Order of the trinity

  • 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.
Jun 26, 2014
224
4
0
#1
What is the significance of "First, Second, and Third person" in the trinity?

Where did the terminology "First, Second, and Third person" come from?

If they are coequal, coexistant, and coeternal, can I say that Jesus is the first person, the Holy Spirit is second, and the Father is third? Because in Revelation chapter 1 Jesus said I am the first and the last. Or can I say that Jesus is the third person?
 
Jun 26, 2014
1,011
17
0
#2
What is the significance of "First, Second, and Third person" in the trinity?

Where did the terminology "First, Second, and Third person" come from?

If they are coequal, coexistant, and coeternal, can I say that Jesus is the first person, the Holy Spirit is second, and the Father is third? Because in Revelation chapter 1 Jesus said I am the first and the last. Or can I say that Jesus is the third person?
The Trinity doctrine is man's feeble attempt to understand something that God has not clearly revealed.

Deuteronomy 29:29 “There are secrets the Lord your God has not revealed to us, but these words that he has revealed are for us and our children to obey forever.

And the worst of it is that religious man makes belief in the Trinity a requirement for fellowship and the standard qualification to be a Christian when religious man himself does not even understand it.


I believe salvation and fellowship should be based on a common denominator and that common denominator is found in Matthew 16:15-17.

Matthew 16:15-17 Jesussaid to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Anymore than Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God and the waters get muddied and fellowship and salvation, according to religious man, becomes threatened.
 
Last edited:
A

ApostolicGuy

Guest
#3
16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternallife? 17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God:

Jesus said there is only ONE good person and if Jesus wasn't good then he couldn't have died for our sins. He was asking him this to show him te revelation that He IS the ONE good person, He is God the Father: 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
 
S

StoneThrower

Guest
#5
What is the significance of "First, Second, and Third person" in the trinity?

Where did the terminology "First, Second, and Third person" come from?

If they are coequal, coexistant, and coeternal, can I say that Jesus is the first person, the Holy Spirit is second, and the Father is third? Because in Revelation chapter 1 Jesus said I am the first and the last. Or can I say that Jesus is the third person?
The order defines the Person and to mix that up would cause confusion. The order is based on submission. The son is submisive to the father 2nd person in order, and the Holy Spirit is submissive to the Son third person.
 
S

StoneThrower

Guest
#6
The order defines the Person and to mix that up would cause confusion. The order is based on submission. The son is submisive to the father 2nd person in order, and the Holy Spirit is submissive to the Son third person.
Jesus said he is the Alpha and Omega but it had nothing to do with his submission to the father.
 
A

ApostolicGuy

Guest
#7
But why would they be submitted to each other? Aren't they all supposed to be equal?
 
S

StoneThrower

Guest
#8
But why would they be submitted to each other? Aren't they all supposed to be equal?
Its like a husband and wife, A man is no more valuable than a woman in Gods eyes, but we have differnt roles both are equal in the marriage though in value we just have differnt roles, just like the Father, Son and Holy Ghost each have differnt roles that glorify the Godhead.
 
C

chubbena

Guest
#9
...Deuteronomy 29:29 “There are secrets the Lord your God has not revealed to us, but these words that he has revealed are for us and our children to obey forever...
My not so true to original NIV bible says "the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law."

The secret things used to belong to the Lord our God but religious men have got it all figured out.
Just as they have figured out if one follows the Law he is under curse.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#10
What is the significance of "First, Second, and Third person" in the trinity?

Where did the terminology "First, Second, and Third person" come from?

If they are coequal, coexistant, and coeternal, can I say that Jesus is the first person, the Holy Spirit is second, and the Father is third? Because in Revelation chapter 1 Jesus said I am the first and the last. Or can I say that Jesus is the third person?
No, because triadic positionality has nothing to do with rank or superiority. The occupation of first, second, or third position is related only to triadic function.
 
May 15, 2013
4,307
27
0
#11
What is the significance of "First, Second, and Third person" in the trinity?

Where did the terminology "First, Second, and Third person" come from?

If they are coequal, coexistant, and coeternal, can I say that Jesus is the first person, the Holy Spirit is second, and the Father is third? Because in Revelation chapter 1 Jesus said I am the first and the last. Or can I say that Jesus is the third person?
What came from God was his Son, and what came from His son is the Holy spirit.

John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

John 20:22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
 
May 2, 2014
1,060
12
0
#12
What is the significance of "First, Second, and Third person" in the trinity?

Where did the terminology "First, Second, and Third person" come from?

If they are coequal, coexistant, and coeternal, can I say that Jesus is the first person, the Holy Spirit is second, and the Father is third? Because in Revelation chapter 1 Jesus said I am the first and the last. Or can I say that Jesus is the third person?
The problem is with the modern understanding of the Trinity. The original teaching did not suggest that they were coequal. First there was God, the Father and He brought forth a Son. The Father is the ultimate authority, the Son is subject to the Father and Scripture says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. That's why the Father is the first person of the Trinity, the Son, the second, and the Holy Spirit, the third.
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
#13
The problem is with the modern understanding of the Trinity. The original teaching did not suggest that they were coequal. First there was God, the Father and He brought forth a Son. The Father is the ultimate authority, the Son is subject to the Father and Scripture says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. That's why the Father is the first person of the Trinity, the Son, the second, and the Holy Spirit, the third.

The problem here is that it's not so clear cut. At least as far back as Tertullian, there was an understanding that in a fundamental ontological sense, Father, Son and Spirit are equal because they are of one substance - the divine. The Son may have come forth from the Father, but not in causal sense we would recognise, because the Son has always been with the Father, before a beginning could be reckoned. The Son also has qualities only God has (such as having life in one's self), and thus is missing qualities creatures have (we do not possess life 'in our selves')

So, while in a very real sense the three are equal, and possess all the qualities of God, there is a real relationship between the three characterised by loving service and mutual glorification. I prefer to say that the submission in the relationship is determined by willingness, than ontology, because it becomes increasingly meaningless to talk about ontology on the basis of causality when eternity is involved.

Suffice to say, the Father glorifies the Son as the Son glorifies the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified, etc etc.

In other words, there is ontological equality and divinity, but relational 'inequality' marked by submission, service, and glorification.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
#14
What is the significance of "First, Second, and Third person" in the trinity?

Where did the terminology "First, Second, and Third person" come from?

If they are coequal, coexistant, and coeternal, can I say that Jesus is the first person, the Holy Spirit is second, and the Father is third? Because in Revelation chapter 1 Jesus said I am the first and the last. Or can I say that Jesus is the third person?

Scripture has each Person ordered as such...

πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

Then having gone, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Mat 28.19

Its a revealing of God that we can relate to...
 
May 2, 2014
1,060
12
0
#15
The problem here is that it's not so clear cut. At least as far back as Tertullian, there was an understanding that in a fundamental ontological sense, Father, Son and Spirit are equal because they are of one substance - the divine. The Son may have come forth from the Father, but not in causal sense we would recognise, because the Son has always been with the Father, before a beginning could be reckoned. The Son also has qualities only God has (such as having life in one's self), and thus is missing qualities creatures have (we do not possess life 'in our selves')

So, while in a very real sense the three are equal, and possess all the qualities of God, there is a real relationship between the three characterised by loving service and mutual glorification. I prefer to say that the submission in the relationship is determined by willingness, than ontology, because it becomes increasingly meaningless to talk about ontology on the basis of causality when eternity is involved.

Suffice to say, the Father glorifies the Son as the Son glorifies the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified, etc etc.

In other words, there is ontological equality and divinity, but relational 'inequality' marked by submission, service, and glorification.

Hi Nick,

I agree that the Father and Son are of the same nature, however, I don't believe they are equal regarding order. I also don't believe that the Son, existed as a separate entity from eternity past. I believe He came forth from the Father and was eternal in the sense that whatever the Father is (substance) the Son is. I like to use the EFC example of fire. If you place a stick into a fire it ignites and becomes a separate fire, however, the first fire is in no way diminished. The second fire came into existence as a separated fire at a point in time after the original fire and yet the second fire existed in the original fire from the beginning and as such existed as long as the original fire even though not as a separate fire. I believe that the Son, now is in the flesh and thus doesn't have all of the qualities that the Father has. Paul said that the Father alone has immortality, so I believe the Son receives life from the Father.
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
#16
The Trinity doctrine is man's feeble attempt to understand something that God has not clearly revealed.


What is your proof of that one, Scuba? Deut 29:29 says no such thing. Have you gone through the Bible marking the 3 persons, comparing, & studying? Are you sure that the Lord has not already revealed more than you have time to take in?

And the worst of it is that religious man makes belief in the Trinity a requirement for fellowship and the standard qualification to be a Christian when religious man himself does not even understand it.

And what pray tell is your proof for that one? Is it outrageous to insist on an adequate definition of God from those who claim to be Christians? What if they say they believe in Jesus (the Mexican car mechanic)? It is only the real Lord Jesus Who saves; so that means the 2nd person of the Godhead, God become man.

I believe salvation and fellowship should be based on a common denominator and that common denominator is found in Matthew 16:15-17.

Matthew 16:15-17 Jesussaid to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Anymore than Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God and the waters get muddied and fellowship and salvation, according to religious man, becomes threatened.
Who is this "religious man"? I myself don't think of myself as religious, but as one who trusts the Lord Jesus as Savior. You remind me of the old dead denomination I was raised in. So I came across this preacher in that denomination who did not believe that the Lord Jesus was God nor anything all that special about Him. As asked that preacher the denominational shibboleth: ~"Don't you believe that Jesus is the Son of God"? Answer: ~"Of course, He was the Son fo God -- and you and I are also sons of God."

So that confession is meaningless.

So you came out with this "should," "should be based on . . . ."
Well, what is you proof of that one?

How about Gospel of John: "Except you believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins." "Before Abraham was born, I AM."

How about Rom 10:9-13 where a confession is mentioned (agreement, homologeo)? Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Lord there refers to the Lord Jesus, but it is an OT quote where the word LORD is YHWH.
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
#17
Hi Nick,

I agree that the Father and Son are of the same nature, however, I don't believe they are equal regarding order. I also don't believe that the Son, existed as a separate entity from eternity past. I believe He came forth from the Father and was eternal in the sense that whatever the Father is (substance) the Son is. I like to use the EFC example of fire. If you place a stick into a fire it ignites and becomes a separate fire, however, the first fire is in no way diminished. The second fire came into existence as a separated fire at a point in time after the original fire and yet the second fire existed in the original fire from the beginning and as such existed as long as the original fire even though not as a separate fire. I believe that the Son, now is in the flesh and thus doesn't have all of the qualities that the Father has. Paul said that the Father alone has immortality, so I believe the Son receives life from the Father.
We're close to agreeing, but I have a few caveats.

I don't believe Paul ever says only the Father has immortality. You'll have to cite that.

I don't believe Christ came into existence at a particular time, because he was with God and was God in the beginning. I believe the Son came forth from the Father, but I believe he has existed eternally. I think it's a mistake to push the language too far, because Scripture upholds both these things as true. It becomes meaningless to try to pin down a time where the Son came into existence, because existence/non existence has no meaning if there is no time. No time, no true causality. Instead, the language is meant to teach us something of the relationship of the Father to the Son (the Son proceeds from the Father) while maintaining the basic ontological reality (the Father and Son are of one substance - that is, the eternal substance).

I also think it's a mistake to talk of God as consisting of separate entities. They are not separate, but they are distinguishable. If Christ is of the same substance as of the Father, he is eternal, because that's the essence of God.

The Son in the flesh doesn't diminish his qualities, although he put off (the language of Phillipians 2) some of the aspects of his divine nature in humility in the incarnation. That, of course, doesn't speak at all to his qualities after resurrection and ascension, where he is exalted to the right hand of the Father, has the name above every name, to whom all will bow, and by whom all will be judged.

There is a difference in order, I feel, but we can overemphasise the order, and make it a question of raw ontology, where I think Scripture's account is quite a bit more nuanced than that. Does the Son submit to the Father because he is the Son? Yes. But the reality is still that the Son has life in himself, and is ascribed the role of creator -which historically, much more so than today, has immense connotations in terms of authority, status, and divinity.
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
#18
All 3 Are Equally YHWH; but there is an economic subordination

There is an economic subordination: The Son obeys the Father; there is a Father-Son relationship there. And the Son sends the Holy Spirit.

No human illustration is possible, so far as I know, and one is likely to get into heresy by using illustrations, but consider an army. The private obeys the General, though they are both equally human -- equal in nature, though there is an economic subordination.

(Of course God in nature is One; the threeness is a threeness of person or ego, not a threeness of nature.)
 

Atwood

Senior Member
May 1, 2014
4,995
53
48
#19
The problem is with the modern understanding of the Trinity. The original teaching did not suggest that they were coequal. [sic!] First there was God, the Father and He brought forth a Son.
Utter heresy, Butch. You have no scripture whatsoever that says the Father brought forth a Son. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Before Abraham was born, I AM. Are you in some cult, Butch?

"Begotten" is usually a mistranslation when used of the Son of God.
μονο
γενής,
does not mean "only begotten." The KJV severely erred on this one.
μονο = one
γεν- = kind
ής
= word ending.

The Greek word for beget has two nu's

γενν- not γεν- .

So far as I know, the only times Christ is called begotten is in quoting Ps 2, evidently a coronation formula (This day I have begotten you), as would be used when a new king took over from an old king, or was recognized as the heir to the throne.


It is odd that this is even being debated here in 2015, when this doctrine has been thoroughly established long ago. Anyone who cares can surely find the proof for the true doctrine on the internet.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2014
224
4
0
#20
Nobody has given scripture to support the order of the trinity. I have only seen one scripture from someone to try to prove the order and that was Matt 28:19 which doesn't prove and "order" at all. It only lists them. I have seen several people state what they "believe" about the order but no scriptural evidence.

So again, for those of you who believe in the "First, Second, and Third" person of the trinity, where is scriptural evidence for the Father being "First', the Son being "second', and the Holy Ghost being "Third?"

Just so you know where I am coming from, I believe that the trinity is a man made doctrine. I do not deny that it is a longstanding doctrine, only that it is not the longest standing one and also not truth. And I am stating that this "First, Second, and Third" business is partial proof that it is man made. This is an idea and terminology that is unsupported by scripture and yet most trinitarians have never questioned it. So I am questioning it for you. I say its unscriptural. Please show me that it isn't.