Please believe this... I don’t wish to attempt anything. I’m grueling over many inconsistencies and enigmas... and a deep mistrust of Tradition, (being former Catholic does not help.) And I don’t know Hebrew, nor Greek. And if I sound/have sounded arrogant... you don’t understand (but you don’t need to) I’d start at square one... and go back to kindergarten if need be.
I have read,but I could never prove it... that YHWH, Tetragammaton etc... these were edited/messed with. I don’t know... and when I compare text of New Testament versions alone -- lots of squirrely things among the editions are going on. I don’t even want to go there.
But no... I’m not looking to exalt Jesus over the Father. You know why? Because I cannot do such a thing. I’m just a girl with questions. And God won’t likely go for it. But if God is ONE... in the way that I am/have been contemplating... It isn’t possible to exalt anybody over anybody... because “they” are ONE.
I’ve read the following concerning Eusebius after signing the Nicean Creed (you’ve probably seen as such:
Eusebius said that the motivation for compromise was fear as evidenced by the confession of several delegates who later regretted their signing of the ruling (Nicene Creed/Trinity), and after summoning their courage, wrote to the Emperor (Constantine): [color:"FF0000"] "We committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you".[/color]
But I just would have *assumed* (a bad thing) that even in the Trinitarian view... in an essence/substance “one truth” kind of way, even... that you would have told me Yes... these OT references “make my Holy name known”.... and Jesus saying “I AM” and scripture saying that Jesus is the “name above all names”.... I would have thought you would have said Yes to this.... meaning the name of the Lord is Revealed in Jesus Christ... as the mystery of the ages made manifest. So this is again, why I asked... I wanted to know your understanding.
So far... I’ve got Patripassianism, Modelism, I forget the other isms... plus now... Subordinationism (means I am trying to give the Father an inferiority complex) And if I used to be one person... the part of me that is typing this is not sure. I'm sorting this out... speaking what I feel are convictions, then realizing this is not the right place to 'debate'... Then listening to your input (as much as I can take... I mean as feeling pointed at, at times) etc, because I have to. Yet I realize, you are taking your time to thoughtfully respond and answer.
Thank you for your response. I still suggest that you read Robert Letham's book, The Holy Trinity. It covers EVERYTHING we have been discussing and MUCH more. It will also be able to formulate answers that in a discussion board there is not time to post--as all of us have time restrictions ... You have asked some serious questions and deserve some serious answers. This is the best book in print at present to answer them "according to Scripture."
As far as Eusebius, Constantine and a host of others please realize that God does not ALWAYS use that which is PERFECT to accomplish His purposes. As matter a fact He normally uses that which is imperfect (such as me). God is SOVEREIGN. He uses means. As He used Joseph brothers to accomplish His purpose(s) He can use such things as Creeds and Confessions, though they are not on the same level with Scripture. Every book of the Bible has a "human" author that is a sinner (Moses, David, and Paul--murderers, Peter denied Christ, etc.) and yet God in His sovereignty authored a "perfect" book in the original languages (note I said "original languages" and not necessarily our translations).
You cut and pasted a lot of Scripture. The Book above will assist you to understand how these Scriptures fit together and show you WHAT they MEAN. It is possible to memorize the whole Bible and not understand what it means. You can't just match up words of certain texts and think they ALL are wholly related (some are, others aren't). There is much more to biblical study than this. Take this opportunity to escape further from your Catholic roots and read this book. I would also suggest the articles Pilgrim has at this website. They are full of truth and you will gain much from your experience with them. Remember you did not find this place by accident. There is a purpose to you being here. Use the opportunity God has granted you with wisely.
Please feel free to continue to ask questions as well. We will help as God permits. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
I knew that but it does not hurt to get confirmation. I have had a few dealings with a few of the groups you mentioned. Mainly Oneness Pentecostals and Jesus Only Pentecostals.
Kathy, hope you don't mind if I ask you something.
I saw this on your first post:
"Regarding the Trinity... a man-made doctrine created in 180 AD. Question: what purpose has it served spiritually and historically (intent and fruits) to introduce this man-made explanation/image of a God who is beyond man’s explanation?"
I still haven't figured out why this bothers you. I especially mean the whole "beyond man's explantion" part. Sorry if you have already answered it. I just don't understand you reasoning behind this question. It seems to be the root of many of the difficulties you face. Will you help me understand this? Thanks.
Last edited by TheHinge; Fri Jul 15, 200510:28 PM.
This has been a long difficult thread and topic. (In answering your question I am not looking to reopen a debate... I know how you all feel about the Trinity doctrine.)
Because you asked... I started the thread not knowing what I meant... How’s that? It was the beginning of my own questioning. I suspected ? that the Trinity doctrine misses the spiritual truth... That in a nutshell is the issue. “Who do you say that I am?” (too important to get this wrong.)
If the answer is the Son of God, but not the Father... the Father revealer and revealed... then, I see an irreconcilable set of conclusions. This being that the name above all names is either the Word of God, or it isn’t.... Rev 2:17, 3:12, 19:13 That is Jesus Christ, God who came in the Flesh. Second to who? A separate (but not) Father named not “I AM” but Yahweh? He who has not the Son, has not the Father. A separate Father/God ? over earthly Jerusalem... Victorious as a sign of his sovereignty? (Sounds like Dispensationalism to me) 1 John 4:3... OR New Jerusalem descending from Heaven... Rev. 21:10.
So you do not have any logical objections or any problems with the doctrine itself or things beyond your comprehension in Christian doctrine? Just making sure I understood you.
Many folks reject doctrines like the Trinity because they cannot comprehend them. At least that is the real initial starting point. There was somewhere, way back, that that someone decided they could not grasp the doctrine of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ or some other Christian doctrine. I am not saying it is you. It is why I asked instead of assumed. This same thing could be said about an atheist. There was some time in their past where they decide against a miracle, or the veracity of the Bible, etc.
Yes, I do have objections and problems with the doctrine and its conclusions. But this has been brought up. It has been suggested to me that I do not understand the Trinity apologetics, and thus reference material was advocated that would clear up what I proposed were my issues. I’m at a stale-mate. I read the Owen article. I haven’t read the book by Robert Letham. At present, I’m too biased... because I feel too convicted... and getting to this point of questioning, then disagreement with my own entire prior understanding has been anything but easy, and not for the sake of being contrary.
If I am correct in interpreting your note to mean you have wrestled, and are possibly still wresting, with the material presented to you by so many here recently, I for one am glad to hear it! Be a "Jacob", Kathy, and cling to the Lord as He wrestles with you, even if your hip gets knocked out of joint in the process! That seems to happen to most of us at some point.
Let me pass along one admonition that came to mind as I re-read much of this thread. Not about the Giant Earthworms again (oh, I was spat out after 3 days, by the way, that's why I'm able to post again), and not about any particular aspect of trinitarian doctrine (you have been given much to chew on already).
Rather, I ask you to consider an analogy I feel portrays the comprehensiveness of the doctrinal statements you have formulated as replacements for the classic creedal statements.
Our youngest daughter has been blind from birth. Early tactile exploration of the trees in our neighborhood taught her that they were of varying girths, with variously textured barks, that their density and temperature were similar to wooden objects she was familiar with, that the wind and birds and squirrels were likely to make noise from above the tree, that it was generally cooler beneath one in the middle of a summer day, and that they rose to the height of her upstretched fingertips. When I held her up high beneath a branch she could fell the leaves, but that took an imaginative stretch to tie to the fact of "treehood", since I was nowhere near the trunk.
Later, when she began cane travel--which was not taught in her birth country--her tactile world was extended by about 3 feet, and consequently trees could be seen to be that much taller as well. The cane made it possible to feel the base of lower branches as well.
Being dauntless, she later discovered the absolute thrill of climbing trees, hanging around in various attitudes at altitudes her sighted siblings rarely attained. Along the way, she has attained a much fuller picture of what the tree is; and it is consequently much easier for her to accept what she still must accept on the authority of another: the total height of the tree, for one.
Application? No, nothing about "one-in-tree"!
Rather, you seem to be in a position where you have assembled a number of facts to establish certain aspects of the nature of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, just as my daughter has assembled a number of facts about trees. Many of the individual facts you cite are indeed biblically supported. The problem comes with your apparent refusal to incorporate the balance of the biblical testimony.
In the analogy, it would be as if my daughter said: "Trees have bark, they're made of wood, they have leaves and branches, they make shade, they go up 10 feet in the air, and birds and squirrels and the wind like to go over them." I would respond, "Mostly correct, but the tree you climbed actually goes up 40 feet.", and she would counter that every tree she ever saw went up only 10 feet, and she could trust no one who told her any different.
In regard to this issue, Kathy, you give every impression of being not only blind--which we all are to varying degrees--but unteachable as well. Your doctrinal formulations, as revealed by your inability to interact with many of the scriptures which counter them, simply do not account for all of the biblical data as comprehensively, as thoroughly, and therefore as truthfully, as do those universally accepted ones.
Back to the analogy for one other aspect, if you don't mind. I pray that you will see that the truth or falsity of trinitarian doctrine is not inextricably yoked to the falsity of Rome's soteriology, but must rather be examined on its own merits. In the analogy, if I asked my daughter why she refused to believe that trees were any higher than 10 feet, she could say: "The first person to tell me that trees were 40 feet tall also told me to believe in Santa Claus. You told me yourself that's a lie, so I know he was lying about the trees too. Please don't keep repeating that old lie. We all know that trees are just 10 feet tall."
Praying, as I'm sure others are as well, that your eyes will be opened by the Lord himself, to your need to account for the entire counsel of His word, and not a mere few favorite passages.
Kathy said: Yes, I do have objections and problems with the doctrine and its conclusions.
Okay. Thanks. But are you saying that your objections are because of what you initially said or something else?
Here's why I ask. There's a difference between having a real problem with the rationale of something and saying something is "beyond comprehension." Something can be logical and beyond comprehension. But I am unclear as to whether you object because the doctrine has a propositional problem (like something is a and non-a at the same time and in the same relationship) or if there is a problem like, "I Just don't understand this. I cannot fully comprehend this." For example, God is infinite and beyond comprehension; however, that does not mean we cannot know things about Him.
At the same time, the doctrine of the Trinity can easily be laid out logically. But, you cannot picture a triune God. You cannot fully comprehend Him. But you also cannot throw it out on those grounds alone, either.
Just a thought...(I do not argue for the Trinity on these grounds, just trying to help you think about it.)
My initial statement was something alluding to the vanity of man to liken God’s image to philosophy.... Thus ‘who should dare do such a thing... and what good can come from this effort.’ Yet, I was wrong in stating that I can skirt the whole issue and not commit to explaining the relationship myself. I know what you are asking... I do believe that the Trinity doctrine negates itself. It says 3 = 1. I believe it really means 3 = 3... but won’t admit it. It hands me a paradox as explanation. It calls me anti-Christian for really/truly believing that Jesus Christ IS God.
Act 21:13 Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.
Psa 148:13 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for his name alone is excellent; his glory [is] above the earth and heaven.
Phl 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
1Cr 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
(That last verse was a strange one to put in here... but I think it fits)
Thank you for asking... but for the time being, I don't see any common ground in this doctrinal difference we *share* At least, if anything... we've all stirred the waters and realize how important are the answers. I'm not so vain to think I know much, nor have much to learn.
I appreciate your words and why you say them. I am struck by the resiliency and sight of your daughter, beyond physical limitations.
I appreciate your intentions... Today, this is my answer/understanding.
Using analogies... I’m limited to certain conclusions. For example: “I don’t know all the detail, but...” I believe we were created rather than evolved out of chaos. I believe this because design is recognizable, deliberate and intelligent. Such a statement sweepingly says to the evolutionist “She’s saying *don’t confuse me with the facts*” Bringing up this analogy to you, in this context, is saying the same thing.
2 people each receive maps to where to dig for the same treasure... included: an intense amount of detail, some parables... and the answer implicitly ‘by that big oak tree.’ Yet, these two persons end up anyway in two different locations. I am going to look at that detail and those parables in light of that answer implicitly... ‘by that big oak tree.’ For as much as it has been observed that I have glossed over statements... in favor of my own picture, one: that works both ways... two: I had more statements to respond to, and the topic is deep.
My problem is the conclusion and that big picture. And conclusions. Earlier I asked, “Is it possible to consider Jesus Christ too important in the Godhead?” I was told ‘Yes’. Of course, I’m picking and choosing here... a rebuttal:
1Cr 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
To me, this verse says more than enough. It was Jesus Christ who blinded Paul on the road and spoke to him. Call me a modelist; It was the voice of Almighty God that spoke. Right there is where I stepped over the line.
Numbers, group consensus, and traditions have always had snares... so too, there have always been heresies. That historically consensus says ‘God is triune’ – the Word of God says ‘the Gate is Narrow.’ Many will say Lord, Lord AND/YET ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord’... or believes on his name will be saved. YET, the consensus of Christendom IS that they ALL do indeed have the name correct, and believe. Ecumenism... at its most basic, conservative... ‘catholic’ (universal) level, is I believe what we have and will have reaffirmed in the future “Lift Him high... but not too high.”
It is the name of Jesus that is hated by the world... Yet so many love and respect the name... (surely we must mean ‘them’ the ‘others’) The apostasy we read of IS the Church herself.
Meanwhile, the Hegelian Dialect of divide and conquer has always been in full swing... Yet I see that its purpose is to rally everyone towards that ecumenical creed... and it is catholic (as in universal). Ironically while you reject RCC. And I believe it is a test, by design... Lift Him too high? I can’t help but consider the metaphor of man’s tower of unity... and then God swept it down and confused the language.
By design: Mat 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
I am as sincere, stubborn, un-teachable at present... perhaps, yes. I know you want to convince me. I don’t know what else to say. I want to be a Jacob.
My prayer is for the narrow gate. And if He should knock me down and blind me, or un-blind me, that I’m blessed to recognize his hand in the mix.
Thanks for the answer. I think it may help to understand a little about logic. I apologize if everyone has already said this to you.
The Doctrine of the Trinity does not say, "3=1." It says there are three persons,three distinct loci of consciousness, that share the same nature. They say God is a. one is nature and b. three in person. This way they do not say God is A and non-A in the same way and in the same relationship (i.e. a contradiction).
I think you are trying to "picture" God, the Trinitarian God, in some way and you will end up with three God's if you try and do that in our time-space, 3d continuum.
Having said this, it looks like your hermeneutic begins, not ends, but begins with the idea of the contradiction of the Trinity and that therefore the Biblical data must mean something else. I believe in essence, and respectfully, you are putting the cart before the horse.
That is why the more I study and see this precious doctrine I can see how faithful the old saints in history were to uphold the doctrine. The really, faithfully took the data they had and expressed that in the doctrine of the Trinity.
I hope this helps and that it does not insult you.
Concerning your response to my mention of 3=1 paradox... I think up until a few months ago, I did share the basic Trinitarian view that most Protestants have... but without a lot of depth thought through on the relationship (which is the ‘basic’ average person’s view... without a lot of depth thought through) ... 3 persons/one God. I didn’t have a question about it then... it wasn’t frying my brain. I sound like a broken record... until I started seeing the conclusions that are drawn (as I see it today), that deny the deity of Jesus... and where Reformed believers can sound every bit as Dispensationalist as the rest. Not helping this observation... Last Sunday evening I watched the Jack Van Impe program (which I often do) and for the first time that I have noticed he referred to Jesus Christ as ‘the second person in the Trinity.’ This did not help... but I don’t base my belief on seeing what Jack thinks then ‘think the opposite.” It’s just an observation.
Your comments have not insulted me... It is good that I hear your points of view... and in a less confrontational/debate manner... I’ll go over this thread on my own. I think the issue is huge and I suspect it will be. I hadn’t planned on adding anything more to this conversation, unless I had read the book by Letham on the Trinity. Earlier, I mentioned I see specific conclusions that I believe in Faith, we are required to believe in Faith, that are not allowed by this doctrine. I am told these issues are addressed in detail in this book. I am already biased... but likely I will need to read why these conclusions are considered unscriptural from the Trinitarian view... when I’m ready to devote some time to it. Thank you for your investment in this topic. I imagine that some who’ve responded feel frustrated by my stubbornness... but the Holy Spirit convinces and convicts, as you know.
Well, for what its worth, and I'll leave ya alone, but consider if you believe God loves you. Then think about why. Not the verses that tell you that he does, but the why behind those verses.
If you are honest you will not be able to find any answer. And You will have found something truly beyond human comprehension. That is what Reformed Theology is all about. The sovereign God of the Bible loving us poor pitiful sinners.
