You have been shown Jesus' baptism in scripture listing this order.
You ignore it, and pretend you were never answered.
Order of the trinity
- Thread starter apostolic862004
- 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.
You have been shown Jesus' baptism in scripture listing this order.
You ignore it, and pretend you were never answered.
Re: Fail.
As far as anything being plagiarized, only someone with a super large ego would come up with a childish notion like that.
All thoughts and words written or oral are nothing but common to man from the beginning. Or do you make yourself God that only you could come up with a word or thought unknown to man. You a silly boy.
And Matt 3:16 confirms God is Spirit, nothing more nothing less unless you personally add it with your man made tradition.
As far as anything being plagiarized, only someone with a super large ego would come up with a childish notion like that.
All thoughts and words written or oral are nothing but common to man from the beginning. Or do you make yourself God that only you could come up with a word or thought unknown to man. You a silly boy.
And Matt 3:16 confirms God is Spirit, nothing more nothing less unless you personally add it with your man made tradition.
Spanked...
You plagiarized your reply from here...
How is God Omnipresent?
Jesus' baptism, and the subsequent baptismal formula, are indeed Trinitarian.
You plagiarized your reply from here...
How is God Omnipresent?
Jesus' baptism, and the subsequent baptismal formula, are indeed Trinitarian.
G
GraceBeUntoYou
Guest
I am totally convinced that unless one holds to the highest form of Christology (Divine Christology) then there is no sensible way to understand the passage you have cited here. Allow me to give a brief overview of why that is.
1 Corinthians 8.6 is a part of a broader dialogue that extends through 1 Corinthians 10. Paul begins by saying,
“Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that ‘all of us possess knowledge.’ This ‘knowledge’ puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God. Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that ‘an idol has no real existence,’ and that ‘there is no God but one.’” (1 Corinthians 8.1-4)
Paul writes that anyone who “loves God” knows that “there is no God but one” (1 Corinthians 8.3-4). These statements clearly encapsulate the monotheistic essence of Judaism, the Shema (“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might,” Deuteronomy 6.4-5). The allusions made to idolatry, to loving God, and believing that God is one disposes of any uncertainty that Paul is drawing here on the Shema.
The Apostle continues onward,
“For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1 Corinthians 8.5-6)
Here Paul continues to draw upon this monotheistic concept of the Shema by way of contrast. Paul here is contrasting the pagans who have a plethora of sovereigns over against Christians who have but One, and included in this One Sovereign is the “one God, the Father” and the “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” In a context where Paul alludes to the Shema (1 Corinthians 8.1-5), it should be of no wonder what Paul is implying when he speaks of Christ as the “one Lord.” Complimenting this is Paul’s utilization of κύριος (“Lord”) for Jesus repeatedly throughout 1 Corinthians which alludes to Old Testament texts involving the Divine Name (1 Corinthians 1.2 [c.f. Joel 2.32]; 1 Corinthians 2.16 [c.f. Isaiah 40.13]; 1 Corinthians 6.11 [c.f. Isaiah 45.23]). Moreover, it is here at 1 Corinthians 8.6 that Paul ascribes to Christ an active role in creation which describes the relationship between God and the universe. Richard Bauckham put it best,
“Of the Jewish ways of characterizing the divine uniqueness, the most unequivocal was by reference to creation. In the uniquely divine role of creating all things, it was for Jewish monotheism unthinkable that any being other than God could even assist God (Isa. 44:24; Sir. 42:21; 4 Ezra 3:4; 6:6; Josephus, C. Ap. 2.192; Philo. Opif. 23). But to Paul’s unparalleled inclusion of Jesus in the Shema, he adds the equally unparalleled inclusion of Jesus in the creative activity of God. No more unequivocal way of including Jesus in the unique divine identity is conceivable within the framework of Second Temple Jewish monotheism.
It has not been sufficiently clearly recognized that, as well as dividing the wording of the Shema between God and Jesus, Paul divides a description of God as the Creator of all things between God and Jesus.” (Jesus and the God of Israel: Paul’s Christology of Divine Identity, 215)
It has not been sufficiently clearly recognized that, as well as dividing the wording of the Shema between God and Jesus, Paul divides a description of God as the Creator of all things between God and Jesus.” (Jesus and the God of Israel: Paul’s Christology of Divine Identity, 215)
By affirming Christ’s role in the creative process as the One whom “through” all things exist, Paul presupposes the pre-existence of Jesus, a point which Paul stresses yet again later in this very letter (1 Corinthians 10.9 c.f. Numbers 25.5-9, Psalm 78.18).
“We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents” (1 Corinthians 10.9)
On a side note, the text of 1 Corinthians 10.9 is utmost intriguing, because it seems that Paul is alluding to Deuteronomy 6.16 (“You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah”), a text found only twelve verses from the Shema (Deuteronomy 6.4).
With the aforementioned in mind (the context of idolatry, the language of the Shema [“loving God,” “God is one,” “one Lord”], the OT motifs used of Christ), Paul then deliberately goes on to speak, not about the relation between the Corinthian Christians and God over against idolatry. No, but rather Paul speaks of the relation between these Corinthians Christians and the risen Lord over against idolatry,
“You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?” (1 Corinthians 10.21-22 c.f. Deuteronomy 32.21, Malachi 1.7-12)
The “Lord” that is spoken of here is most naturally taken to refer to Jesus. Up to this point in Paul’s letter it is only Jesus that is referred to as Lord (i.e., “one Lord,” “the Lord of glory,” et al). Paul uses this language of “the cup of the Lord” later in his letter to the Corinthians where it is Jesus who is the referent (1 Corinthians 11.27-28 c.f. 1 Corinthians 10.16-17, 2 Corinthians 6.15-16).
Paul ends his letter in a very special way, “If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Maranatha! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.” This closing statement is really quite thought provoking in light of the aforementioned, because included in the Shema is the command to love the Lord.
This is a question that I have wrestled with myself. You seem to be someone who is able to examine all the possibilities of this question with a reasonable level of intelligence. Perhaps we could take a look at some concepts together. I would like to address what I believe to be at the heart of man's inability to properly conceptualize God. Our fundamental barrier is one of language and how we attach language to ideas. I call this a linguistic valence problem. 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 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 them as primary and secondary attributes.
In the diagram below, the ‘essence’ of God (represented in red) defines the intrinsic qualities of God. 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 (represented in green) 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.
I would really appreciate your thoughts on this.
I haven't read all the posts on this thread, so I hope I am not duplicating others.
A few scriptures come to mind that helps us define an order in the Godhead.
Philippians 2:5-6 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
This scripture teaches us that Jesus was not at all bashful about proclaiming his equality with God, which is interesting with regards to the next 2 scriptures.
Luke 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is God.
In this scripture Jesus throws a curve-ball at the equality notion. Jesus is placing himself in a subordinate position (second).
John 14:28 .....I go to my Father, for my Father is greater than I.
In this scripture Jesus is leaving no doubt that he is in a second position to the Father.
The Godhead is made up of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost and they act as one. I believe the scriptures are telling us that God the Father is in the 1st position, but allows the members of the Godhead to be equal with Him as to those things concerning the salvation of man.
johnluke, I am impressed. You finally seem to be making sense of this. However, Jesus' was subordinate to the Father only in the fact that he had become a man. This was part of accepting his mediatorial role. From eternity, scripture never presents Jesus as occupying a subordinate role. As God, Jesus is not subordinate to the Father. The occupation of roles within the triadic structure is not a matter of superiority or subordination, only of function.
E
Eva1218
Guest
The order of the GODHEAD/TRINITY is FATHER, SON, HOLY SPIRIT.
The FATHER sent the SON/JESUS
The SON/JESUS sent the HOLY SPIRIT/GHOST/COMFORTER
The SON does as the FATHER does and HOLY SPIRIT only speaks of the SON/JESUS/TRUTH
Blessings!!!!!!!
The FATHER sent the SON/JESUS
The SON/JESUS sent the HOLY SPIRIT/GHOST/COMFORTER
The SON does as the FATHER does and HOLY SPIRIT only speaks of the SON/JESUS/TRUTH
Blessings!!!!!!!
Here is my response:
I find it very curious that almost all discussions about understanding God with trinitarians either concludes with or points to some form of this statement: We as humans cannot understand God. Yet the same trinitarians will claim that we need to have a personal relationship with him. It seems very contradictory to me. If you truly believe that all the words we use do not give us an understanding of God, then why did he give us HIS word in HUMAN terms? Why did he come AS A MAN to reveal himself TO MEN?
Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying we can understand EVERYTHING about God. The word of God tells us that His ways are above are ways and that His ways are past finding out. But the FUNDAMENTALS about God can be understood in human terms. That is why he came, to reveal himself to his people but his own people did not recognize him. He revealed himself AS A MAN so that MEN could relate to him. Yet you claim that because we are men, we cannot truly know him. John 1 tells us that he was made flesh and dwelt among us. 1 Timothy 3:16 says that God was MANIFEST in the flesh. That means he was REVEALED in flesh. He was made KNOWN in HUMAN terms. The bible says God was manifest in the flesh. Then we say, Well what does that REALLY mean? It means exactly what it said! GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH! He revealed himself. And when he did, he wasn't a trinity. He was one being.
Another thing I notice is trinitarians normally different things in nature that have three parts to describe God (i.e. eggs, water, etc) Yet the one thing that was created IN HIS IMAGE you guys avoid. Because you can't make a man reflect a trinity. You must look at a man and say if he is created in God's image, then God is only one being not three.
Now with all that said, this still does not address the OP. Where is this terminology coming from IN THE BIBLE?
No, I did not say that we could not know him, I said that because of our finite minds we can neither fully understand or comprehend God. There is a lot of difference. When we talk about God, our mind is unable to formulate an accurate image since we have no experience with God at the sensory level. We simply have no point of reference from which to envision God. Every individual, despite cultural or religious exposure, will envision God in their own mind according to his or her concept of God, which is invariably formed out of one’s exposure to various religious teachings and cultural experiences. We do this because our mind must have some frame of reference to which to connect language. Since we are unable to connect our senses to the unseen world, we connect what is unseen to the natural world. We can only create a mental image of God according to our own individual points of reference. Idolatry creates god in the image of things that are part of human experiences. This is precisely what Israel did when they came to Mt. Sinai. Moses had been their only visible iconic connection with the invisible God. When Moses disappeared for forty days, Israel decided to adopt a familiar image that they could corporately associate as God. What they did was create a familiar frame of reference. They created a god in the form of something with which they all had experience, the golden calf of Egypt. It seems that when visible representations are taken away, man will attempt to replace them in order to maintain some sense of connection with their idea of the unseen. In the Hebrew camp, there is a sense of abandonment and uncertainty. Since their only visible representation had disappeared, they replaced him with another. They turned to the natural world to create something they felt would give them a sense of continuity. Apart from a revelation from God about himself, man will always fall into some form of idolatry. The farther away man gets from revelation the more naturalistic and perverted his image of God will become, Deuteronomy 4:15-19.
How we understand ourselves and interpret our interaction with the world is directly proportionate to our understanding of God and his involvement in the natural dimension. The reality of God and our perception of God will always be two different things. God will always transcend what man says that God is and man will never be able to grasp all that God says he is. The personality of God is not fully accessible based on the parameters of human language or reason. God never exists on the same plain as man. He always transcends the natural world and stands outside of man’s ability to rationalize. We cannot conceptualize God based on language that is formed out of the natural world. As a result, man is incapable of developing a language use that will allow him to formulate a legitimate understanding of God. The only language use upon which we can rely is a revealed grammar. God uses scripture to provide a linguistic link to the mind of man. Although scripture allows us to see God through the eyes of faith, we are still unable to understand fully all that scripture tells us about God. Since this is true, how will a representational study of scripture help us to develop a clearer understanding of God?
One barrier we must confront if we are to approach this study on the nature of God less encumbered must be that of our own intelligence. Since our intelligence is something that we routinely rely upon to help us understand certain things about the natural world, this will not be an easy thing to bring under control. Although it serves us well in this respect and fulfills a proper created function, it will not serve us well as a requisite for understanding God. To understand God, we must look beyond the limitations of human intelligence into revelation. Human intelligence operates from the platform of pragmatic experience. Faith, on the other hand, is grounded in things that are unseen and operates outside experiential parameters. While our intelligence has an assigned place in our connection with the universe, it must be rendered subordinate to the intelligence of God. God does not call us to intellectualism but to faith. If human intelligence were in any way sufficient to understand things of the non-natural world, what need would we have for revelation? Human intelligence that is unconditioned by revelation will always prove a hindrance to man’s understanding of God.Therefore, we must bring the human intelligence factor under the control of the superior intelligence of the Creator. God will not prostrate himself to man’s image of who he believes God to be. If we are to develop a clearer understanding of God, it must be on God’s terms.
Last edited:
Johnluke,
Herein lies the problem with your final statement. If you believe that God is a trinity and that they are Co-equal, then the Father doesn't ALLOW the other two to do ANYTHING. They are equal with him BY NATURE if what you believe is true.
BTW, In Revelations 1, Jesus said that he is the first and the last. So how could he make that statement if he is the SECOND person in the trinity?
