As I said at the outset:
Peace.
2 Likes
I have said nothing that is not in the Bible. In addition, the Bible tells us to look for the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17 15:26 16:13), so how can you claim anything outside the Bible is not biblical? 1 John 4 tells us how to recognize what is true and what not. I am not Gnostic, but it seems to be an accusation of heresy.
Anti-trinitarian view of Jesus as a created being.
âSix archangelsâ is non-canonical apocryphal gnosticism.
1 John 5:6-13, Romans 6:23, John 3:36, John 11:25 would disagree.
Anti-trinitarian view.
See scripture references above.
Shawn, Iâm not going to get pulled into this back and forth point counterpoint refutation game Iâve seen played out with others. We have no common theological framework to move this conversation forward. Itâs going to end the same way. I believe your view is incorrect. You believe mine is. And it needlessly dominates the thread with endless refutations ad infinitum. Letâs move on and let others have a say. Peace.
2 Likes
âNon-trinitarianâ would be a more accurate term for these opinions than âanti-trinitarian.â
No need to pull the evidence in the Bible for the trinity, I know the theory. It is only a theory, not a proof since much of the Bible contradicts it. I am presenting the non-trinitarian Nature of Jesus that exists in the Bible. I am also presenting a theory that is contrary to the concept of a single Holy Spirit, there are many name and unnamed in the Bible.
God the Father and God the Son are both Eternal, which means they are beyond time. When it says ion the Bible that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, which are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, it means that Jesus Christ is everything, the Beginning of time and the End of time, the Beginning of Truth and the End of Truth, the Beginning of Love and the End of Love. Indeed there is no clearer statement that Jesus is God.
God the Father is not timeless meaning that the Father is no involved in time. God the Father created the universe in time and the Father created time. This is the great revelation of Gen 1 and John 1:1, not 6 days.
You seem to believe that in the God of the philosophers, which is your prerogative. However you are not entitled to your own facts. The God of the Bible is not the God of the philosophers, and the Bible is clear that Jesus Christ existed in the Beginning, which means that He is eternal with the Father, Who existed in the Beginning, and the God, the Holy Spirit. God, the Holy Spirit is not the same as angels. Angels are created, while God, the Holy Spirit is eternal and has no visible form.
1 Like
God reveals Godself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or Creator, Logos, and Holy Spirit, both One and Three in the Bible and in everyday life.
1 Like
âco-eternalâ = Word is un-created
âcreatedâ = created by God, through His Word, in Genesis 1, "and God SAID, âlet there by XYZâ and there was XYZâŚâ
Yet (obviously) Godâs Word did not âcreateâ Godâs Word through Godâs Word, Scripture never states, âand God SAID, 'let me SPEAK, and there was Godâs VOICEâŚâ or some such
Scripture also doesnât describe any time when God was silent, Genesis 1:1 begins with God already in the act of âcreatingâ, which is (almost) immediately defined as âcreatingâ through His Word in Genesis 1:3
Our created reality, the space-and-time of which we are Biblically aware, was âcreatedâ entirely through Godâs Word (with the co-presence of Godâs Spirit, âhovering over the watersâ etc.), and from within that circumscribed awareness of âcreationâ space-time, God was never silent. Indeed, our awareness of âcreationâ is defined by the onset of the action of Godâs Word (and Spirit).
So, God, His Word & His Spirit all existed before & beyond our âcreatedâ space-time, and so we must say that all three are âco-eternalâ, having existed before & existing beyond our âcreatedâ reality.
It is also not our place to introduce rank or division into the Godhead. Scripture does reveal to us that there is some sort of âgenerative emanationâ (my words) of the Word & Spirit from God the Father (which Scripture formally defines as âbegettingâ and âproceedingâ).
But we must not demote Godâs Word or Godâs Spirit. They are always described as being of God, to wit, being of Godâs Essence. So the entire Godhead is consubstantial, of the same Essence as God the Father who âgeneratesâ His Word & Spirit, and so co-equal in terms of Essence.
1 Like
Think you could rephrase that asâŚ
God (the Father), who remains âaloofâ in His remote transcendent realm, reveals Himself through His Word & His Spirit, which âreachâ into our created realmâŚ
such that our experience of God is always of the whole entire GodheadâŚ
God the Father miraculously intervening into human history on earth through / via / by means of His Word & His Spirit
Scripture states that âno man has seen the Fatherâ but yet the Father has revealed Himself to us through His Word & His Spirit at work in our created realm
Yes, Genesis 1:1 hits the ground running with God (the Father) already in the act of âcreatingâ, which is (almost) immediately defined as shaping our âcreatedâ space-time reality with His Word in Genesis 1:3
everything ever âcreatedâ (as Biblically defined) was âcreatedâ by means of Godâs Word, âand God SAID, âlet there by XYZâ and there was XYZâŚâ
So everything that has ever existed in our âcreatedâ reality, from âCreationâ to âFinal Judgementâ, was brought about through Godâs Word at work in our âcreatedâ realm
must be super-careful utilizing terms:
Jesus was born out of God at the beginning of Godâs creation
Not quite, the Word (which did incarnate into Jesus as the Son) was âbegottenâ of God the Father before & beyond âcreationâ as we know it â Genesis 1:1 begins with God the Father already in the act of âcreatingâ (v.1) via His Word (v.3), Scripture reveals to us no moments or instants wherein God was âsilentâ prior to intervening into earth history.
If I have been clear, you will realize that you are, in effect, speculating about âGenesis 0â, things that may (or may not) have (or not have) happened back before Genesis 1:1.
Now, Scripture does reveal to us some sort of âgenerative emanationâ (my words) of Godâs Word & Godâs Spirit from God the Father â which Scripture defines as âbegettingâ and âproceedingâ, respectively
However, Scripture does not reveal to us a single moment of God being silent or inactive. Gen 1:1-3 begins with God (the Father) âcreatingâ our âcreatedâ realm of space-and-time through His Word (âGod SAID, âlet there by XYZââŚâ)
In hypothetical speculative theory, Godâs Word & Godâs Spirit â which are in some (un-Scripturally-specified) sense âderivedâ (my word) from God the Father â might have once not existed, such that God the Father was âsilentâ (without His Word) and âaloneâ (without His Spirit)âŚ
until God âcreated in some Divine senseâ His Word & His Spirit, and âemanatedâ Them from His remote transcendent realm in heaven to earth.
Maybe.
But we have zero Scriptural basis for such speculations. That is, in effect, speculating about âGenesis 0â, what may (or may not) have occurred prior to God in heaven intervening into earth history with His Word & His Spirit (Gen 1:1-3).
We arenât ever going to know didley about God in heaven unless & until God deigns to reveal the details to us. And, so far, all that God has revealed to us begins at Gen 1:1, with God the Father in heaven (remote & transcendent) intervening into earth history by means of His Word & His Spirit (immanent).
From our Biblical awareness, as revealed to us, the entire Godhead (Father / Word / Spirit) is co-eternal, relative to our âcreatedâ realm of space-and-time.
You might be right, that, back before Gen 1:1, God âDivinely createdâ His Word & His Spirit, âactivatedâ Them and âemanatedâ Them from His remote transcendent realm to earth.
But we donât / wonât / canât know that. 'Tis pure un-Scripturally-founded (albeit kinda logical from a mortal human perspective seeking ultimate root first causes) speculation & guessing.
If that were to prove to be the case, all of that would have happened back in âGenesis 0â.
But if you presume to know, you are presuming to define & write the âGenesis 0â pre-quell of the BibleâŚ
and youâre playing with hellfire & damnation (Rev 22:18 = Deut 4:22 = Deut 12:32 = 1 Enoch 108:6 = Prov 30:6 = Jer 26:2 ~ Gal 1:8-9)âŚ
every section of the Bible (Law = Deut, Prophets = Jer, Psalms = Prov, Apocrypha = Enoch, NT = Gal, Rev) warns in the harshest terms about adding to Godâs revealed messages to humans on earth
hence your (kinda logical) speculations trouble some significantly
Peace !! 
I and I think almost everyone else agrees with you that God the Father was in the beginning when God created the universe. When we put that together with John 1:1 âIn the Beginning was the Word⌠⌠Who was made flesh.â we add Jesus Christ.
Genesis 1:2 (NIV2011)
2 âNow the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.â Verse 2 adds the Spirit even before Gods speaks light into existence.
This of course is a cosmological Trinity, while the Father, Son. and Holy Spirit which we find in the NT are basically and most importantly the soteriological Trinity, as you point out.
I do not accept the concept of the Godhead, which is seen as Essence of God which is different from the Trinity. Consubstantial means all three Persons of the Trinity are fully, completely, and equally God They all have the same nature, but they are each unique, different, and thus separate.
If God is the One Who defined Godself as âI AM WHO I AMâ then God must not be One because God is bound by some Essence or Godhead or even Nature, but by God Character of Love. This is also the best explanation for the relationships between the Trinity found in Scripture that anti-Trinitarians do not acknowledge.
1 Like
Thought thatâŚ
Triune [quote=âRelates, post:51, topic:40520, full:trueâ]
I and I think almost everyone else agrees with you that God the Father was in the beginning when God created the universe. When we put that together with John 1:1 âIn the Beginning was the Word⌠⌠Who was made flesh.â we add Jesus Christ.
Genesis 1:2 (NIV2011)
2 âNow the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.â Verse 2 adds the Spirit even before Gods speaks light into existence.
This of course is a cosmological Trinity, while the Father, Son. and Holy Spirit which we find in the NT are basically and most importantly the soteriological Trinity, as you point out.
I do not accept the concept of the Godhead, which is seen as Essence of God which is different from the Trinity. Consubstantial means all three Persons of the Trinity are fully, completely, and equally God They all have the same nature, but they are each unique, different, and thus separate.
If God is the One Who defined Godself as âI AM WHO I AMâ then God must not be One because God is bound by some Essence or Godhead or even Nature, but by God Character of Love. This is also the best explanation for the relationships between the Trinity found in Scripture that anti-Trinitarians do not acknowledge.
[/quote]
Triune Godhead = Trinity = all consubstantial = all of same Godly Divine essence / nature
Godâs Word and Godâs Spirit are fully God by essence, even though they are distinct entities (Persons)
I understand that to mean that, deriving directly from the highest God / Divinity, they have the highest Godly Divine status, far above all created creatures, even the angels
There is nothing higher than God. God is God. God is the Trinity, God the Father/Creator, God the Son/Logos, and God the Spirit/Love.
2 Likes
Not according to the orthodox doctrine of the monarchy of the father. âGodâ (as you are using the term, according to the most common current convention) is the unitary Person of the Father. Not the essence shared amongst the Triune Godhead.
First you say things likeâŚ
and we think, great heâs got it. (well⌠except for the use of the word âentitiesâ)
But then you say things likeâŚ
⌠and then âŚwhat the heck is that? Itâs not Trinitarian at all but Monarchian.
Trinitarianism is really simple⌠It is one God but not one person.
Yes there are relationship among the persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit, but this is NOT a leader God over lesser Gods so that the Father is the real and highest God. That is just wrong and I suspect this confusion is directly connected with your use of âentitiesâ as a synonym for persons. And by the way⌠Thesaurus does NOT list âentityâ as a synonym for âperson!â Nor does it list âpersonâ as a synonym for âentity.â
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one.When you see the Son then you see the Father. They are not existentially separable. The only way in which they are three and separable is persons, because they are not fragments of one person but three complete and separate persons. But that doesnât change the fact that they are one in every other way. It is one God which is not like us â not limited to a singularity of personhood. And that, after all, makes a lot of sense because His unlimited nature is the more general way in which God is different from us â all powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent.
To be sure I am not a fan of the term âGodheadâ either, and I think it is something thrown into the King James translation along with other things to support the doctrine of the Trinity. I do not support this one little bit even though I am Trinitarian, because it is wrong to rewrite to Bible to fit your beliefs. And the idea that this has introduced a distortion into the doctrine of the Trinity for many Christians using that Bible is very believable.
Perhaps we should take a closer look at Monarchianism. From Wikipedia
Monarchianism is a Christian theology that emphasizes God as one, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism which defines God as three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being.
Interesingly enough the name appears to be derived from the word âmonarchyâ and thus this affirmation of the âMonarchy of the Fatherâ we hear from ErikNelson fits perfectly.
Reading on in the Wikipedia articleâŚ
The first Christians had Jewish roots that upheld God as one. [1][2][5] This led to the creation of various models to resolve the relationship between God the Father and the Son of God. Monarchians seek to explain this relationship without causing a division within God. Writing against Praxeas (a monarchian) in the third century, Tertullian gave evidence that the majority of Christians were monarchian when he noted their startled reaction to his teaching of three in one.[6]
Monarchians were opposed by Logos theologians (Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen of Alexandria) and gradually the Trinitarian view gained prominence and was adopted in the First Council of Constantinople.[7]
The name âMonarchianâ properly does not strictly apply to the Adoptionists, or Dynamists, as they (the latter) âdid not start from the monarchy of God, and their doctrine is strictly Christologicalâ.
So perhaps ErikNelson wants to argue that Monarchianism was the original and correct belief about God before Trinitarianism was forced on Christianity by Tertullian and others. Personally, I just want to be clear what it is that Trinitarianism actually consists of.
After all⌠I frequently point out how after the first ecumenical council at Nicea 325 AD the subsequent ones became increasingly restrictive cutting off more and more branches of Christianity. Though I havenât heard of any branches of Christianity cut off by this particular council (Constantinople 381 AD). Nevertheless, technically by my usual rule of thumb based on the council of Nicea 325 AD alone, it might be argued that the Monarchians would not be excluded from Christianity by my definition.
On the other hand, I am reluctant to accept that the Adoptionists also called dynamic Monarchians should be included in Christianity. No wait⌠that usually is considered excluded by Nicea 325 AD.
1 Like
Think you have been most accurate in your synopsis of the development of these doctrines
I understand that this may well be one issue standing between EO and western RCC & protestant perspectivesâŚ
Having read books like âDIVINE ESSENCE & DIVINE ENERGIESâ etc. I do understand that the EO officially and fully affirm Monarchism = Monarchianism = Monarchy of the Father
According to which âGodâ is rooted in the unitary Person of the father, and not in the trinitary Essence of the Godhead
Tertullian may have been an extreme Monarchian, Wikipedia states:
According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, âTertullianâs trinity [is] not a triune God, but rather a triad or group of three, with God [the Father?] as the founding memberââŚ
Unlike many Church fathers, Tertullian was never recognized as a saint by the Eastern or Western catholic tradition churches. Several of his teachings on issues such as the clear subordination of the Son and Spirit to the FatherâŚ
This exact issue is arguably the most significant one with Muslims, modern and historical
The sentence that you wrote above seems to say that Jesus Christ is not God because He is not the Father Who (Alone?) is God.
Doing some research on the web confirmed that the Eastern Orthodox position is that the Father is the basis for the Unity of the Trinity, which implies that the Father is superior to the Son and the Spirit. This is the reason why Augustine and I prefer the Augustinian Egalitarian Trinity.
However, I really do not think that traditional Orthodox theology goes as far as saying the Jesus Christ is not God, but some of the more modern Orthodox writers seem to say this, agreeing with what you wrote above.
It seems to me that we need to ho back to the beginning to understand the Trinity, which is back to Athanasius, Nicaea, and homoousion. The problem with a metaphor like Fatherhood is that it can convey more than one meaning, and not all of them are equally valid.
A Son is of the same nature as the Father, which makes Him equal to the Father. A Son is also younger than the Father, which makes them unequal. Athanasius come us with the homoousian, meaning âthe same nature,â putting the emphasis on that fact that the Son and the Father are co-equal, and this formula was accepted by the Church, rightly I would say, despite human bias that says the Father is superior.
As a matter of fact a father is initially superior to his son, but after the son becomes an adult, this advantage is lost, so we4 cannot say de facto that a father is superior to a son. The Bible does not try to explain the metaphysics of the Trinity, and neither should we. In my opinion we need to follow Augustineâs view that the unity of the Trinity is found in the Third Person, God is Love.
1 Like
I can only think that ErikNelson is an example of a sector of Eastern Orthodoxy which has been embracing Monarchism. I wonder if it is even connected to the rise in popularity of political Monarchy in Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Georgia. Perhaps this website is part of that development.
HoweverâŚ
The Greek Orthodox continues to consider Monarchianism a heresy.
On the other hand⌠the more I look into this, the more I see a different interpretation of events emerging. This suggests that at least a portion of the Eastern Orthodox see only the two special case of Monarchism: dynamic and modalistic versions being declared heretical by the ecumenical councils and that the filoque controversy which divided Eastern and Western church was in fact all about the Eastern church defending the Monarchy of the Father. Thus it would not be surprising if these Eastern Orthodox saw Monarchism as part of the Eastern Orthodox identity.
1 Like
Context
The question is: Do you see Jesus Christ as a full Son of God, or put in another way, Is Jesus the Messiah Who is the same Nature or Character as the Father? I s Jesus (Yeshua) YHWH or not? See Exodus 3:
1 Like