POLL: The Deity of Christ
- Thread starter p_rehbein
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
And we're not God. . .they are separate when they are God's. . . as clearly seen in the OT,
previousy addressed, following:
God's Word is his almighty breath (spirit),
and in the OT, his Word and his Spirit are parallel figures.
The speech (Word) and breath (Spirit) of God appear in creation (Ge 1:2ff, Ps 33:6).
The NT reveals that the divine Word of Ge 1:3, 9, 24, Ps 33:6, 9; Is 55:11 is a person (Jn 1:1-18).
Jesus teaches that the divine Spirit (breath) of Ge 1:2; Job 26:13, 312:8, 33:4, 34:14-15, Ps 33:6 is a person
(see Jn 20:22, and Ac 2:2 where God's Spirit (breath)--is as the blowing of a mighty wind).
Jesus teaches the deity of the personal Holy Spirit by calling him the "holy" Spirit,
just as he spoke of the "holy" Father (Jn 17:11).
Holy was the OT adjective for expressing the God-ness of God,
as Lord was the Greek OT name and title denoting the Godhood of God.
And just as the name and title, Lord, of the Greek OT is used in the NT chiefly not of the Father,
but of the Son;
so the adjective, holy, is mainly applied in the NT, not to the Father, but to the Spirit.
The NT reveals that the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is likewise God,
both separate persons from God the Father (Mt 3:16-17, 28:19).
previousy addressed, following:
God's Word is his almighty breath (spirit),
and in the OT, his Word and his Spirit are parallel figures.
The speech (Word) and breath (Spirit) of God appear in creation (Ge 1:2ff, Ps 33:6).
The NT reveals that the divine Word of Ge 1:3, 9, 24, Ps 33:6, 9; Is 55:11 is a person (Jn 1:1-18).
Jesus teaches that the divine Spirit (breath) of Ge 1:2; Job 26:13, 312:8, 33:4, 34:14-15, Ps 33:6 is a person
(see Jn 20:22, and Ac 2:2 where God's Spirit (breath)--is as the blowing of a mighty wind).
Jesus teaches the deity of the personal Holy Spirit by calling him the "holy" Spirit,
just as he spoke of the "holy" Father (Jn 17:11).
Holy was the OT adjective for expressing the God-ness of God,
as Lord was the Greek OT name and title denoting the Godhood of God.
And just as the name and title, Lord, of the Greek OT is used in the NT chiefly not of the Father,
but of the Son;
so the adjective, holy, is mainly applied in the NT, not to the Father, but to the Spirit.
The NT reveals that the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is likewise God,
both separate persons from God the Father (Mt 3:16-17, 28:19).
Last edited:
S
Jesus prayed to his father that they (the believers) may be one as he and his father are one john 17:22 How can believers be as one? Only through the Holy Spirit phil2:2. It is the holy spirit who now fully resides in Christ. For he told us in john 17 how he and the father are one
Last edited by a moderator:
The Greek parakletos (comforter) is masculine in gender, so translators used the personal pronouns he and him for the Greek masculine pronouns. In many languages, a word’s gender has nothing to do with whether the thing itself is literally male or female. For example, the Spanish word mesa (table) is feminine. Gender in language is a mere grammatical tool.
In Greek, as in English, the word spirit is neuter—neither masculine nor feminine in gender. Pneuma is the Greek word meaning “spirit.” It is always grammatically neuter, properly represented by the English pronoun “it”
(John 1:32; Romans 8:16).
In Greek, as in English, the word spirit is neuter—neither masculine nor feminine in gender. Pneuma is the Greek word meaning “spirit.” It is always grammatically neuter, properly represented by the English pronoun “it”
(John 1:32; Romans 8:16).
Actually, an apostle of the Lord Jesus,
set apart for the gospel,
by the will and command of God and Christ Jesus,
not sent from nor by men, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father,
for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness.
So who we gonna' believe. . .secularhermit or the word of God?
Do you actually think this worthless speculation has standing here?
set apart for the gospel,
by the will and command of God and Christ Jesus,
not sent from nor by men, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father,
for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness.
So who we gonna' believe. . .secularhermit or the word of God?
Do you actually think this worthless speculation has standing here?
Last edited:
I cannot answer for Elin. She can answer well for herself.
Your question was that if the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as separate persons, with separate titles and separate functions., "then in what sense do you not have 3 Gods?"
The problem that presents itself is one of linguistic valence. The short answer to your question is that the term "God" as it is used in scripture is a descriptive term that defies what he is not who he is. What he is, is God. Who God is, is Jehovah. For the longer answer you need to recognize the problem of linguistic valence. Linguistic valence refers to the definitions that we attach to words in order to connect language to an idea. The problem that shows up in defining the nature of God is that we connect definitions to human language to help us create a picture of God with which we are comfortable. I offer the following well-known quote as an example.
“God is one single unified essence. Yet, within this single unified essence of God are three separate and distinct persons of deity who are one God, each member having his part in the creation and redemption of man” (unknown source).
Now, I am not at all sure when or where this definition of God originated, but it is one that I have heard from a number of different sources over the years. While this definition may represent a not altogether invalid understand of the triadic unity it does present three immediate problems.
1. The definition itself; Man is not prone to accept anything on faith. Man feels that
he must be able to define, explain, and classify a thing before he will accept it.
This of course, becomes problematic when we think in terms of the nature of
God. It is impossible to reduce God to a linguistic formula.
2. The use of the word ‘unified’. We can only comprehend unity as we see it within
the confines of our own human experience, not as it applies to God.
3. The use of the word ‘essence’: The word essence is a good enough word I
suppose. I am hard pressed to find a better one, but the way in which we have
used this word in relationship to God does not seem to fit the profile of God
in scripture. Strictly speaking, essence is that which makes a thing what it is. It
is the inward nature of a thing underlying its manifestations. Essence refers to the
characteristics and relations of a thing.
In his book THE TIMELESS TRINITY, Roy Lanier Jr. assigns this definition to the triadic unity. “God is one ‘being’ consisting of three persons, one essence, one ‘being’; an undivided essence.”
The use of the term God in scripture does not seem to describe a single being as expressed by Mr. Lanier, but a single collective of three beings. Not one being made up of three parts but three beings united in one nature. The word God itself describes a perfect ontological state or quality of existence. God is not who he is, but what he is. Who he is, is Jehovah. What he is should be understood as an anthology of perfect attributes represented in three hypostatic distinctions.
God has never given us anything by which we could formulate a picture of him as a spiritual being outside of his intrinsic attributes. What he has given us defines certain aspects of his nature, character, and function. When we talk about the nature of anything, it must be understood bi-camerally. The nature of any object or person is always made up of two parts. The first part is essence. Essence refers to those qualities that make a thing what it is. Take for example a flower. The essence of any flower is those traits that classify it as a flower. A flower is a seed producing plant consisting of four sets of organs - carpels, stamens, petals, and sepals. These traits typically classify the object as a flower. The second part is character. Each flower has its own distinguishing characteristics that define it still further. These characteristics separate it from all other flowers and give it individuality. These would be such traits as structure, type, shape, color, fragrance, type of fruit, and the type of climate and soil it requires. These are all qualities that define what kind of flower it is. Now, if we may be permitted to assign this definition to the nature of God, then the essence of God would be those qualities that make God, God. The extended properties of God would be those qualities that describe what kind of God he is. You may prefer to think of these as primary and secondary attributes. They do not constitute a substance or some type of spiritual equivalent to material form. They represent a quality of existence. This quality of existence is further amplified by what may be regarded as extended attributes that describe what kind of God he is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three persons. While each member of the triadic unity seems to constitute some type of spiritual substance, the singularity of the three exists not only in the quality of existence but also in the attributes of their character, not in substance. We can never find a passage that relegates the term God to substance except within the framework of each individual member.
I will stop here and give you time to digest this and ask any questions you may have before I continue.
Your question was that if the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as separate persons, with separate titles and separate functions., "then in what sense do you not have 3 Gods?"
The problem that presents itself is one of linguistic valence. The short answer to your question is that the term "God" as it is used in scripture is a descriptive term that defies what he is not who he is. What he is, is God. Who God is, is Jehovah. For the longer answer you need to recognize the problem of linguistic valence. Linguistic valence refers to the definitions that we attach to words in order to connect language to an idea. The problem that shows up in defining the nature of God is that we connect definitions to human language to help us create a picture of God with which we are comfortable. I offer the following well-known quote as an example.
“God is one single unified essence. Yet, within this single unified essence of God are three separate and distinct persons of deity who are one God, each member having his part in the creation and redemption of man” (unknown source).
Now, I am not at all sure when or where this definition of God originated, but it is one that I have heard from a number of different sources over the years. While this definition may represent a not altogether invalid understand of the triadic unity it does present three immediate problems.
1. The definition itself; Man is not prone to accept anything on faith. Man feels that
he must be able to define, explain, and classify a thing before he will accept it.
This of course, becomes problematic when we think in terms of the nature of
God. It is impossible to reduce God to a linguistic formula.
2. The use of the word ‘unified’. We can only comprehend unity as we see it within
the confines of our own human experience, not as it applies to God.
3. The use of the word ‘essence’: The word essence is a good enough word I
suppose. I am hard pressed to find a better one, but the way in which we have
used this word in relationship to God does not seem to fit the profile of God
in scripture. Strictly speaking, essence is that which makes a thing what it is. It
is the inward nature of a thing underlying its manifestations. Essence refers to the
characteristics and relations of a thing.
In his book THE TIMELESS TRINITY, Roy Lanier Jr. assigns this definition to the triadic unity. “God is one ‘being’ consisting of three persons, one essence, one ‘being’; an undivided essence.”
The use of the term God in scripture does not seem to describe a single being as expressed by Mr. Lanier, but a single collective of three beings. Not one being made up of three parts but three beings united in one nature. The word God itself describes a perfect ontological state or quality of existence. God is not who he is, but what he is. Who he is, is Jehovah. What he is should be understood as an anthology of perfect attributes represented in three hypostatic distinctions.
God has never given us anything by which we could formulate a picture of him as a spiritual being outside of his intrinsic attributes. What he has given us defines certain aspects of his nature, character, and function. When we talk about the nature of anything, it must be understood bi-camerally. The nature of any object or person is always made up of two parts. The first part is essence. Essence refers to those qualities that make a thing what it is. Take for example a flower. The essence of any flower is those traits that classify it as a flower. A flower is a seed producing plant consisting of four sets of organs - carpels, stamens, petals, and sepals. These traits typically classify the object as a flower. The second part is character. Each flower has its own distinguishing characteristics that define it still further. These characteristics separate it from all other flowers and give it individuality. These would be such traits as structure, type, shape, color, fragrance, type of fruit, and the type of climate and soil it requires. These are all qualities that define what kind of flower it is. Now, if we may be permitted to assign this definition to the nature of God, then the essence of God would be those qualities that make God, God. The extended properties of God would be those qualities that describe what kind of God he is. You may prefer to think of these as primary and secondary attributes. They do not constitute a substance or some type of spiritual equivalent to material form. They represent a quality of existence. This quality of existence is further amplified by what may be regarded as extended attributes that describe what kind of God he is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three persons. While each member of the triadic unity seems to constitute some type of spiritual substance, the singularity of the three exists not only in the quality of existence but also in the attributes of their character, not in substance. We can never find a passage that relegates the term God to substance except within the framework of each individual member.
I will stop here and give you time to digest this and ask any questions you may have before I continue.
Last edited:
