Can deity die?

john832 · Dec 17, 2013

Our spiritual beings?

You missed the point of Gen 3...

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

God said they would die.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

The serpent (nachash - whispering enchanter) said "you won't die, you have an immortal soul"

God looked Adam squarely in the eye and said...

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

He didn't say your body is dust, He said to Adam "You are dust".

Souls die...

Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Left with what?

Mal 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

Do the incorrigibly wicked suffer forever?

Mal 4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

There is no such thing as an immortal soul, that is a lie told by Satan in the garden.

Now for Rev 1:18

Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Is His earthly body alive forever more?

We are not on the same page, He literally died for His creation.

stonesoffire · Dec 17, 2013

Hi John

I have a question for you. Do you believe in a triune man and woman? Spirit, soul, and body?

I agree that the soul is not immortal. But, with the cross of Jesus Christ, and the resurrection, could it be that all mankind now have an eternal spirit? I am not teaching it...just questioning it.

So, if one does not receive salvation of the soul....which is what scripture states, the spirit being eternal has to have a destiny. If saved, heaven. Not, hell.

Just something I've been considering. Of course I could be wrong. The spirit may of always been eternal. I've never really tried to see when immortality began for man. There is a place called Abrahams bosom for the Jews. So what happened to idolators before Jesus?

Tintin · Dec 17, 2013

Gjolll said:

Absolute bollocks! Hebrews 2:7 clearly refers to God's creation of humans as being a little lower than angels, not Jesus, himself. How can I listen to you, if you insist of misrepresenting simple verses to push your own agenda?

john832 · Dec 17, 2013

stonesoffire said:

Well, isn't the gift of God eternal life?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The question is when do we receive that gift?

1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

We are made immortal and incorruptible at the last trump. We do not have it and do not receive it until the last trump (the seventh trump)

john832 · Dec 17, 2013

stonesoffire said:

Nope. I believe what I read in the Bible. First of all man was created as a nephesh...

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The word here for soul is...

H5315
נפשׁ
nephesh
neh'-fesh
From H5314; properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental): - any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-] contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortality, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them (your) -selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, X would have it.

Lets see what else is a soul...

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

"life" here is H5315, nephesh and it refers to creatures in the water, clams, crabs, anemones and sea worms are nephesh.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

creature here is H5315, nephesh, a soul.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

creature here is nephesh and includes lizards, skunks and centipedes.

You can continue with this, just search for H5315 and see all the different creatures that are souls and ask yourself, do you think they are immortal, have eternal life?

Well let's answer it. First of all what happens to a soul that has not received eternal life?

Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Now the real question is when do we receive eternal life (we are not addressing the conditions for receiving eternal life, that is a different thread)?

2Co 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

We are sealed with the earnest of the Spirit upon repentance and baptism

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

But the Holy Spirit is not eternal life right now it is the earnest (down payment)

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

We have the down payment on eternal life now and if we remain faithful to the end we receive eternal life at the resurrection...

1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

So when do we become immortal, receive life? At the resurrection, until then we only have the down payment, the earnest of the Spirit.

No, the human being the soul receives death...

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Not life in some other place. It is called the second death, not life in torment.

Luke 16 is an entirely different subject but it is not about heaven or hell, it is about...

Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Luk 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
Luk 13:29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
Luk 13:30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

The explanation of Luke 16 would require a separate thread.

TaylorTG · Dec 17, 2013

Of course Jesus was God. This debate is ridiculous.

The gospel according to John
The word Became flesh.

1:9-13
[SUP]9[/SUP]The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. [SUP]10[/SUP]He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. [SUP]11[/SUP]He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. [SUP]12[/SUP]But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; [SUP]13[/SUP]who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

@Gjoll

Gjolll said:

Please don't imply that my beloved catholic church peaches false teachings, and God bless.

@stonesoffire

stonesoffire said:

How come you think souls aren't eternal?
[HR][/HR]Good morning, everyone!

LovePink · Dec 17, 2013

Ariel82 said:

Oh, just seeing this, to your last sentence, I am not teaching anything. Sorry, you do not know or understand the doctrine of hypostatic union, then you do not worship under it, I take. So, you have nothing to examine yourself over. I am not here to teach people their doctrine, but I know what mine was as an evangelical traditional full confessional Lutheran and I know what mine is now. I certainly do believe Jesus is Divine. I am a Trinitarian.

TaylorTG · Dec 17, 2013

LovePink said:

I also believe in the divine Trinity! High five!

john832 · Dec 17, 2013

TaylorTG said:

Hooray for you, did Christ become flesh or not? You posted the scripture, did He really die for the sins of the world or did He just shed His skin like a snake?

Tintin · Dec 17, 2013

LovePink said:

I'm Lutheran (Missouri Synod, Australia) and we believe in the Hypostatic Union, as described in Ariel's post.

oldhermit · Dec 17, 2013

LovePink said:

LINGUISTIC VALENCE
By Oldhermit

I have posted these comments before some time ago. Perhaps this will help some of you now. I have no doubt some of you will to simply shrug it off. The problem most people have in trying to grasp the concept of the nature of God is that they have not first wrestled with how scripture itself deals with the concept of God.

Trying to get our minds wrapped around the concept of God, particularly as it relates to Jesus is a difficult undertaking. The difficulty is in our language use. 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 definition 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 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 to 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. These would be qualities like Eternal, Self-existing, self-sustaining, Transcendent, All-powerful, All-knowing, All-wise, and Ever-present. The character of God would be those qualities that describe what kind of God he is. He is HOLY, loving, just, righteous, gentle, merciful, and so on. You may prefer to think of them as primary and secondary attributes.

These attributes 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 this is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three hypostatic distinctions. 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.

When we try to get our mind wrapped around the concept of a triune God that the scriptures describes as ONE GOD, we typically regard this as a paradox that is beyond the ability of the human mind to grasp or explain, so we simply accept it and move on. Over the past two centuries, four major theological theories have surfaced that have attempted to either explain the unity of one God or to refute or at least minimize the idea of triadic unity altogether. These are Monotheism (which is divided into two camps – Adoptionism and Modalism), Unitarianism, Tritheism, and Trinitarianism. To me, these terms are quite irrelevant. I really do not care what difference or similarities may exist between these four theological diciplines. I am only concerned with trying to understand how the Word of God represents the triadic unity without regard to any human classifications. If I may, I would like to offer a simple explanation that I believe might help us better grasp the idea of the oneness of the triadic unity.

Music is created around the structuring of chords. A chord is a collection of notes that form a harmonic. The ‘c’ cord for example, is a triad consisting of the notes c, e, and g. Each individual note within the triad functions in a specific relationship to the others creating a pleasing sound. These are three separate and distinct notes that function within given parameters yet, they are one chord. We do not have a problem understanding this concept as it relates to something as simple as music, but somehow when we think of God as a triadic ONE, our minds go into melt down. This illustration is by no means without its inadequacies and limitations but it does help us to understand the viability of the oneness of unity. Divine triadic function is a harmonic. It is an arrangement of parts rooted in the nature of God.

Scripture reveals God in three hypostatic distinctions. These three distinct functions involve intelligent design, active cause, and organization. For now, I will only refer to each of these in terms of his respective position within the triadic structure. I use the idea of position simply to show the functional relationship that each appears to have with the others and to define the role that each has within the triadic structure. The First Position (occupied by the Father) will always appear as the one who represents the idea or the planning. It is also the position of command. The Second Position (that occupied by the Logos) will always be the avenue of communication between the two worlds as well as the causative agent. He will be the one who gives substance to the idea. He takes what is abstract (the idea of the Father) and gives it form and substance. The Third Position (occupied by the Holy Spirit) will always serve as the linking agent. He is the one who brings order to the work of the Second Position. He organizes the work of the Second Position so that it conforms exactly to the idea of the First Position. He shapes a finished product.

These positional functions of each appear to be exclusive. In all of my 40 plus years as a student of scripture, I find it quite interesting that I have been unable to find a single textual example where one member of the Triadic Unity is seen operating in the function of another member. For example, we never seem to find the Third Position functioning as the active cause or the Second Position functioning as the linking agent. Each member of the triadic unity always appears to function within the parameters of his exclusive dynamic.

We attempt to describe God as a being with a spiritual substance that encapsulates three persons. This seems to be the only way we have been able to conceptualize the idea of a triadic ONE. The Hebrew, term for ONE in Deuteronomy 6:4 defines a unique ontological quality, not a numeric essence of being. There are places where some of these may appear to overlap but this does not change the basic parameters of positional function.

I am not sure if there is a better word to be used here than essence, but this emphasizes my point that the nature of God cannot be understood within the parameters of human language. The use of this term is one of our own creation. This word conveys on one level the idea of material existence suggesting form or shape, but this definition does not seem to be expressed in scripture. At the same time, it defines intrinsic qualities and characteristics that may have nothing to do with form, shape, or substance. It often refers to intrinsic attributes that are abstract. For example, one cannot see love. One can only see the evidence of love when it demonstrated in one's conduct. One cannot see kindness. One can only see the effects of kindness. This is how the word essence should be understood in relation to the nature of God. It is important that we do not equate essence with matter, form, or some type of spiritual equivalent to material substance when speaking of God. Remember, we are attempting to use human language to explain what is unexplainable this side of the eternal dimension. There have been many attempts to create models to help us understand the unity of ‘One’ God. I suppose I am no different in this regard. However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is impossible to create a definitive model of something we cannot see. How does one reduce God to a diagram on a piece of paper?

TaylorTG · Dec 17, 2013

john832 said:

Yes, Hip Hip hooray for me! Thank you!

Of course Christ became flesh, my 64 year old brother! Look up the gospel according to John, chapter 1! "The word became flesh." <--It's right there!

John 1:14-15 -----> And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, we have beheld his glory, glory as the only-begotten son from the father. ----> Amen!

And don't suggest that Jesus's sacrifice meant nothing more than 'shedding his skin like a snake'! That's offensive! Do not talk smack about our Lord like that again, please!

God bless you, John832, and God bless the United states of America!

LovePink · Dec 17, 2013

Tintin said:

Oh, so tighten it up for us, as a Lutheran of Missouri Synod, Australia, do you believe the deity of the Son died on the cross? I am just wondering if you completely grasp the doctrine of hypostatic union, some Lutherans do not. There is a lot of slick wording and some plainly beat around the bush. I wish I would have asked the president of your synod when I conversed with him at conference couple years back. But, I have found with so many splinters, divisions and pastors in Lutheranism a clear answer, agreement or understanding is lacking across the board. Do you have a book of concord handy? There should be a couple places of reference in there about this doctrine.

I have to cook dinner, back later. Thank you.

Tintin · Dec 17, 2013

Jesus the God/man died on the cross, not just his humanity. But then, of course, he rose again.

john832 · Dec 17, 2013

Tintin said:

Well you have my condolences.

LovePink · Dec 17, 2013

oldhermit said:

LINGUISTIC VALENCE
By Oldhermit

I have posted these comments before some time ago. Perhaps this will help some of you now. I have no doubt some of you will to simply shrug it off. The problem most people have in trying to grasp the concept of the nature of God is that they have not first wrestled with how scripture itself deals with the concept of God.

Trying to get our minds wrapped around the concept of God, particularly as it relates to Jesus is a difficult undertaking. The difficulty is in our language use. 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 definition 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 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 to 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. These would be qualities like Eternal, Self-existing, self-sustaining, Transcendent, All-powerful, All-knowing, All-wise, and Ever-present. The character of God would be those qualities that describe what kind of God he is. He is HOLY, loving, just, righteous, gentle, merciful, and so on. You may prefer to think of them as primary and secondary attributes.

These attributes 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 this is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three hypostatic distinctions. 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.

When we try to get our mind wrapped around the concept of a triune God that the scriptures describes as ONE GOD, we typically regard this as a paradox that is beyond the ability of the human mind to grasp or explain, so we simply accept it and move on. Over the past two centuries, four major theological theories have surfaced that have attempted to either explain the unity of one God or to refute or at least minimize the idea of triadic unity altogether. These are Monotheism (which is divided into two camps – Adoptionism and Modalism), Unitarianism, Tritheism, and Trinitarianism. To me, these terms are quite irrelevant. I really do not care what difference or similarities may exist between these four theological diciplines. I am only concerned with trying to understand how the Word of God represents the triadic unity without regard to any human classifications. If I may, I would like to offer a simple explanation that I believe might help us better grasp the idea of the oneness of the triadic unity.

Music is created around the structuring of chords. A chord is a collection of notes that form a harmonic. The ‘c’ cord for example, is a triad consisting of the notes c, e, and g. Each individual note within the triad functions in a specific relationship to the others creating a pleasing sound. These are three separate and distinct notes that function within given parameters yet, they are one chord. We do not have a problem understanding this concept as it relates to something as simple as music, but somehow when we think of God as a triadic ONE, our minds go into melt down. This illustration is by no means without its inadequacies and limitations but it does help us to understand the viability of the oneness of unity. Divine triadic function is a harmonic. It is an arrangement of parts rooted in the nature of God.

Scripture reveals God in three hypostatic distinctions. These three distinct functions involve intelligent design, active cause, and organization. For now, I will only refer to each of these in terms of his respective position within the triadic structure. I use the idea of position simply to show the functional relationship that each appears to have with the others and to define the role that each has within the triadic structure. The First Position (occupied by the Father) will always appear as the one who represents the idea or the planning. It is also the position of command. The Second Position (that occupied by the Logos) will always be the avenue of communication between the two worlds as well as the causative agent. He will be the one who gives substance to the idea. He takes what is abstract (the idea of the Father) and gives it form and substance. The Third Position (occupied by the Holy Spirit) will always serve as the linking agent. He is the one who brings order to the work of the Second Position. He organizes the work of the Second Position so that it conforms exactly to the idea of the First Position. He shapes a finished product.

These positional functions of each appear to be exclusive. In all of my 40 plus years as a student of scripture, I find it quite interesting that I have been unable to find a single textual example where one member of the Triadic Unity is seen operating in the function of another member. For example, we never seem to find the Third Position functioning as the active cause or the Second Position functioning as the linking agent. Each member of the triadic unity always appears to function within the parameters of his exclusive dynamic.

We attempt to describe God as a being with a spiritual substance that encapsulates three persons. This seems to be the only way we have been able to conceptualize the idea of a triadic ONE. The Hebrew, term for ONE in Deuteronomy 6:4 defines a unique ontological quality, not a numeric essence of being. There are places where some of these may appear to overlap but this does not change the basic parameters of positional function.

I am not sure if there is a better word to be used here than essence, but this emphasizes my point that the nature of God cannot be understood within the parameters of human language. The use of this term is one of our own creation. This word conveys on one level the idea of material existence suggesting form or shape, but this definition does not seem to be expressed in scripture. At the same time, it defines intrinsic qualities and characteristics that may have nothing to do with form, shape, or substance. It often refers to intrinsic attributes that are abstract. For example, one cannot see love. One can only see the evidence of love when it demonstrated in one's conduct. One cannot see kindness. One can only see the effects of kindness. This is how the word essence should be understood in relation to the nature of God. It is important that we do not equate essence with matter, form, or some type of spiritual equivalent to material substance when speaking of God. Remember, we are attempting to use human language to explain what is unexplainable this side of the eternal dimension. There have been many attempts to create models to help us understand the unity of ‘One’ God. I suppose I am no different in this regard. However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is impossible to create a definitive model of something we cannot see. How does one reduce God to a diagram on a piece of paper?

Oldhermit,

I promise to read this, just not now. Although, the first bit and the part in caps did get a glance and I had this scripture come to mind, as it always does when people say we can't know, or we cannot understand:

1 Cor 2, one of my fave chps.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.*BUT GOD HATH REVEALED THEM TO US by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

I would like to talk, share, some of my thoughts on why I came to reject hypostatic union, and it is ok to reject the doctrine of men. Two natures is a fabulous topic, I may start a thread. Not tonight, have household duties. Bye bye

Tintin · Dec 17, 2013

john832 said:

We're more conservative in our doctrines than I what I've heard of our US counterparts.

TaylorTG · Dec 17, 2013

@LovePink
You don't have to quote Oldhermit's entire message! The threads will get clogged up like that!

LovePink · Dec 17, 2013

Tintin said:

Beat bush...

A) deity died

B) deity cannot die

Thanks in advance!

LovePink · Dec 17, 2013

TaylorTG said:

Oh ok, thx. Sorry.

Can deity die?

Senior Member

Poetic Member

Tintin

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

TaylorTG

Guest

Deactivated upon user request

TaylorTG

Guest

Senior Member

Tintin

Guest

Senior Member

TaylorTG

Guest

Deactivated upon user request

Tintin

Guest

Senior Member

Deactivated upon user request

Tintin

Guest

TaylorTG

Guest

Deactivated upon user request

Deactivated upon user request