead.
Psalm ii. 7.
More plausible objections are founded on certain passages of the Scriptures.
In Ps. ii. 7, it is said, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."
From this it is argued that Christ or the Messiah was constituted or made
the Son of God in time, and therefore was not the Son of God from eternity.
To this it may be answered, -
1. That the term Son, as used in the Scriptures, expresses different
relations, and therefore may be applied to the same person for different
reasons; or, have one meaning, i.e., express one relation in one place, and
a different one in another. It may refer or be applied to the Logos, or to
the Theanthropos. One ground for the use of the designation does not exclude
all the others. God commanded Moses to say unto Pharaoh, "Israel is my son,
even my first-born." (Ex. iv. 22.) And He said of Solomon, "I will be his
father and he shall be my son." (2 Sam. vii. 14.) The word son here
expresses the idea of adoption, the selection of one people or of one man
out of many to stand to God in a peculiar relation of intimacy, affection,
honour, and dignity. If for these reasons the theocratic people, or a
theocratic king, may be called the Son of God, for the same reasons, and
preeminently, the Messiah may be so designated. But this is no argument to
prove that the Logos may not in a far higher sense be called the Son of God.
2. The passage in question, however, need not be understood of an event
which occurred in time. Its essential meaning is, "Thou art my Son, now art
thou my Son." The occasion referred to by the words "this day" was the time
when the Sonship of the king of Zion should be fully manifested. That time,
as we learn from Rom. i. 4, was the day of his resurrection. By his rising
again from the dead, He was clearly manifested to be all that He claimed to
be, - the Son of God and the Saviour of the world.
3. There is another interpretation of the passage which is essentially the
same as that given by many of the fathers, and is thus presented by Dr.
Addison Alexander in his commentary on Acts xiii. 33, "The expression in the
Psalm, 'I have begotten thee,' means, I am He who has begotten thee, i. e.,
I am thy father. 'To-day' refers to the date of the decree itself (Jehovah
said, Today, etc.); but this, as a divine act, was eternal, and so must be
the Sonship which it affirms."
Acts xiii. 32, 38.
It may be urged, however, that in Acts xiii. 32, 33, this passage is quoted
in the proof of the resurrection of Christ, which shows that the Apostle
understood the passage to teach that Christ was begotten or made the Son of
God when He rose from the dead. The passage in Acts reads thus in our
version: "We declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was
made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children,
in that He hath raised up Jesus again (?????????); as it is also written in
the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." Here
there is no reference to the resurrection. The glad tidings which the
Apostle announced was not the resurrection, but the advent of the Messiah.
That was the promise made to the fathers, which God had fulfilled by raising
up, i.e., bringing into the world the promised deliverer. Compare Acts ii.
30; iii. 22, 26; vii. 31, in all which passages where the same word is used,
the "raising up" refers to the advent of Christ; as when it is said, "A
prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like
unto me." The word is never used absolutely in reference to the resurrection
unless, as in Acts ii. 32, where the resurrection is spoken of in the
context. Our translators have obscured the meaning by rendering ?????????
"having raised up again," instead of simply "having raised up," as they
render it elsewhere.
That this is the true meaning of the passage is clear from the succeeding
verses. Paul having said that God had fulfilled his promise to the fathers
by raising up Christ, agreeably to Psalm ii. 7, immediately adds as an
additional fact, "And as concerning that He raised Him up from the dead, now
no more to return to corruption, He said on this wise, I will give you the
sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt
not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." (Acts xiii. 34, 35.) The
Apostle, therefore, does not teach that Christ was made the Son of God by
his resurrection. But even, as just remarked, if He did teach that the
Theanthropos was in one sense made the Son of God, that would not prove that
the Logos was not Son in another and higher sense.
Luke i. 35.
The same remark is applicable to Luke i. 35: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of
God." Bishop Pearson, one of the most strenuous defenders of "eternal
generation," and of all the peculiarities of the Nicene doctrine of the
Trinity, gives four reasons why the Theanthropos or Godman is called the Son
of God. (1.) His miraculous conception. (2.) The high office to which he was
designated. (John x. 34, 35, 36.) (3.) His resurrection, according to one
interpretation of Acts xiii. 33. "The grave," he says, "is as the womb of
the earth; Christ, who is raised from thence, is as it were begotten to
another life, and God, who raised him, is his Father."[20] (4.) Because
after his resurrection He was made the heir of all things. (Heb. i. 2-5.)
Having assigned these reasons why the Godman is called Son, he goes on to
show why the Logos is called Son. There is nothing, therefore, in the
passages cited inconsistent with the Church doctrine of the eternal Sonship
of our Lord. The language of the angel addressed to the Virgin Mary, may,
however, mean no more than this, namely, that the assumption of humanity by
the eternal Son of God was the reason why He should be recognized as a
divine person. It was no ordinary child who was to be born of Mary, but one
who was, in the language of the prophets, to be the Wonderful, the
Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Son of the Highest.
It was because the Eternal Son was made of a woman, that that Holy Thing
born of the virgin was to be called the Son of God.
It need hardly be remarked that no valid objection to the doctrine of the
eternal Sonship of Christ, or, that He is Son as to his divine nature, can
be drawn from such passages as speak of the Son as being less than the
Father, or subject to Him, or even ignorant. If Christ can be called the
Lord of glory, or God, when his death is spoken of, He may be called Son,
when other limitations are ascribed to Him. As He is both God and man,
everything that is true either of his humanity or of his divinity, may be
predicated of Him as a person; and his person may be denominated from one
nature, when the predicate belongs to the other nature. He is called the Son
of Man when He is said to be omnipresent; and He is called God when He is
said to have purchased the Church with his blood.
D. The Relation of the Spirit to the other Persons of the Trinity.
As the councils of Nice and Constantinople were fully justified by Scripture
in teaching the eternal Sonship of Christ, so what they taught of the
relation of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, has an adequate Scriptural
foundation.
That relation is expressed by the word procession, with regard to which the
common Church doctrine is, (1.) That it is incomprehensible, and therefore
inexplicable. (2.) That it is eternal (3.) That it is equally from the
Father and the Son. At least such is the doctrine of the Latin and all other
Western churches. (4.) That this procession concerns the personality and
operations of the Spirit, and not his essence.
The Scriptural grounds for expressing this relation by the term procession,
are (1.) The signification of the word spirit. It means breath, that which
proceeds from, and which gives expression and effect to our thoughts. Since
Father and Son, as applied to the First and Second persons of the Trinity,
are relative terms, it is to be assumed that the word Spirit as the
designation of the Third Person, is also relative. (2.) This is further
indicated by the use of the genitive case in the expressions ?????? ???
??????, ??? ????, which is explained by the use of the preposition ??, as
?????? ?? ??? ??????. The revealed fact is that the Spirit is of the Father,
and the Church in calling the relation, thus indicated, a procession. does
not attempt to explain it. (3.) In John xv. 26, where the Spirit is promised
by Christ, He is said to proceed from the Father.
That the Latin and Protestant churches, in opposition to the Greek Church,
are authorized in teaching that the Spirit proceeds not from the Father
only, but from the Father and the Son, is evident, because whatever is said
in Scripture of the relation of the Spirit to the Father, is also said of
his relation to the Son. He is said to be the "Spirit of the Father," and
"Spirit of the Son;" He is given or sent by the Son as well as by the
Father; the Son is said to operate through the Spirit. The Spirit is no more
said to send or to operate through the Son, than to send or operate through
the Father. The relation, so far as revealed, is the same in the one case as
in the other.
When we consider the incomprehensible nature of the Godhead, the mysterious
character of the doctrine of the Trinity, the exceeding complexity and
difficulty of the problem which the Church had to solve in presenting the
doctrine that there are three persons and one God, in such a manner as to
meet the requirements of Scripture and the convictions of believers, and yet
avoid all contradiction, we can hardly fail to refer the Church creeds on
this subject, which have for ages secured assent and consent, not to
inspiration, strictly speaking, but to the special guidance of the Holy
Spirit.
Philosophical Form of the Doctrine of the Trinity.
The philosophical statements of the doctrine of the Trinity have been
intended by their authors either to prove it, or to illustrate it, or to
explain it away and substitute some speculative theory as to the
constitution of the universe for the Scriptural doctrine of the Triune God.
The two former of these classes, those designed for proof, and those
designed for illustration, need not be discriminated. It may be remarked in
reference to them all that they are of little value. They do not serve to
make the inconceivable intelligible. The most they can do, is to show that
in other spheres and in relation to other subjects, we find a somewhat
analogous triplicity in unity. In most cases, however, these illustrations
proceed on the assumption that there are mysteries in the Godhead which have
no counterpart in the constitution of our nature, or in anything around us
in the present state of our existence.
We have already seen that the fathers were accustomed to refer to the union
of light, heat, and radiance in the one substance of the sun; to a fountain
and its streams; to the root, stem, and flower of a plant; to the intellect,
will, and affections in the soul; as examples of at least a certain kind of
triplicity in unity, elsewhere than in the Godhead. The last-mentioned
analogy, especially, was frequently presented, and that in different forms.
Augustine said, that as man was made in the image of the Triune God, we have
reason to expect something in the constitution of our nature answering to
the Trinity in the Godhead. He refers to the memory, intelligence, and will,
as co-existing in one mind, so that the operations of the one are involved
in the operations of the others. Gregory of Nyssa refers for his
illustration to the soul, the reason, and the living power, united in one
spiritual substance in man. It was admitted, however, that these analogies
did not hold as to the main point, for these different powers in man are not
different subsistences, but different modes of activity of one and the same
personal essence, so that these illustrations lead rather to the Sabellian,
than to the Scriptural view of the doctrine of the Trinity.
By far the most common illustration was borrowed from the operations of our
consciousness. We conceive of ourselves as objective to ourselves, and are
conscious of the identity of the subject and object. We have thus the
subjective Ego, the objective Ego, and the identity of the two; the desired
Thesis, Analysis, and Synthesis. In one form or another, this illustration
has come down from the fathers, through the schoolmen and reformers, to
theologians of our own day. Augustine[21] says, "Est qu�dam imago
Trinitatis, ipsa mens, et notitia ejus, quod est proles ejus ac de seipsa
verbum ejus, et amor tertius, et h�c tria unum atque una substantia."
Again,[22] "H�c - tria, memoria, intelligentia, voluntas, quoniam non sunt
tres vit�, sed una vita; nec tres mentes, sed una mens: consequenter utique
nec tres substanti� sunt, sed una substantia." And,[23] "Mens igitur quando
cogitatione se conspicit, intelligit se et recognoscit: gignit ergo hunc
intellectum et cognitionem suam. . . . . H�c autem duo, gignens et genitum,
dilectione tertia copulantur, qu� nihil est aliud quam voluntas fruendum
aliquid appetens vel tenens." Anselm[24] has the same idea: "Habet mens
rationalis, quum se cogitando intelligit, secum imaginem suam ex se natam,
id est cogitationem sui ad suam similitudinem, quasi sua impressione
formatam, quamvis ipsa se a sua imagine, non nisi ratione sola, separare
possit, qu� imago ejus verbum ejus est. Hoc itaque modo, quis neget, summam
sapientem, quum se dicendo intelligit, gignere consubstantialem sibi
similitudinem suam, id est Verbum suum." Melancthon[25] adopts and carries
out the same idea: "Filius dicitur imago et ?????: est igitur imago
cogitatione Patris genita; quod ut aliquo modo considerari possit, a nostra
mente exempla capiamus. Voluit enim Deus in homine conspici vestigia sua. .
. . . Mens humana cogitando mox pingit imaginem rei cogitat�, sed nos non
transfundimus nostram essentiam in illas imagines, suntque cogitationes ill�
subit� et evanescentes actiones. At Pater �ternus sese intuens gignit
cogitatonem sui, qu� est imago ipsius, non evanescens, sed subsistens,
communicata ipsi essentia. H�c igitur imago est secunda persona. . . . . Ut
autem Filius nascitur cogitatione, ita Spiritus Sanctus procedit a voluntate
Patris et Filii; voluntatis enim est agitare, diligere, sicut et cor humanam
non imagines, sed spiritus seu halitus gignit." Leibnitz,[26] says "Je ne
trouve rien dans les cr�atures de plus propre � illustrer ce sujet, que la
r�flexion des espirits, lorsqu'un m�me esprit est son propre objet immediat,
et agit sur soi-m�me en pensant � soi-m�me et � ce qu'il fait. Car le
redoublement donne une image ou ombre de deux substances respectives dans
une m�me substance absolue, savoir de celle qui entend, et de celle qui est
entendue; l'un et l'autre de ces �tres est substantiel, l'un et l'autre est
un concret individu, et ils diff�rent par des r�lations mutuelles, mais ils
ne sont qu'une seule et m�me substance individuelle absolue."
Of the theologians of the seventeenth century belonging to the Reformed
Church, Keckermann was the most disposed to present the doctrines of the
Bible in a philosophical form. We find, therefore, with him a similar
attempt to make the mystery of the Trinity intelligible. He regards the
existence of God as consisting in self-conscious thought. As thought is
eternal, it must have an eternal, absolute, and perfect object. That object
must, therefore, itself be God. The unity of the divine essence demands that
this object should be in God himself, and therefore, it eternally returns to
Him.
The modern theologians of Germany, who profess allegiance to the Scriptures,
have, in many cases, taken the ground that absolute unity in the divine
essence would be inconsistent with self-consciousness. We become
self-conscious by distinguishing ourselves from what is not ourselves, and
especially from other persons of like nature with ourselves. If, therefore,
there were no person objective to God, to whom He could say Thou, He could
not say I. Thus Martensen[28] says: Although the creature can have no
adequate comprehension of the divine nature, we have a semblance of the
Trinity in ourselves; as we are formed in the image of God, we have the
right to conceive of God according to the analogy of our own nature. As
distinction of persons is necessary to self-consciousness in us, so also in
God. Therefore, if God be not a Trinity, He cannot be a person. How, he
asks, can God from eternity be conscious of Himself as Father, without
distinguishing Himself from Himself as Son? In other words, how can God be
eternally self-conscious, without being eternally objective to Himself? That
with us the objective Ego is merely ideal and not a different person from
the subjective Ego, arises from our nature as creatures. With God, thinking
and being are the same. In thinking Himself his thought of Himself is
Himself in a distinct hypostasis. Dr. Shedd[29] has given a similar
exposition, "in proof that the necessary conditions of self-consciousness in
the finite spirit, furnish an analogue to the doctrine of the Trinity, and
go to prove that trinity in unity is necessary to self-consciousness in the
Godhead."
Pantheistic Trinitarianism.
In all that precedes, reference has been made to those who have had for
their object to vindicate the doctrine of the Trinity, by showing that it is
not out of analogy with other objects of human thought. There are, however,
many modern systems which profess to be Trinitarian, which are in fact mere
substitutions of the formulas of speculation for the doctrine of the Bible.
Men speak of the Trinity, of the Father, Son, and Spirit, when they mean by
those terms something which has not the least analogy with the doctrine of
the Christian Church. Many by the Trinity do not mean a Trinity of persons
in the Godhead, but either three radical forces, as it were, in the divine
nature, which manifest themselves in different ways; or three different
relations of the same subject; or three different states or stages of
existence. Thus with some, the absolute power or efficiency of the Supreme
Being considered as creating, upholding, and governing the world, is the
Father; as illuminating rational creatures, is the Son; and, as morally
educating them, is the Spirit. According to Kant, God as creator is the
Father; as the preserver and governor of men, He is the Son; and as the
administrator of law, as judge and rewarder, He is the Spirit. With DeWette,
God in Himself is the Father; as manifested in the world, the Son; and as
operating in nature, the Spirit. Schleiermacher says, God in Himself is the
Father; God in Christ is the Son; God in the Church, is the Holy Spirit. The
avowed Pantheists also use the language of Trinitarianism. God as the
infinite and absolute Being is the Father; as coming to consciousness and
existence in the world, He is the Son; as returning to Himself, the Spirit.
Weisse attempts to unite Theism and Pantheism. He pronounces the Nicene
doctrine of the Trinity the highest form of philosophical thought. He
professes to adopt that doctrine ex animo in its commonly admitted sense.
There is a threefold personality (Ichheit) in God necessary to the
constitution of his nature. When the world was created the second of these
persons became its life, merging his personality in the world and became
impersonal, in order to raise the world into union and identity with God.
When the curriculum of the world is accomplished, the Son resumes his
personality.[30]
NOTES:
[1] Lehre von der Trinit�t, vol. i. p. 42.
[2] De Trinitate, I. vi. 9, edit. Benedictines, vol. viii. p. 1161, c.
[3] Schaff's History of the Christian Church, vol. iii. p. 672.
[4] Kirchengeschichte, vol. vi. � 60, p. 323. Bonn, 1855.
[5] De Trinitate, VII. vi. edit. Benedictines, vol. viii. p. 1314, d.
[6] Epistola, CCXXXVIII. iii. 18, vol. ii. p. 1304, a.
[7] Epistola, VIII. edit. Migne, vol. iii. p. 115, e.
[8] Pearson, On Creed, seventh edition, 1701, p. 135.
[9] Pearson, p. 133.
[10] Works, vol. i. p. 315.
[11] De Trinitate, III., Works, Paris, 1631, p. 23, a. See on this point
Schaff's History of the Christian Church, vol. iii. � 130. Gieseler's
Kirchengeschichte, vol. vi. � 60. Pearson, On the Creed, and especially,
Bull's Defence of the Nicene Creed, fourth edition.
[12] Page 35.
[13] In Joannis Evangelium Tractatus, xix. 13, edit. Benedictines, vol. iii.
p. 1903, a.
[14] De Trinitate, v. xv. 16, vol. viii. p. 1286, c, d.
[15] Die Dritte Predigt a. Tage d. heil. Dreifaltigk, 5; Works, ed. Walch,
vol. xiii. p. 1510.
[16] Institutio, I. xiii. 19, 20, edit. Berlin, 1834, part i. pp. 100, 101.
[17] Calvin's Letters, vol. i. pp. 55, 56, edit. Presbyterian Board,
Philadelphia.
[18] Locus III. xxviii. 40, edit. Edinburgh, 1847, vol. i. p. 260.
[19] Ibid. xxix. 6, p. 262.
[20] Pearson on Creed, p. 106.
[21] De Trinitate, IX. xii. 18, edit. Benedictines, Paris, 1837, vol. viii.
p. 1352, b.
[22] Ibid. X. xi. 18, p. 1366, a.
[23] Ibid. XIV. vi. 8, pp. 1443. d. 1444, a.
[24] Monologium, xxxiii., edit. Migne, p. 188, b. See also Thomas Aquinas,
I. xxvii. 3, edit. Cologne, 1640, p. 56.
[25] Loci Communes, De Filio, edit. Erlangen, 1828, vol. i, pp.19, 21.
[26] Remarque sur le Livre d'un Antitrinitaire Anglois, edit. Geneva, 1768,
vol. i. p. 27.
[27] Opera, edit. Cologne, 1614, vol. ii. Systema Theologi� (tract at end of
vol.), p. 72, the last of three pages marked 72.
[28] Dogmatik, pp. 129, 130.
[29] History of Christian Doctrine, vol. i. p. 366.
[30] C. H. Weisse, Idee der Gottheit; Dresden, 1833, pp. 257 ff., 273.
The Literature of the doctrine of the Trinity would fill a volume. Bull's
Defence of the Nicene Creed, Pearson On the Creed, Waterland On the Trinity,
Meier's Geschichte der Lehre von der Trinit�t, Baur's Geschichte der Lehre
Von der Trinit�t, Dorner's History of the Person of Christ, in five volumes,
one of the series of Clark's Foreign Theological Library, a very valuable
collection of important modern works, Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine,
and the other historical works on the doctrines of the Church, open the
whole field to the theological student.
colp
> The following is a detailed lesson on the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity
> with detailed evidence supporting it from Scripture by noted Christian
> theologian Charles Hodge. It is interesting that the cultists who deny the
> Holy Trinity (even though the Bible clearly teaches it when one take the
> Bible in totality) shy away from
> acknowledging the overwhelming Scriptural evidence whenever brough up by
> Christians who follow orthodox Christian teachings.
Here are a couple of arguments as to why the doctrine of the Trinity
fails. Monotheism also fails, but that's another story.
1. Elohim of Genesis 1 consists of individuals of both male and female
form, in the same manner as a group of men and women. However, no
member of the Trinity has a female physical form.
2. Yahshua refers to some of his disciples being at one with his
Father in the same manner as he is at one with his Father.
guardian Snow
> Here are a couple of arguments as to why the doctrine of the Trinity
> fails. Monotheism also fails, but that's another story.
>
> 1. Elohim of Genesis 1 consists of individuals of both male and female
> form, in the same manner as a group of men and women. However, no
> member of the Trinity has a female physical form.
>
> 2. Yahshua refers to some of his disciples being at one with his
> Father in the same manner as he is at one with his Father.
Isa 42:8 I am YAHWEH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to
another, neither my praise to graven images.
There is only ONE. Only in faulty translations does a "trinity
doctrine" survive.
Mar 12:29 And Yahushua answered him, The first of all the commandments
is, Hear, O Israel; YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one:
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength: this is the first commandment.
Here we have a direct quote of Deuteronomy so that we can have no
doubt exactly what is said in the Hebrew:
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one:
Deu 6:5 And thou shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thine heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Can we have any doubt that Yehoshua made known the name of YAHWEH, his
Father’s name.
Exo 3:15 And Elohim said further to Mosheh, “Thus you are to say to
the children of Yisrael, YAHWEH Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of
Aḇraham, the Elohim of Yitsḥaq, and the Elohim of Yaaqoḇ, has sent
me to you. This is My Name forever, and this is My remembrance to all
generations.’
This is the ONLY name ever given.
Act 2:21 ‘And it shall be that everyone who calls on the Name of יהוה
[Yahweh] shall be saved.’
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- please join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is
really true, there would be little hope of advance.
Orville Wright
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
If history is any indication, all truths will eventually turn out to
be false.
Dean Kamen
__,
.-'_-'`
.' {`
.-'````'-. .-'``'.
.'(0) '._/ _.-. `\
} '. )) _<` )` |
`-.,\'.\_,.-\` \`---; .' /
) ) '-. '--:
( ' ( ) '. \
'. ) .'( / )
)/ ( '. /
'._( ) .'
gs ( (
`-.
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua/web/the-revelation-of-yahwshua-ha-mashiyach---whose-son-is-he
colp
> On Jun 23, 7:39 pm, colp <c...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> > Here are a couple of arguments as to why the doctrine of the Trinity
> > fails. Monotheism also fails, but that's another story.
>
> > 1. Elohim of Genesis 1 consists of individuals of both male and female
> > form, in the same manner as a group of men and women. However, no
> > member of the Trinity has a female physical form.
>
> > 2. Yahshua refers to some of his disciples being at one with his
> > Father in the same manner as he is at one with his Father.
>
> Isa 42:8 I am YAHWEH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to
> another, neither my praise to graven images.
>
> There is only ONE. Only in faulty translations does a "trinity
> doctrine" survive.
Only one deity of Israel.
>
> Mar 12:29 And Yahushua answered him, The first of all the commandments
> is, Hear, O Israel; YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one:
> Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thy heart,
> and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
> strength: this is the first commandment.
The Shem Tob has the singular Elahik [אלקיך] rather than the plural
Elohim. The Shem Tob sometimes spells works differently.
>
> Here we have a direct quote of Deuteronomy so that we can have no
> doubt exactly what is said in the Hebrew:
>
> Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one:
> Deu 6:5 And thou shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thine heart,
> and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Again the Hebrew word Elohim [אלהים] is not present, but Elohinu
[אלהינו] (verse 4) and Elahik [אלהיך] (verse 5)
Zev
Do you actually believe these words are singular?
Glenn
> The following is a detailed lesson on the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity
Simply stating that the doctrine of the triune god is Biblical does not,
in fact, prove that it is.
In order to demonstrate that the doctrine of a tri-unity god is Biblical
one must actually present a Bible scripture which CONTAINS a definitive
statement that god is a multiple person being -- AND THERE IS NONE.
There is NO scripture which depicts, describes or defines the god of
Abraham and Moses as triune. NOT ONE.
There is scripture which states that God is not a man.
[KJV] Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he
should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken,
and shall he not make it good?
Since Jesus, the Son of Mary the Son of God was born a man, lived a man
and died a man, Jesus is not that God described and defined in Numbers
23:19.
There is scripture which states that no man has seen God.
[KJV] John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John is repeating what Jesus said:
John 5:37
"Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape."
Since no man has seen God, But men have seen Jesus, Jesus is not God by
the same definition as is GOD.
The major problem with the false doctrine of the triune god is a wrong
definition of the TERM "god, God or GOD."
Athanasius' Confession: "Trinity not in Bible"
In the thread "TO REFUTE THE TRIUNE GOD," one of the posters,
Athanasius, has admitted that the doctrine of triune gods was added to
the church after the Bible was completed -- and that those who believe
what IS in the Bible will be judged for what they find IN God's Word:
see:
http://tinyurl.com/edrvk
or try
http://tinyurl.com/zdg6k
-------------------------
Quote:
I certainly agree that for those who are truly
seperated from the historical Christian Church
and her teachings and who have possession of
the Holy Bible and have faith in God will not
be judged according to what I or any within the
historical Church have been exposed to, but will
stand before God on the Last day and shall be
accountable to Him for what they -did- know and
how they loved and responded to others with the
little truth they had.
End Quote.
What Athanasius did, is attempt to create a distraction with a
convoluted statement.
Yet he does admit that those who have a belief in God as contained in
the "Holy Bible" [and separate from the traditions of men added after
the Bible was completed] will be judged by God for what they found IN
His Word.
What you [Athanasius] fail to realize, is that your confession of _that
fact_ is also a confession that the doctrine of the triune gods IS NOT
IN THE BIBLE! -- but was added after the Bible was complete.
However, you [Athanasius] use "waffle words" like "who are truly
separated" and "from the historical Christian Church" -- by which you
mean the religious establishment which began teaching the doctrine of
the triune gods AFTER AD 325 -- "and her teachings," and, "what I or any
within the historical Church..." [again meaning the religious
establishment which began teaching the doctrine of triune gods AFTER AD
325].
For your information, "the Biblical Church" is that Church identified
and described within the pages of the Bible. The "Historical Church" you
refer to is that religious establishment described on the pages of
History but NOT in the Bible. What came after is not the New Testament
(Biblical) Church, but is the Apostate Church which was soon ruled by
the pagan god/emperor of Rome.
What followed was the dark ages.
CONCLUSION
The false doctrine of the "trinity" was "formulated" and or "developed"
during the three or four hundred years after the passing of the Apostles
-- after the Bible was complete.
The false doctrine of the triune god was institutionalized by the pagan
man/god Constantine in AD 325. The "trinity" is a Greek and Roman
Metaphysical explanation of pagan triune gods 'painted over' (added
into) scripture. The idea that God is a "triune god" is not found in the
Word of God.
A Christian may, indeed should, believe every Word God gave to describe
and reveal Him Self, His Son and His Holy Spirit to His People -- and
reject the false doctrine of the a triune god.
There are _over_ 700 Bible references to God, the Spirit of God, the Son
of God, and "My Father", ALL of which prove the doctrine of the triune
god is false.
Glenn
His witness
Acts 1:18, Rev 11:2-3
Randy �
In newsgroup "alt.bible",
Article <4a4243eb$0$86452$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net>,
Glenn <gl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
>Simply stating that the doctrine of the triune god is Biblical does not,
>in fact, prove that it is.
Arguing against the word Trinity or "Godhead", is an
irrelevant distraction. The Bible presents two simple
(although incomprehensible) facts about God. 1) There is only
one God (Being). 2) Three distinct persons (Father, Son, and
Spirit), are "God". When you reject either one of these Bible
facts, you either have to claim there are multiple Gods, or
you have to deny that two of the three persons (usually the
Son and Holy Spirit), are "God" (the Being).
--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________
colp
Yes. Do you actually believe that the ינו suffix indicates plurality
in the following verse?
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father [אבינו] [is] old,
and [there is] not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the
manner of all the earth:
Gen 19:31
Glenn
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:19:11 -0700,
> In newsgroup "alt.bible",
> Article <4a4243eb$0$86452$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net>,
> Glenn <gl...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Simply stating that the doctrine of the triune god is Biblical does not,
>> in fact, prove that it is.
>
>
> Arguing against the word Trinity or "Godhead", is an
> irrelevant distraction. The Bible presents two simple
> (although incomprehensible)
Since the "simple facts" about God are incomprehensible, then no
doctrine created by the mind of man is relevant, nor necessary to
Christian faith.
> facts about God. 1) There is only one God (Being).
There is no scripture which states there is only one "God Being."
> 2) Three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Spirit), are "God".
There is no scripture which states that "three distinct persons are God."
In fact, God the Father and the Son of God are TWO distinct and separate
individual beings.
The Spirit of Christ IS Christ.
The Spirit of God is God, not a persona of a multiple person being.
> When you reject either one of these Bible facts,
Those are not "Bible facts" they are elements of the false doctrine of a
triune god.
> you either have to claim there are multiple Gods,
Jesus stated that there are multiple gods.
Jesus said His Father is His God.
> or you have to deny that two of the three persons (usually the
> Son and Holy Spirit), are "God" (the Being).
There is no scripture which states three persons are God.
Denying the false doctrine of a triune God does not equate to denying
GOD the Father or that Jesus is the Lord and King (God) Ruler of Israel.
Thomas confessed that Jesus is Lord and God.
Glenn
His witness
Acts 1:18, Rev 11:3
Great Sage Itchy
<sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> The Trinity
>
> by Charles Hodge
>
>
>
> The doctrine of the Trinity is peculiar to the religion of the Bible
Buddhism has a saying like this, Buddha, Law and Monk - those three
are one. You can deny Buddha, you can deny monks, but you cannot deny
the Law.
This is a very basic principle of Buddhism as the Holy Ghost is a very
basic principle of Christianity. It's called Bu-Po-So in Buddhism. The
real meaning is exactly the same as the REAL christian meaning.
Almost no one understands what this means anymore because almost no one
knows what the "Law" is.
Zev
You said (in your previous post, snipped here):
"The Shem Tob has the singular Elahik [אלקיך]
rather than the plural Elohim".
What did you mean by that?
Carl
Carl
Jonathan Schattke
> The Trinity
>
> by Charles Hodge
>
> The doctrine of the Trinity is peculiar to the religion of the Bible.
Deu 6:4 “Hear, O Yisra’ĕl: יהוה [Y'hvah] our Elohim, יהוה [Y'hvah] is
one!
The Messiah says something himself showing he is NOT Y'hvah:
Mat 19:17 And He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is
good except one – Theos.
Your Trinity just struck out.
randy
"Jonathan Schattke"
"The Messiah says something himself showing he is NOT Y'hvah:
Mat 19:17 And He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is
good except one – Theos.
Your Trinity just struck out."
Jesus was pointing out that if he was being called "good," then he was being
recognized as God. Homerun.
randy
bwme...@toast.net
wrote:
Very good, accurate observation.
It is the prophet who is the one that has struck out.
Bob
Dr. House
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:26:23 -0700, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Jonathan Schattke"
> >"The Messiah says something himself showing he is NOT Y'hvah:
> >Mat 19:17 And He said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is
> >good except one Theos.
> >Your Trinity just struck out."
>
> >Jesus was pointing out that if he was being called "good," then he was being
> >recognized as God. Homerun.
> >randy
>
> Very good, accurate observation.
Oh no! Why would you recognize Randy as God?
I
> "The Messiah says something himself showing he is NOT Y'hvah:
> Mat 19:17 And He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is
> good except one - Theos.
> Your Trinity just struck out."
>
> Jesus was pointing out that if he was being called "good," then he was
> being recognized as God.
Incorrect. Jesus pointed out that ONLY God was good and that Jesus wasn't
God! If God is good then no other person or thing can be named the same way
as God's goodness eclipses all.
randy
"I"
randy
>> Jesus was pointing out that if he was being called "good," then he was
>> being recognized as God.
> Incorrect. Jesus pointed out that ONLY God was good and that Jesus wasn't
> God! If God is good then no other person or thing can be named the same
> way as God's goodness eclipses all.
Jesus fully understood his unique role as the "only Son of God." He
understood he shared deity with his Father in heaven. So it was that Jesus
declared he was the great "I Am," and almost got stoned for it. He also
claimed perfect unity with God, his Father, and was rejected by the Jews for
that.
So it is that when Jesus spoke with this man, he wanted the man to
understand that the same goodness that was in the Father was in the Son as
well. And if there was only one God, then the same deity that is in the
Father must be in the Son as well.
You really have no other choice. Either Jesus was denying that he was good,
or he was claiming he shared deity with his Father. But Jesus in other
places clearly claimed to be good. He asked why Jews wanted to stone him, if
he was only doing good works. And so, if Jesus claimed to do good works,
then he was claiming to be God as well.
I might add here, to avoid confusion, that Jesus claimed to have a unique
brand of goodness. Clearly, Christians recognize that we can all share in
God's goodness. But the goodness that Jesus exhibited was said to be the
works of God Himself. Jesus claimed that he did only what he saw his Father
doing. This is not just doing good works by divine inspiration, but it is
exhibiting deity itself.
randy
I
>>> Jesus was pointing out that if he was being called "good," then he was
>>> being recognized as God.
>> Incorrect. Jesus pointed out that ONLY God was good and that Jesus
>> wasn't God! If God is good then no other person or thing can be named
>> the same way as God's goodness eclipses all.
>
> Jesus fully understood his unique role as the "only Son of God."
Nope! I quote Geza Vermes "The Authentic Words of Jesus" (Penguin:2003)
Geza Vermes is the Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford
University.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jesus' objection to being called 'good' because God alone is entitled to be
called good has provoked a great deal of comment among Christian
interpreters. The reason for the unease lies in the neat distinction which
the saying prima facie stipulates between Jesus and god. In fact, the texts
under consideration are meant to bring into relief the absolute supremacy of
God. In the hyperbolical language of Jesus, if God is called good, no one
else is entitled to the same qualification. p.288
... none of the canonical Gospels can reach back directly to Jesus. p.xi
... how can the religion of Jesus be summarised? His religion is a
particular response to a specific situation by an extraordinary man.
Christianity, on the other hand, is the general development of the religion
of Jesus by practical people planning for the future in an ordinary time
setting. The two are definitely connected, yet they are also radically
different. .... AD 6. The political unrest stirred up and nurtured a
feverish longingh for an impending divine intervention, especially in the
wake of the widely influential ministry of John the baptist in the late
twenties. Jesus was to address and respond to this feverish expectation.
The Kingdom of God was believed to be at hand. The Kingdom was a wholly
Jewish issue, involving Jews alone, and requiring an exclusivey Jewish
solution. The non-Jewish played no part in it. pp. 413-414
The religion revealed by the authentic message of Jesus is straight forward,
without complex dogmas, 'mythical' images or self-centred mystical
speculation. It resembles a race consisting only of the final straight,
demanding from the runners their last ounce of energy and with a winner's
medal for all the JEWISH participants who cross the finishing line. ...
Compared with the dynamic religion of Jesus, fully evolved Christyianity
seems to belong to another world. With its mixture of high philosophical
specualtion on the triune God, its Johnannine logos mysticism and Pauline
Redeemer myth of a dying and risen Son of God, with its sacramental
symbolism and ecclesiastical discipline substituted for the extinct
eschatological passion, with its cosmopolitan openness combined with a
built-in anti-Judaism, it is hard to imagine how the two could have sprung
from the same source. Yet 2,000-year-old Christianity, responsible for the
survival of the Gospel tradition, proudly considers Jesus as its founder and
what I have reconstructed as the genuine religion of Jeus is espoused
nowadays only by single individuals or is distorted and caracatured by cultb
groups and sects. p.415
Some years ago I gave a lecture on the historical Jesus to the teaching
staff and graduate students of an interdenominational theological faculty in
Australia. At the end of a lengthy and lively discussion I was faced with a
final question:'How can we improve opur understanding of Jesus?' I tried to
be evasive and pleaded that it was not my task to 'preach', but the audience
adamantly insisted. So I came up with the following counsel which, I
believe, touches the heart of the matter: 'Look for what Jesus himself
taught instead of being satisfied with what has been taught about him.'
"The Authentic Gospel of Jesus" is the tentative answer of an historian to
inquiring minds, from all faiths or from none, who are fascinated by the
figure of Jesus and seek to discover the real nature of his message. p. 417
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You really have no other choice. Either Jesus was denying that he was
> good, or he was claiming he shared deity with his Father.
I have plenty of choices and not only those two that you want to limit me
to.
The historic Jesus of Nazareth NEVER claimed to be the One God, Yahweh.
randy
"I"
randy
>> Jesus fully understood his unique role as the "only Son of God."
> Nope! I quote Geza Vermes...
> Jesus' objection to being called 'good' because God alone is entitled to
> be called good has provoked a great deal of comment among Christian
> interpreters. The reason for the unease lies in the neat distinction
> which the saying prima facie stipulates between Jesus and god....
You think to prove this true by quoting Geza's opinion? You might as well
quote me, and say that proves I'm right! Geza is absolutely wrong that Jesus
was distinguishing God as the only *good* in the universe. Rather, he was
only identifying God as the exclusive source of good, as the only "One" from
whom all goodness comes. And if Jesus is also the source of that good, that
makes him indistinguishable from God Himself.
>> You really have no other choice. Either Jesus was denying that he was
>> good, or he was claiming he shared deity with his Father.
> I have plenty of choices and not only those two that you want to limit me
> to.
You didn't resolve the problem. I'm saying that Jesus clearly claimed to be
good. In saying that only God was good, he was claiming to be divine, to
share deity with his Father. And in another place Jesus made this perfectly
plain by saying that he and the Father were "one."
Jesus was only using a tactic to force his listener to recognize that if he
wished to acknowledge him as teacher he would also have to recognize his
divine inspiration. And if he was to see Jesus as truly good, he would have
to see him as the divine messiah as well. Either see him as good or as an
imposter, as CS Lewis used to say. Jesus should not be viewed by anybody as
merely "good." His message requires that he be seen as "liar, lunatic, or
lord." His own body and blood was to be the source of our salvation. Of
course, this makes it transparently clear that Jesus' own spirituality is
necessary for our salvation. He must not only be believed in--he must be
consumed. That is, we must be indwelt by him.
randy
I
>>> Jesus fully understood his unique role as the "only Son of God."
>> Nope! I quote Geza Vermes...
>> Jesus' objection to being called 'good' because God alone is entitled to
>> be called good has provoked a great deal of comment among Christian
>> interpreters. The reason for the unease lies in the neat distinction
>> which the saying prima facie stipulates between Jesus and god....
>
> You think to prove this true by quoting Geza's opinion?
The Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford University is more
qualified to speak on the subjet matter than you. What qualification do you
hold that demonstrates that you know more than Geza vermes?
> You didn't resolve the problem. I'm saying that Jesus clearly claimed to
> be good.
I resolved the problem. Jesus NEVER claimed to be God. Where is your PROOF
that the historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the One God,
Yahweh? Please don't quote John's gospel which has almost nothing ebever
stated by the historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth. An example would be:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then Jesus went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the
sabbath he went as usual to the synagogue. He stood up and said "Here I am!
It's me! God! I'm here to be worshipped! Let's sing a Jesus Jingle to me!
Hallelume! Praise me! "
All the people in the synagogue were suitably impressed with Jesus and
invited him into their hearts as their own personal Jesus, someone to hear
their prayers, someone who cares. And Jesus said "Go out and make all men
... and women ... fundamentalists. Those that don't convert to
fundamentalism you must call hereticks, launch a Fundamentalist Inquisition
and burn them at the stake ... in Jesus' name ... in true Christian love. "
Luke 4:16 -30 (Fundy Version)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> His message requires that he be seen as "liar, lunatic, or lord."
Utter nonsense and easily disproven!!!
There are MANY more possibilities including (but not limited to) ....
- Midrashic (A Jesus built upon a midrashic retelling of the Old Testament)
- Mythic (A Jesus built upon other myths such as the pagan mystery
religions)
- Much over-exalted ( A Jesus rewritten to ensure that he was greater than
all the prophets and Caesar)
- Moronic mistaken (A Jesus built upon the "Confusion of Lords" -
moronically mistaking the "boss / lord" of the New Testament for "Yahweh /
LORD / GOD" of the Old Testament)
- Mangled by Fundamentalists (A Jesus as rewritten by Fundamentalists
following a literal understanding of the bible)
- Man (Jesus as a FINITE HUMAN JEW from Nazareth.)
- Messiah ( A Jesus as the HUMAN anointed BY God for God's purpose.)
colp
So according to your logic, the same should apply creation in Genesis
1, since it was recognized as being good.
guardian Snow
Luk 23:50 And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counseller; and
he was a good man, and a just:
I guess that means Joseph was a deity of "GOD" too!
Act 11:24 For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of
faith: and much people was added unto YHWH.
And Barnabus must have been the deity.. Hey we have the Christian
trinity.. after all everybody that is Good is a deity now to be
worship. :))
NOT!
singin4free
Jesus said God was good. So by your logic, you are saying Jesus was
wrong because God called creation good. But in context we are talking
about persons, not things. Things can be good in a different sense,
i.e., creation is good because it was done exactly right. But in this
context we have a rhetorical question. Jesus asked "why do you call me
good, since only God is good". The response of the reader should be
"Jesus then might be God, if he is also good". Note that Jesus did not
say "I am not God, so do not call me good". He simply challenged us to
consider who he really is. As always, he challenges those who have
ears to hear, and lets those who do not continue on in ignorance. And
as we know from the rest of scripture, especially John 1:1, Jesus is
God.
randy
"I"
randy
> The Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford University is more
> qualified to speak on the subjet matter than you. What qualification do
> you hold that demonstrates that you know more than Geza vermes?
I'm not comparing degrees or status--just stating that it is a matter of
opinion. What excludes his opinion is his evident bias. I don't share that
bias because I'm a Christian. I know the Christian gospel as a matter of
*personal experience.* Geza's assumption is that this experience is not
real.
>> You didn't resolve the problem. I'm saying that Jesus clearly claimed to
>> be good.
> I resolved the problem. Jesus NEVER claimed to be God....
That is sidetracking the question. My question is, Why are you ignoring the
fact Jesus claimed to be good? And if he claimed to be good, he was not in
this instance claiming to be any different from God, who "alone is good."
I've already given you several proof-texts indicating Jesus saw himself as
divine. Don't be misled by Jesus' unwillingness to make his deity a matter
of systematic theology. He clearly revealed his deity to his faithful
followers. To his detractors he did not deny the truth, but made the issue
less dogmatic.
randy
randy
"colp"
randy
> Jesus was pointing out that if he was being called "good," then he was
> being
> recognized as God. Homerun.
"So according to your logic, the same should apply creation in Genesis
1, since it was recognized as being good."
No, since words and statements can be easily misconstrued, it is *context*
that is all-important when determining what someone means. In this instance,
the context concerns God as the exclusive *source* of all goodness. Jesus is
subtlely claiming to be not just a good teacher, but more--the source of all
good, just like God.
randy
Dr. House
> "I"
> randy
>
> > The Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford University is more
> > qualified to speak on the subjet matter than you. What qualification do
> > you hold that demonstrates that you know more than Geza vermes?
>
> I'm not comparing degrees or status--just stating that it is a matter of
> opinion. What excludes his opinion is his evident bias. I don't share that
> bias because I'm a Christian.
Is there an award for double talk?
> I know the Christian gospel as a matter of
> *personal experience.* Geza's assumption is that this experience is not
> real.
And you can verify your story because you have something that is not
just internal to you?
> >> You didn't resolve the problem. I'm saying that Jesus clearly claimed to
> >> be good.
> > I resolved the problem. Jesus NEVER claimed to be God....
>
> That is sidetracking the question. My question is, Why are you ignoring the
> fact Jesus claimed to be good?
Where did he do that?
> And if he claimed to be good, he was not in
> this instance claiming to be any different from God, who "alone is good."
That is on possible meaning but not the only one.
> I've already given you several proof-texts indicating Jesus saw himself as
> divine.
I'd like to see any proof you have on the real Jesus.
> Don't be misled by Jesus' unwillingness to make his deity a matter
> of systematic theology. He clearly revealed his deity to his faithful
> followers.
Or at least that is what the stories about him came to be in the 20-50
years that they were passed around verbally before they were written
down.
> To his detractors he did not deny the truth, but made the issue
> less dogmatic.
Do you have proof?
Dr. House
If that conversation actually happened then you have no idea what tone
was used. For all you know Jesus could have been making it clear that
he was not to be compared to God. You project the tone you desire
onto the passage.
randy
"Dr. House"
randy
> I'm not comparing degrees or status--just stating that it is a matter of
> opinion. What excludes his opinion is his evident bias. I don't share that
> bias because I'm a Christian.
"Is there an award for double talk?"
People who claim to be experts in the New Testament, or in the Gospels,
should understand the necessary connection Jesus created between his spirit
and ours. To properly understand this, then, one needs to experience it. If
these scholars do not include people who have experienced it, they don't
fully appreciate what Jesus' gospel was. Their tendency would be to treat
the experience as something false, as something to be excluded from Jesus'
gospel. That is a "bias." They could conceivably be correct, but in that
case it would be a "correct" bias.
I believe their findings to be a *bad* bias because I claim to have
experienced Jesus' gospel. And I believe it to be true. So they've gone down
the wrong track, in my opinion.
> I know the Christian gospel as a matter of
> *personal experience.* Geza's assumption is that this experience is not
> real.
"And you can verify your story because you have something that is not
just internal to you?"
I can verify my story by the testimony of my life. And all others have the
same opportunity to test this experience for themselves. But in reality,
unbelievers tend to look with incredulity upon the so-called "righteousness"
of Christians. They choose to believe them to be "hypocrites," or "no better
than others."
> That is sidetracking the question. My question is, Why are you ignoring
> the
> fact Jesus claimed to be good?
"Where did he do that?"
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the
Father; for which of these do you stone me?"
> I've already given you several proof-texts indicating Jesus saw himself as
> divine.
"I'd like to see any proof you have on the real Jesus."
I *have* been speaking of the "real Jesus." Why should you need any more
proofs?
> Don't be misled by Jesus' unwillingness to make his deity a matter
> of systematic theology. He clearly revealed his deity to his faithful
> followers.
"Or at least that is what the stories about him came to be in the 20-50
years that they were passed around verbally before they were written
down."
That's not a very long time to condense all the public chatter into more
concise, written form. There may have been, in fact, earlier written
accounts that have perished. We're talking about 2000 years ago!
But why should you think 20-50 years is a barrier of any kind? Presidents
and celebrities sometimes write their memoirs late in life, long after the
events they're writing about.
> To his detractors he did not deny the truth, but made the issue
> less dogmatic.
"Do you have proof?"
Proof of what, that he was less dogmatic with unbelievers? Of course--it is
right there in the gospel accounts. Jesus took his close disciples up on a
mountain to be transfigured before them, to show them his deity. To others
he was careful to be "less candid." He told his disciples to be
discriminating in who they told their stories to, and he spoke to his
opponents in parables. What more proof should you require?
randy
randy
"Dr. House"
randy
> No, since words and statements can be easily misconstrued, it is *context*
> that is all-important when determining what someone means. In this
> instance,
> the context concerns God as the exclusive *source* of all goodness. Jesus
> is
> subtlely claiming to be not just a good teacher, but more--the source of
> all
> good, just like God.
"If that conversation actually happened then you have no idea what tone
was used. For all you know Jesus could have been making it clear that
he was not to be compared to God. You project the tone you desire
onto the passage."
No, I'm looking at the *whole testimony* of the gospels--not just a
particular passage. People less knowledgeable about Jesus, or people less
experienced in Jesus, tend to see things in a more fragmentary way. Those
who know Jesus see a person and a spirit who radiates consistently from the
pages of Scripture. But those who don't know Jesus are stuck with a
semi-scientific analysis, attempting to patch together different accounts
under the assumption a "Jesus-experience" doesn't really exist. That doesn't
work for me, as a Christian who has personally experienced Jesus.
Jesus spent his ministry demonstrating his divine power to his disciples,
and yet marginalizing these kinds of theological arguments among his
opponents. His concern was to show his divine goodness--not to debate his
deity. He therefore claimed to not just be good, as any other good person,
but to be the source of all good, like God Himself. That was the controversy
among his opponents, and that was the secret among his disciples, as it
eventually came to be appreciated.
randy
Dr. House
> "Dr. House"
> randy
>
> > I'm not comparing degrees or status--just stating that it is a matter of
> > opinion. What excludes his opinion is his evident bias. I don't share that
> > bias because I'm a Christian.
>
> "Is there an award for double talk?"
>
> People who claim to be experts in the New Testament, or in the Gospels,
> should understand the necessary connection Jesus created between his spirit
> and ours.
You are confusing being an expert on the text with believing a very
specific interpretation of that text.
> To properly understand this, then, one needs to experience it. If
> these scholars do not include people who have experienced it, they don't
> fully appreciate what Jesus' gospel was.
You are completely turned around.
> Their tendency would be to treat
> the experience as something false, as something to be excluded from Jesus'
> gospel. That is a "bias." They could conceivably be correct, but in that
> case it would be a "correct" bias.
Bias is human nature. We all have it. I was primarily responding to
your claim that you did not share his bias because you were a
Christian. Did you mean to say that you have a completely different
bias?
> I believe their findings to be a *bad* bias because I claim to have
> experienced Jesus' gospel.
All bias is bad to the extent that it keeps us from seeing reality.
> And I believe it to be true. So they've gone down
> the wrong track, in my opinion.
>
> > I know the Christian gospel as a matter of
> > *personal experience.* Geza's assumption is that this experience is not
> > real.
>
> "And you can verify your story because you have something that is not
> just internal to you?"
>
> I can verify my story by the testimony of my life.
Internal and subjective to you. How is it better than the testimony
of someone else that may say the exact opposite?
> And all others have the
> same opportunity to test this experience for themselves.
And if it doesn't work out the same way? Why do you think _different_
people have _different_ opinions. It's primarily because they have
had different experiences.
> But in reality,
> unbelievers tend to look with incredulity upon the so-called "righteousness"
> of Christians. They choose to believe them to be "hypocrites," or "no better
> than others."
Christians are no better than others. And there is far too much
hypocrisy within Christianity.
> > That is sidetracking the question. My question is, Why are you ignoring
> > the
> > fact Jesus claimed to be good?
>
> "Where did he do that?"
>
> Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the
> Father; for which of these do you stone me?"
That is John claiming that Jesus claimed to be good. Can you show me
directly where Jesus claimed to be good?
> > I've already given you several proof-texts indicating Jesus saw himself as
> > divine.
>
> "I'd like to see any proof you have on the real Jesus."
>
> I *have* been speaking of the "real Jesus." Why should you need any more
> proofs?
Sorry but your words are not proof.
> > Don't be misled by Jesus' unwillingness to make his deity a matter
> > of systematic theology. He clearly revealed his deity to his faithful
> > followers.
>
> "Or at least that is what the stories about him came to be in the 20-50
> years that they were passed around verbally before they were written
> down."
>
> That's not a very long time to condense all the public chatter into more
> concise, written form.
Jesus could have written the gospel himself and then the number of
years of "Telephone" would have been zero. All that public chatter
was _growing_ rather than condensing during those years. That is what
public chatter does.
> There may have been, in fact, earlier written
> accounts that have perished.
I know. I wish they had not. If Jesus had actually written a gospel
I'm sure the Orthodox sect would have destroyed it so that it would
not prevent their take over.
>We're talking about 2000 years ago!
>
> But why should you think 20-50 years is a barrier of any kind?
Fish stories grow with _every_ telling.
> Presidents
> and celebrities sometimes write their memoirs late in life, long after the
> events they're writing about.
And rumors and gossip about these people grows without limit.
> > To his detractors he did not deny the truth, but made the issue
> > less dogmatic.
>
> "Do you have proof?"
>
> Proof of what, that he was less dogmatic with unbelievers?
Sure.
> Of course--it is
> right there in the gospel accounts.
No, I asked if you had proof that Jesus made the issue less dogmatic.
I wasn't asking if a story said something.
> Jesus took his close disciples up on a
> mountain to be transfigured before them, to show them his deity. To others
> he was careful to be "less candid." He told his disciples to be
> discriminating in who they told their stories to, and he spoke to his
> opponents in parables. What more proof should you require?
And Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father. I know what the
literature says. Do you have real proof regarding the real Jesus?
Dr. House
> "Dr. House"
> randy
>
> > No, since words and statements can be easily misconstrued, it is *context*
> > that is all-important when determining what someone means. In this
> > instance,
> > the context concerns God as the exclusive *source* of all goodness. Jesus
> > is
> > subtlely claiming to be not just a good teacher, but more--the source of
> > all
> > good, just like God.
>
> "If that conversation actually happened then you have no idea what tone
> was used. For all you know Jesus could have been making it clear that
> he was not to be compared to God. You project the tone you desire
> onto the passage."
>
> No, I'm looking at the *whole testimony* of the gospels--not just a
> particular passage. People less knowledgeable about Jesus, or people less
> experienced in Jesus, tend to see things in a more fragmentary way.
Yes, I was only a fundamentalist for thirty years. If only I had
stuck with it longer.
Kidding aside, I use to use that mantra to convince myself that the
parts of the Bible in conflict with each other were not really in
conflict with each other.
> Those
> who know Jesus see a person and a spirit who radiates consistently from the
> pages of Scripture.
You believe.
> But those who don't know Jesus are stuck with a
> semi-scientific analysis,
You believe.
> . . . attempting to patch together different accounts
> under the assumption a "Jesus-experience" doesn't really exist.
You incorrectly believe. Who told you they thought that a "Jesus-
experience" doesn't really exist?
> That doesn't
> work for me, as a Christian who has personally experienced Jesus.
So your personal experience with Jesus makes my personal experience
with Jesus invalid?
> Jesus spent his ministry demonstrating his divine power to his disciples,
> and yet marginalizing these kinds of theological arguments among his
> opponents. His concern was to show his divine goodness--not to debate his
> deity. He therefore claimed to not just be good, as any other good person,
> but to be the source of all good, like God Himself. That was the controversy
> among his opponents, and that was the secret among his disciples, as it
> eventually came to be appreciated.
Do you realize that you could be wrong about a few of these things?
guardian Snow
but more--the source of all
> > good, just like God.
> > randy
>
> If that conversation actually happened then you have no idea what tone
> was used. For all you know Jesus could have been making it clear that
> he was not to be compared to God. You project the tone you desire
> onto the passage.
Christians fabricate a deity out of a man because reality is that they
hate YAHWEH and are in open rebellion against his Torah. YAHWEH
creates ALL things according to scriptures, including Satan, who
answers to him.
Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the
west, that there is none beside me. I am YAHWEH, and there is none
else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
create evil: I YAHWEH do all these things.
In considering the mistranslation of the word God (meaning single
deity) VS the Hebrew word Elohim (Mighty), Christians refuse to simply
use correct understanding because they cling to a faulty dogma.
Showing evidence that Yehoshua is not YAHWEH [except a man with the
spirit] is fairly simple for any person with the ability to use
reason. We can’t all be GOD and Hebrew doesn’t make distinctions
between upper and lower case letters.
Joh 10:34 Yahushua answered them, Is it not written in your law, I
said, Ye are Theos?
Theos being the Greek word translated “God”.
We know that this is a quote of Psalm 82:6 and we know the Hebrew word
was Elohim and so it naturally follows that what is “written” is based
in the Hebrew scriptures for understanding.
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are elohim; and all of you are children of
the most High.
Yehoshua is ELOHIM, just like Moses or any other mighty one but that
does not make him the Almighty.
Isa 19:20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness to Yahweh of
hosts in the land of Mitsrayim. When they cry to Yahweh because of
the oppressors, He sends them a Savior and an Elohim, and shall
deliver them.
Moses was an Elohim to Israel and Aaron was his prophet.
Exo 4:16 “And he shall speak for you to the people. And it shall be
that he shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be an elohim for him.
Exo 7:1 And YAHWEH said unto Moses, See, I have made thee elohim to
Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Abraham was an Elohim and Adonai which in KJV would be translated LORD
GOD.
Gen 23:5 And the sons of Ḥĕth answered Aḇraham, saying to him, 6
“Hear us, my master [adonai also translated LORD in KJV]: You are a
Elohim [translated mighty in kjv but also GOD] prince among us. Bury
your dead in the choicest of our burial places. None of us withholds
from you his burial site, from burying your dead.”
Here Abraham is also called adonai and Elohim, Lord and God in KJV
translation, the same is used for “Jesus” in the equivalent Greek text
“Kurious and Theos”. Clearly Theos has been mistranslated to God
instead of Elohim. I don’t see any Christians running around trying
to prove we should worship Abraham and Moses and even Yehoshua said:
Mat 4:10 Then saith Yahushua unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it
is written, Thou shalt worship YHWH thy Elohim, and him only shalt
thou serve.
Again he says, “it is written” so we know it’s based on the Hebrew
text that reads:
Deu 6:13 Thou shalt fear YAHWEH thy Elohim, and serve him, and shalt
swear by his name.
Deu 6:14 Ye shall not go after other elohim, of the elohim of the
people which are round about you;
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
And now here is my secret, a very simple secret; it is only with the
heart that one can see rightly, what is essential is invisible to the
eye. If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood
and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long
for the endless immensity of the sea.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- please join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip
If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is
really true, there would be little hope of advance.
Orville Wright
randy
"Dr. House"
randy
> People who claim to be experts in the New Testament, or in the Gospels,
> should understand the necessary connection Jesus created between his
> spirit
> and ours.
"You are confusing being an expert on the text with believing a very
specific interpretation of that text."
I'm not confused at all. Can you imagine someone describing to you what
something is if you've never seen it before? That's what it's like for
someone to piece together what they think to be conflicting texts if they
don't understand the thing that links those texts.
"Bias is human nature. We all have it. I was primarily responding to
your claim that you did not share his bias because you were a
Christian. Did you mean to say that you have a completely different
bias?"
Of course I have bias. But it's not bias that concerns me here. What makes
it bogus to me is that I've had the essential experience that is necessary
to piece the pieces together. That means I can see a relationship between
the texts, whereas these scholars suggest they cannot be joined together.
Jesus is the missing piece they seem to avoid. Their bias is bad.
> I can verify my story by the testimony of my life.
"Internal and subjective to you. How is it better than the testimony
of someone else that may say the exact opposite?"
Someone's personal life is an objective testimony--not a subjective
experience. Whether we do good or act good or not can be empirically viewed
and judged.
> But in reality,
> unbelievers tend to look with incredulity upon the so-called
> "righteousness"
> of Christians. They choose to believe them to be "hypocrites," or "no
> better
> than others."
"Christians are no better than others. And there is far too much
hypocrisy within Christianity."
Well, we know which side of the fence you are on, in terms of bias.
> Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the
> Father; for which of these do you stone me?"
"That is John claiming that Jesus claimed to be good. Can you show me
directly where Jesus claimed to be good?"
No, that is John's written record of *Jesus* claiming to be good.
> Of course--it is
> right there in the gospel accounts.
"No, I asked if you had proof that Jesus made the issue less dogmatic.
I wasn't asking if a story said something."
This is the proof...
> Jesus took his close disciples up on a
> mountain to be transfigured before them, to show them his deity. To others
> he was careful to be "less candid." He told his disciples to be
> discriminating in who they told their stories to, and he spoke to his
> opponents in parables. What more proof should you require?
"And Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father. I know what the
literature says. Do you have real proof regarding the real Jesus?"
I'm done with you. You're not honest.
randy
Dr. House
> "Dr. House"
> randy
>
> > People who claim to be experts in the New Testament, or in the Gospels,
> > should understand the necessary connection Jesus created between his
> > spirit
> > and ours.
>
> "You are confusing being an expert on the text with believing a very
> specific interpretation of that text."
>
> I'm not confused at all. Can you imagine someone describing to you what
> something is if you've never seen it before? That's what it's like for
> someone to piece together what they think to be conflicting texts if they
> don't understand the thing that links those texts.
You show that you are confused. You seem to think your own bias isn't
getting in your way and people can't see without your personal
experience.
Look the average secular New Testament scholar could probably play
you, 6 and Stover _simultaneously_ at chess and beat all three of
you. Yet you guys seem to think that your belief gives you some truth
that these guys can never touch. It doesn't work that way.
> "Bias is human nature. We all have it. I was primarily responding to
> your claim that you did not share his bias because you were a
> Christian. Did you mean to say that you have a completely different
> bias?"
>
> Of course I have bias. But it's not bias that concerns me here.
You should be concerned with fighting against your own bias.
> What makes
> it bogus to me is that I've had the essential experience that is necessary
> to piece the pieces together. That means I can see a relationship between
> the texts, whereas these scholars suggest they cannot be joined together.
Then chances are that they are right and your bias is wrong.
> Jesus is the missing piece they seem to avoid.
They can back up their claims with evidence. You cannot. Your
appeals to deities backing you up are rather empty. For all you know
God might have a different opinion.
> Their bias is bad.
All bias is bad. We must all overcome our own bias.
> > I can verify my story by the testimony of my life.
>
> "Internal and subjective to you. How is it better than the testimony
> of someone else that may say the exact opposite?"
>
> Someone's personal life is an objective testimony--not a subjective
> experience.
Of course it is subjective. If I told you a clever story you would
have no way to verify it.
> Whether we do good or act good or not can be empirically viewed
> and judged.
And we would discover one person's "good" is not the next person's
"good". Then what?
> > But in reality,
> > unbelievers tend to look with incredulity upon the so-called
> > "righteousness"
> > of Christians. They choose to believe them to be "hypocrites," or "no
> > better
> > than others."
>
> "Christians are no better than others. And there is far too much
> hypocrisy within Christianity."
>
> Well, we know which side of the fence you are on, in terms of bias.
I told you in my prior post - all bias is bad.
Are you subjectively assuming that I am against Christians now? Is
that a leap you make simply because I don't give my own people a pass?
> > Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the
> > Father; for which of these do you stone me?"
>
> "That is John claiming that Jesus claimed to be good. Can you show me
> directly where Jesus claimed to be good?"
[..]
> > Of course--it is
> > right there in the gospel accounts.
>
> "No, I asked if you had proof that Jesus made the issue less dogmatic.
> I wasn't asking if a story said something."
>
> This is the proof...
Do you not know what proof means?
> > Jesus took his close disciples up on a
> > mountain to be transfigured before them, to show them his deity. To others
> > he was careful to be "less candid." He told his disciples to be
> > discriminating in who they told their stories to, and he spoke to his
> > opponents in parables. What more proof should you require?
>
> "And Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father. I know what the
> literature says. Do you have real proof regarding the real Jesus?"
>
> I'm done with you. You're not honest.
I admit it when I don't have evidence. You don't. How does my
loyalty to truth make me not honest?
Randy ®
You have the same theme again and again. You simply throw your
endless supply of doubts and denials at what the Bible and others say,
then act like all the burden is on us to keep meeting your challenges
to provide proof, until we come up with something you approve of.
When we furnish direct evidence from the Bible, you simply deny it
proves anything, then challenge us to prove it's God's word. ad-
ininitum. Your doubt proves nothing, but your doubt.
Meanwhile, you claim to operate by the authority of "reality", which
you claim is what you discern with your five senses. Yet others who
do the same don't necessarily agree with you, and draw their own
conclusions. You can't disprove what the Bible says, or that it is
God's word, simply by relying on what you think you observe with your
five senses.
While people can come to different conclusions based on what the Bible
says, at least the objective data remains the same, and observable to
all. You furnish no such data. All we know is that your authority is
"reality" as you think you're discerning it with your five senses, at
any given moment. And I'm supposed to doubt God's word over that? I
trow not!
Dr. House
[..]
> > > You're not honest.
>
> > I admit it when I don't have evidence. You don't. How does my
> > loyalty to truth make me not honest?
>
> You have the same theme again and again. You simply throw your
> endless supply of doubts and denials at what the Bible and others say,
> then act like all the burden is on us to keep meeting your challenges
> to provide proof, until we come up with something you approve of.
Dude, until you prove something you have proven nothing. You don't
get this. You are empty. You have nothing. Yet you are perfectly
happy to hurt other people over your nothing. Lie about them, make
them feel bad - it's all good because you believe something. Do you
have any idea how bankrupt that is? And how you are going to impress
these people you would hurt over your belief? Are they going to be
attracted to a system that hurts others over nothing?
> When we furnish direct evidence from the Bible,
You _never_ do this. Not once. Not ever. You furnish sayings from
the Bible. They are _not_ evidence. You demonstrate that you have no
clue what evidence means.
> . . . you simply deny it
> proves anything,
That is fact. Were it not the case then you would stop moaning and
actually _prove_ something.
> . . . then challenge us to prove it's God's word.
Yes. If you are going to hurt people then you need to demonstrate
that you are doing it for a better reason than 'you believe stuff'.
> . . . ad-
> ininitum. Your doubt proves nothing, but your doubt.
I never claimed doubt proves something.
> Meanwhile, you claim to operate by the authority of "reality",
Your authority obsession is amusing.
> . . . which
> you claim is what you discern with your five senses. Yet others who
> do the same don't necessarily agree with you, and draw their own
> conclusions.
But what can the prove?
> You can't disprove what the Bible says,
Ah but I can point to the places where the Bible contradicts the
Bible. How can those places be the word of an honest, sane, God? Let
me guess you will "walk in the truth" by lying about them. That is
the standard play.
> . . . or that it is
> God's word,
And you can't disprove that Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" is God's
word. Notice the difference? I defend the people you attack. You
attack them because you have a belief. You have no better excuse than
that. All your self justification boils down to you believe something
so that is why you are rude or mean.
> . . . simply by relying on what you think you observe with your
> five senses.
Not just what I observe, but what I can support and what I can prove
or disprove. Those are things one can't do using only subjective
belief.
> While people can come to different conclusions based on what the Bible
> says, at least the objective data remains the same, and observable to
> all. You furnish no such data.
I've cited many facts. What would you like data on?
> All we know is that your authority is
> "reality"
What is it with you and your hang-up on authority?
> . . . as you think you're discerning it with your five senses,
No, those just provide input. I use my God given mind.
> . . . at
> any given moment. And I'm supposed to doubt God's word over that? I
> trow not!
Why do you doubt that the Book of Mormon is God's word. It's
scripture. And 2 Tim tells us that all scripture is good and so on.
Lay out your thought process and look at it.
I
>> When we furnish direct evidence from the Bible,
>
> You _never_ do this. Not once. Not ever. You furnish sayings from
> the Bible. They are _not_ evidence. You demonstrate that you have no
> clue what evidence means.
CORRECT (to quote randy)
Evidence is NOT a bible verse!
Evidence is NOT something that has been EDITED or is a FORGERY and the
man-made fallible bible has been edited and contains forgeries. Though the
bible does comntain SOME evidence, not every verse is authentic. For
example, which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to Mark's gospel? There are
several! If the bible were "God's Word" then God surely would have gotten
the ending to Mark's gospel sorted out!!!!
When one gives randy solid evidence by scholars he rejects them because
their conclusions are not the same as his.
> > You can't disprove what the Bible says,
>
> Ah but I can point to the places where the Bible contradicts the
> Bible. How can those places be the word of an honest, sane, God?
I have also provided the HUGE number of contradictions in the bible which
CANNOT all be true at the same time!!!
By name: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
By book: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html
This goes over Randy's head. Randy pretends that they don't exist.
> I use my God given mind.
Randy thinks that is a sin.
--
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype ("Nudist Colony
Of The Dead")
--
"All things are probable. Try to believe. Really! Try to believe even if
it's bloody stupid and irrational. Why? Because I said so, that's why!
Don't ask questions. Just believe." - Mark 17: 1- 3 (MTV)
--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
(a) a very stong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence from it
of any sort of error;
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
(c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are
not really 'true Christians' at all.
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
I
> When we furnish direct evidence from the Bible, you simply deny it
> proves anything, then challenge us to prove it's God's word.
The infinite One God is far greater than the finite man-made bible.
#########################################################
Christ does not read the Bible, the New Testament, or the Gospel. He is the
norm of the Bible, the criterion of the New Testament, the incarnation of
the Gospel. ... The person, not the book, and the life, not the text, are
decisive and constitutive for us.
John Dominic Crossan "God & Emprire: Jesus against Rome, then and now,"
(HarperOne:2007) p. 95
########################################################
> You can't disprove what the Bible says, or that it is God's word
I have repeatedly but you ignore the overwhelming scholarly evidence against
your unsupported naive literalist fundamentalist opinion.
The bible condones CRIMES:
- genocide like Joshua
- slavery like the Old and New Testaments
- multiple wives and concubines like Solomon
The bible has multiple CONTRADICTIONS
By name: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
By book: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html
The bible has been EDITED multiple times
See
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
Funk, Hoover& The Jesus Seminar "The Five Gospels" (Polebridge: 1993) Figure
9 p. 128
You prove absolutely true .......
::: Jesus is LORD :::
In news:5db466c7-7908-439f...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com,
Dr. House <hso...@hotmail.com> typed:
randy
"Dr. House"
randy
> "No, I asked if you had proof that Jesus made the issue less dogmatic.
> I wasn't asking if a story said something."
> This is the proof...
"Do you not know what proof means?"
Yes, and I gave it. Jesus was less dogmatic with unbelievers about who he
was. I showed you how Jesus asked some of his disciples not to tell others
about himself. And I told you how his parables were intended to hide some of
his personal truths, which were reserved only for his disciples.
> > Jesus took his close disciples up on a
> > mountain to be transfigured before them, to show them his deity. To
> > others
> > he was careful to be "less candid." He told his disciples to be
> > discriminating in who they told their stories to, and he spoke to his
> > opponents in parables. What more proof should you require?
> "And Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father. I know what the
> literature says. Do you have real proof regarding the real Jesus?"
> I'm done with you. You're not honest.
"I admit it when I don't have evidence. You don't. How does my
loyalty to truth make me not honest?"
I thought the reference to "real proof" and "Darth Vader" to be insincere.
Perhaps I misjudged you. What does proof regarding the "real Jesus" have to
do with proof that Jesus was more obscure with his enemies than with his
friends?
randy
Dr. House
> "Dr. House"
> randy
>
> > "No, I asked if you had proof that Jesus made the issue less dogmatic.
> > I wasn't asking if a story said something."
> > This is the proof...
>
> "Do you not know what proof means?"
>
> Yes, and I gave it.
No Randy you did not. Some story written 20 to 70 years after the
fact which may or may not be based on any fact doesn't prove a thing
about said facts. You don't seem to get this.
> Jesus was less dogmatic with unbelievers about who he
> was.
He may very well have been - but we do not _know_ this because we have
no evidence. We can only believe it.
> I showed you how Jesus asked some of his disciples not to tell others
> about himself.
No, you showed me a story written decades after Jesus was gone which
might or might not contain a single fact.
> And I told you how his parables were intended to hide some of
> his personal truths, which were reserved only for his disciples.
Now that is something which _is_ supportable. The evidence isn't
strong but it does exist. Secret teachings 'for the disciples only'
is a theme in many of the earliest writings. It's enough to suggest
it was based on fact. Note that this is a generalization. As a trend
it takes less data to make this claim reasonable because it doesn't
matter how the trend happened on a day to day basis in order for the
trend to be true.
Do you see the difference? If I were to claim you were exceeding the
speed limit on Jan 1, 2009 while driving west in a black BMW on Route
66 that would be very specific and would require much more evidence
that a claim that from time to time you have exceeded the speed
limit. All I would have to do to make the latter reasonable is quote
you saying you were speeding. The quote may not be true. But the
latter claim is regarding a general trend and it's far more reasonable
than the specific claim.
[...]
> "I admit it when I don't have evidence. You don't. How does my
> loyalty to truth make me not honest?"
>
> I thought the reference to "real proof" and "Darth Vader" to be insincere.
It illustrates exactly what you are doing. You claim the existence in
literature proves something really happened. Well I can pull out Lord
of the Rings and quote all kinds of stories. The fact that I can
quote them to you and where they are written does not make them the
Word of God. I just don't know how to explain this to you in a way
that will get past your denial. What you call proof does not prove
the Bible is the word of God.
> Perhaps I misjudged you. What does proof regarding the "real Jesus" have to
> do with proof that Jesus was more obscure with his enemies than with his
> friends?
Maybe my thesis got lost in the long thread. I don't care if you
believe in God, the Bible, Trinity, or anything else you desire as
long as you don't hurt anyone. What I have a problem with is hurting
others - in this case by insulting them - for no reason other than you
believe something. If you are going to hurt someone you need a very
good reason. You need to be able to support that reason with
evidence. Otherwise you are just flying planes into the World Trade
Center because you have a belief.
randy
"Dr. House"
randy
"...Some story written 20 to 70 years after the
fact which may or may not be based on any fact doesn't prove a thing
about said facts. You don't seem to get this."
I was only talking about proof that *the Scriptures" indicate Jesus said
such and such. If you don't accept the Scriptures, obviously we don't have
anything to argue about.
> Jesus was less dogmatic with unbelievers about who he
> was.
"He may very well have been - but we do not _know_ this because we have
no evidence. We can only believe it."
The Scriptures are "evidence!" It may not be 100% proof, but it is, in fact,
*evidence.*
"You claim the existence in literature proves something really happened...."
No I don't. It's just evidence that something may have happened, or likely
happened. I accept that for you it may not even be likely. That is because
proof of spiritual things requires spiritual proof on the inside, by
experience. If you don't have that, you don't have enough proof, and you
never will.
randy
pyotr filipivich
Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:54:29 -0700 (PDT) did write/type or cause to appear
in alt.christnet.christianlife in response to Dr House the following:
>
>Meanwhile, you claim to operate by the authority of "reality", which
>you claim is what you discern with your five senses. Yet others who
>do the same don't necessarily agree with you, and draw their own
>conclusions. You can't disprove what the Bible says, or that it is
>God's word, simply by relying on what you think you observe with your
>five senses.
>
>While people can come to different conclusions based on what the Bible
>says, at least the objective data remains the same, and observable to
>all. You furnish no such data. All we know is that your authority is
>"reality" as you think you're discerning it with your five senses, at
>any given moment. And I'm supposed to doubt God's word over that? I
>trow not!
"Cogito, ergo sum" - "I think, therefore I exist." Which sounds
cool, until you realize that "that which I cannot conclude, cannot
exist." follows from that. Which in turn is not really a problem
until someone like Godel comes along and concludes that you cannot
prove any system from with-in that system.
If your religion was based on a philosophical construct, on
"proofs of God existence", on historical evidence which demands a
verdict, and similar intellectual activities, developments in logic
and hard sciences in the late 19th and early 20th century kind of
knocked the underpinnings out from underneath your religion. And the
results have been plain: a Protestantism which is either an ethical
system to follow, or seeking an experience which authenticate one's
existence.
-
pyotr filipivich
Monotheism, someone has said, offers two simple axioms:
1) There is a God.
2) It's not you.