Originally posted by jaywill[/i]Sorry Jaywill...so you do pray to each of the 3 persons separately?I'm sorry Jaywill but I still can't get to the bottom of this. Earlier on you said you prayed to the Farther and to the Son but did not mention the Holy Spirit
What "bottom of this" do you hope to get to ? Maybe instead of attempting to lead me with questions, just state what is the point you would like to make. I don't know what [i] Spirit Who is God and Who is Christ.
Originally posted by jaywill[/i]Are all three persons equal in the triune godhead?I'm sorry Jaywill but I still can't get to the bottom of this. Earlier on you said you prayed to the Farther and to the Son but did not mention the Holy Spirit
What "bottom of this" do you hope to get to ? Maybe instead of attempting to lead me with questions, just state what is the point you would like to make. I don't know what [i] Spirit Who is God and Who is Christ.
Originally posted by jaywill[/i]Do you believe in the 'eternal Son'?I'm sorry Jaywill but I still can't get to the bottom of this. Earlier on you said you prayed to the Farther and to the Son but did not mention the Holy Spirit
What "bottom of this" do you hope to get to ? Maybe instead of attempting to lead me with questions, just state what is the point you would like to make. I don't know what [i] ...[text shortened]... Spirit Who is God and Who is Christ.
Originally posted by divegeester
[/i]Do you believe in the 'eternal Son'?
Do you believe in the 'eternal Son'?
Of course. Don't you ??
Hebrews 7:3 says the Son has no beginning of days.
John 1:1 says that Word was with God and was God.
Yes, the Second of the Trinity is eternal.
Originally posted by divegeesterApparently what I wrote about co-inherance you didn't get.
[/i]Sorry Jaywill...so you do pray to each of the 3 persons separately?
Apparently what I wrote about distinct but not separate you also didn't get.
When I address "Father" in my prayer, how can I NOT be being heard by the Spirit and the Son ?
“Beyond the Grasp of Human Reason”
THIS confusion is widespread. The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be “beyond the grasp of human reason.”
Many who accept the Trinity view it that same way. Monsignor Eugene Clark says: “God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.” Cardinal John O’Connor states: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” And Pope John Paul II speaks of “the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity.
”
Thus, A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.”
We can understand, then, why the New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, ‘But how does one preach the Trinity?’ And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors.”
The truth of that observation can be verified by going to a library and examining books that support the Trinity. Countless pages have been written attempting to explain it. Yet, after struggling through the labyrinth of confusing theological terms and explanations, investigators still come away unsatisfied.
In this regard, Jesuit Joseph Bracken observes in his book What Are They Saying About the Trinity?: “Priests who with considerable effort learned . . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday. . . . Why should one bore people with something that in the end they wouldn’t properly understand anyway?” He also says: “The Trinity is a matter of formal belief, but it has little or no [effect] in day-to-day Christian life and worship.” Yet, it is “the central doctrine” of the churches!
Catholic theologian Hans Küng observes in his book Christianity and the World Religions that the Trinity is one reason why the churches have been unable to make any significant headway with non-Christian peoples. He states: “Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity. . . . The distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims find it all a word game. . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God’s oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?”
“Not a God of Confusion”
HOW could such a confusing doctrine originate? The Catholic Encyclopedia claims: “A dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation.” Catholic scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler state in their Theological Dictionary: “The Trinity is a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . , which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible.”
However, contending that since the Trinity is such a confusing mystery, it must have come from divine revelation creates another major problem. Why? Because divine revelation itself does not allow for such a view of God: “God is not a God of confusion.”—1 Corinthians 14:33, Revised Standard Version (RS).
In view of that statement, would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars cannot really explain it?
Furthermore, do people have to be theologians ‘to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent’? (John 17:3, JB) If that were the case, why did so few of the educated Jewish religious leaders recognize Jesus as the Messiah? His faithful disciples were, instead, humble farmers, fishermen, tax collectors, housewives. Those common people were so certain of what Jesus taught about God that they could teach it to others and were even willing to die for their belief.—Matthew 15:1-9; 21:23-32, 43; 23:13-36; John 7:45-49; Acts 4:13.
Originally posted by jaywillNo I absolutely do not believe in the "eternal Son". The term (like "triune god" ) is not in the Bible anywhere. The son was begotten, the Word wasn't. The Son will "hand over all things to the Father"; at that time the office of God's Sonship will cease to exist. It doesn't mean Jesus will cease to exist because for the essence of God is one single entity. I believe in one God manifested in 3 ways.Do you believe in the 'eternal Son'?
Of course. Don't you ??
[b]Hebrews 7:3 says the Son has no beginning of days.
John 1:1 says that Word was with God and was God.
Yes, the Second of the Trinity is eternal.[/b]
"Hear oh Israel the Lord your God is one".
"I will not give my glory to another [any other].
Col 2:9 "He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God ... and him dwells the FULLNESS of the Godhead in bodily form" - it is just a "form".
Originally posted by divegeesterWhat have I not answered you in the things you have asked ?
I'm sorry you don't like being questioned about it; the question is not offensive nor obtuse, so I really don't see why you are being touchy about it or avoiding giving a straight answer.
Originally posted by divegeesterSorry but I'm still a little confused with your belief.
No I absolutely do not believe in the "eternal Son". The term (like "triune god" ) is not in the Bible anywhere. The son was begotten, the Word wasn't. The Son will "hand over all things to the Father"; at that time the office of God's Sonship will cease to exist. It doesn't mean Jesus will cease to exist because for the essence of God is one ...[text shortened]... dwells the FULLNESS of the Godhead in bodily [b]form" - it is just a "form".[/b]
So did Jesus have a beginning and could he ever had died and cease to exist?
Originally posted by divegeester
No I absolutely do not believe in the "eternal Son". The term (like "triune god" ) is not in the Bible anywhere. The son was begotten, the Word wasn't. The Son will "hand over all things to the Father"; at that time the office of God's Sonship will cease to exist. It doesn't mean Jesus will cease to exist because for the essence of God is one dwells the FULLNESS of the Godhead in bodily [b]form" - it is just a "form".[/b]
No I absolutely do not believe in the "eternal Son".
Well, do you believe that the Son of God is eternal then ?
The term (like "triune god" ) is not in the Bible anywhere. The son was begotten, the Word wasn't.
I don't think the Son being begotten is a contradiction to the Word being the Son from eternity. I simply do not have a problem with that.
In Isaiah 9:6 the Eternal Father is called the son given -
"For a child is born to us, A son is given to us; ... And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6)
Now if the child born is called "Mighty God" it must mean that that little child is the Mighty God. Otherwise he should not be called "the Mighty God".
if the son ... given is called "Eternal Father" it must be that the son is the Eternal Father. Otherwise the son should not be called "Eternal Father".
The issue here is whether the Person of Isaiah 9:6 is called what he is not.
The issue here is, are the names given to the Person of the prophecy appropriate to discribe this Person or innappropriate to describe this Person.
So while I may not see the phrase "eternal Son" the fact that the Son is the Eternal Father is proved by the prophecy.
This is about the incarnation of God as a man. I agree that a born child, as to human nature, has his beginning. But this Person is not only born human. This Person is also "Eternal Father" and "Mighty God".
So I simply do not share your problem with believing in the eternal Son or a Son of God who is eternal. Your difficulty there is not one that I have.
Yes, the human child is begun.
Yes, the humanity is begotten.
But He is not just humanity. He is God become a man.
God is eternal.
God is the eternal Father of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.
"But now, Jehovah, You are our Father ..." (Isaiah 64:8a)
"You, Jehovah, are our Father; Our Redeemer from of old is Your name." (Isaiah 63:17)
This all amounts to God being incarnate in Christ. And yet very mysteriously though, there is distinction of One Who lives in the Other. And the Other lives in the One. Human language fails to fully express this wonderful matter.
Oh, "Wonderful" was not an accomodating word that I invented for nature of God. "Wonderful" was the very first designation given to the incarnated God in the prophecy of isaiah -
"And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor ..." He is thoroughly a Wonder. He is not simply wonderful in what He does. He is Himself a astounding Wonder - Full of wonder - "Wonderful."
The Son will "hand over all things to the Father"; at that time the office of God's Sonship will cease to exist. It doesn't mean Jesus will cease to exist because for the essence of God is one single entity. I believe in one God manifested in 3 ways.
I also believe in God manifested in three and four ways. The fourth is another conversation. But for now I also believe in the Father as a manifestation, the Son as a manifestation, and the Holy Spirit as a manifestation.
What makes me not a Modalist, is that I read of the varied manifestations occuring simultaneously and at the same time. So when the Father is here the Son is also here. And where the Son is here the Spirit is also here.
I don't know if you have a modalistic view of the Trinity. I don't know if you have a Modalistic view of the Father - Son - and Holy Spirit. But I definitely believe all three are eternal and co-exist at the same time.
But the Three also kind of unfold in a progression in God's action to dispense Himself into man - "the Word became flesh" and "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" .
Some Bible teachers have refered to these two aspects as "The essential trinity" and "the economical trinity". This utterance I find useful.
In this post I did not comment on your First Corinthian 15 passage.
"Hear oh Israel the Lord your God is one".
"I will not give my glory to another [any other].
Col 2:9 "He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God ... and him dwells the FULLNESS of the Godhead in bodily form" - it is just a "form".
In this particular post I do not comment on your Colossians passage.
Maybe latter I will. But nothing here presents a problem to my belief in the Triune God. Nothing mentioned here is a problem to me concerning the proper use of the term Trinity.