I'm sorry because I haven't provided a response. I'm barely 16 (so I go to high school) and had a lot of homework so I didn't have time. A lot of what you said is going over my head, so let me look more into it and I'll try providing a response shortly. Thanks. _________________ For to me life is Christ and death is profit.- Philippians 1:21
Alright, what you are saying on Philippians 2:6 is merely an interpretation and I don't think I can defend that verse well enough yet because I had never seen it in that light. I think I will forfeit this debate. Lol. It is very hard to defend that Christ is equal with God if you are saying that they are both of infinite rank yet infinities come in different sizes. My idea in the beginning was that you were declaring he was not truly God, but a being inferior to Him. It's a pretty good thesis in my opinion, yet it is only a matter of interpretation. Another thing that I would like to say is that you also use a lot of verses to prove that Jesus was in a lower rank than God, but you should also know that the Trinity teaches that Jesus while being equal to the Father, he was submissive to Him even before he came to earth so a lot of those verses get invalidated. Nice debate. Your brother in Christ, Legion. _________________ For to me life is Christ and death is profit.- Philippians 1:21
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 10:00 pm Post subject: trinitarian controversy
I came across this forum and spotted the subject of trinity in the index. Although the history of your discussion is unknown to me, there are some scriptural facts which make me feel that Mr. Schubert scores a bulls-eye.
God (not being limited by the various verses to the 'Father" portion nor the 'Holy Spirit' portion) is invisible and knows when Jesus will return. Jesus is 'the life' in several senses of the word, yet he died (though God evidently did not, since He took the active role in raising Jesus from the dead). For all the fancy translation and usage footwork, there is an overall scope of the truth which points to Jesus having been appointed by God to fulfill a mission and he was deservedly rewarded. God knew about the logos for His son, and at the right time 'the word' was made flesh. Goodness, look again at all the church epistles with at least the temporary acceptance that Jesus spoke the truth about his relationship to God and you wil see that Paul, Peter, James, etc. accepted Christ as Lord and God as their Lord's LORD. Doesn't this make sense?
Joined: 04 Jun 2002 Posts: 8 Location: Apopka,FL, USA
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:32 pm Post subject: trinity troubles
I've been reading a lot about this and I just wonder why SDA have to make so much of what exactly is involved in The Trinity. I've been SDA most of my life, and went to an SDA school from first to 12th grade. So, I do know some of what we believe. But, if I had to ask myself exactly which member of the Godhead I must drect each prayer to, I would get terribly sidetracked. I know I would miss the purpose of my prayer, which is to ask for forgiveness and help with my life.
Instead, I would get all bogged down in nitpickin wonderings about exactly who I'm talking to up there. Why get all entangled with issues way above our little human intelligence? In heaven all will become clear. For now, let's just pray. If you need a picture in your mind, just let it be whichever one comes up first. Do you really know what Jesus, or God, or the Holy Spirit look like? So, what's the big deal about which one?!
We all know who God is, don't we? I realize that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit help me and care about me, but I feel Lucifer would be pleased if he could get me so wrought up about which one was just right for each prayer, that I'd be obsessed with that rather than working on my character!!! Sheeeesh, you guys! _________________ Restin Wells
AMEN! By one spirit we have access through Jesus, and he is our intercessor, and how can you get any closer than God's right hand? So whether I pray to Jesus or his Father, the Spirit searches our hearts and God hears our prayers.
I agree that the grammatical and historical facts are the key elements in recapturing the author's intended meaning. But when a word is used so little, and disputed so often, with no clear consensus coming out it would seem that the greater context is that which would determine the meaning of the word. Certainly if the word was not there at all we could speculate about what it most likely would be by the reading of the text.
In the case of Philippians 2 the great theme of the chapter is that those listening should share in the condescension of Christ.
Quote:
PHP 2:1 If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
PHP 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
PHP 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
PHP 2:7 but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
In the passage Paul is exhorting them to regard their brothers as BETTER than themselves, though in fact, they are all one in Christ, and equal..not to mention all equally sinners. The point is to voluntarily lower oneself in order to serve.
With this in mind we have the idea of Christ being in the form of God (I prefer the reading in very nature, as will soon be seen), but He did not consider equality with God something to be HELD ONTO. Not because it was not desirable. But because it was the intention of the Son to SERVE. And therefore it was more desirable to give up that nature, not to grasp it. He willingly made himself something less than what He was in order to serve others. Paul is now saying that believers should do the same. They should consider others better than themselves, though in fact they are equal, and should serve those around them.
Notice that μορφή (mor-fay) is used twice in the passage. Christ was in the very μορφή of God, and then he took on the very μορφή of a servant.
Essentially it is saying that Jesus was in fact equal with God, was the same as God, had the same nature as God, but took on the nature of a servant (human in this case), became a creature, emptied himself, and BECAME a person.
The point is that Christ really did change into a person, and He really was God. But the reason for doing this was service.
I agree with you that in fact Jesus was subordinate to God the Father not only while on earth (as some contend), but is pictured as being so even after His resurrection and ascension.
For instance in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 we see clear evidence of the submission of the Son.
Quote:
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
It is very plain from this text that God the Father or , simply God as it says, is over all, and always will be.
However, I do agree that they share the same nature. But an illustration I find more helpful than that of mathematical concepts of infinity is that of marriage. Paul says that there is no male or female in Christ (Galatians 4:28) . Peter says that men and women, husband and wife are co-heirs of salvation (I Peter 3:7). But he also says that the woman is the "weaker" vessel. Clearly men and women are of equal value before God. They are equal in many ways. But the Bible still maintains that they have different ROLES.
Therefore the same Paul who said there is no male or female in Christ says,
Quote:
EPH 5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
And the same Peter who says that the husband and wife are co-heirs with God also says,
Quote:
1PE 3:1 Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
In the same way the Father and Son can be of the same value, same nature, same worth, etc. but have different roles, and one be in subjection to the other.
In fact Jesus says that the whole order of heaven is for the greater to serve the lesser:
Quote:
LK 22:24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Here it says that the great should serve the weak. Jesus was the master of the disciples, truly so, but he served them. Just as we earlier saw in Philippians, now we see Jesus saying that they should follow His example.
Jesus' role was to be submissive to the Father, to serve, to give up His nature and take on a lower one. This in turn caused God to exalt Him.
If we simply look at certain verses we could say perhaps that God took a person...or maybe an angel..or perhaps even a lesser deity, and made him something great because he served. But we cannot ignore those versus where Jesus says that He and the Father are One. Nor that the Word was with God and was God, etc.
So in trying to make sense of all the biblical data what I have found is that
a. God is, and always will be over the Son
b. This seems to be a difference of roles, not of nature.
As was stated earlier though, we have only the texts that are given. Certainly God will make all things clear to us at some point, but for now we have to go with what He has shown in the sum total of the various scripture passages.
You are one of the very few people who refer to I Cor 15 to indicate the fact that God is indeed superior, greater, or higher than His son, Jesus. Although Jesus said the Father is greater than he is, many confuse figures of speech with the literal truth that Jesus spoke at times, such as "the Father and I are one." After all, no one may see the face of God and live (which itself is a figure, because God is spirit according to Jesus, thus having no face or body). I, like many, believe Jesus rather than those who confuse figures of speech with literal meaning (e. g. the Word became flesh; the word was God; if God died on the cross, who raised Him from the dead? No, His son died, and God raised him!)
God literally gave His son to die for the sins of the world. God help the non-trinitarians hold forth the truth to help the Moslems see the light of one God, one Lord (Jesus), and one body of Christ!
I appreciate your pointing out "did not consider equality with God something to be HELD ONTO" although the translation "to be grasped" is better rendered "to be grasped at" or "robbery" because Jesus did not possess it. Unlike Lucifer who grasped at exaltation, Jesus humbled himself and therefore earned exaltation as a reward granted by his Father. The body he was given was a result of the divine fertilization of one of Mary's eggs so that he was at once the son of Man and the son of God. Can he otherwise really be called the second Adam with a potential to sin (tempted in all points) whereas God is not tempted (James)?
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:03 pm Post subject: Thank You
I recently sent a PM to Eugene Shubert His response was to point me to this forum for which I am very Gratefull as it has clarified his view for me greatly. I am not sure why I didnt find it while I was looking through the postings, but as I said to Eugene Shubert it was late and I was indeed very tired. I am posting my question here as per Eugene Shubert's request. I think my question has been fairly well answered. I personally feel very comfortable with Eugene Shubert's view/definition of the Trinity of God.
Original PM:
I have been reading thru several posts on this forum trying to determine if you back the Trinity. Or if you are saying that you simply back a different view of the Trinity. Or if you are saying that there is God, His son Jesus, and his active force Holy Spirit.
I was raised in a belief of the last view but I dont believe in the religion that my parents raised me with. I have been 12 yrs now in a "spiritual limbo" unsure how to proceed with my faith and belief in God. The issue of the Trinity is the one that keeps making it hard to impossible for me to have the benefit of Church as all the faiths in my area that I have looked into belive in the Trinity. I know it may sound odd that I say "I don't believe in the Relgion of my parents" and yet "do" believe in one of that relgions main themes. That being that Jesus is not God but God's only begotton son and that Holy Spirit. Is the active force of God. Yet so far as I read and understand the bible it seems that Jesus makes no claim to be God.
I want to clarify that I am not trying to preach to you just make clear where I am at currently. The more I search for an answer to Trinity or Non-Trinity the more I see avid arguments for both views and the more unclear I am becoming. I have a genuine wish to worship God has he wills and from what I am reading those that believe in a Trinity feel that non-belief is offencive to God and Vice Versa. If you have time to clarify your own take on this I would be Gratefull!
Forgive me for responding if you are not addressing your comments to me, but I see your post followed upon mine in the listing.
Perhaps my situation is similar in that I feel behooved to fellowship with other Christians but cannot support nor encourage the teaching & preaching of wrong doctrine. However, mainstream Christianity still teaches (and behavior should of course indicate) that man is naturally sinful but faith in the death, resurrection, and lordship of Jesus Christ accords one God's grace and forgiveness and acceptance to His family.
Therefore, I enjoy being with Christians for community service, benefit concerts, and sharing finances for the outreach of teaching ministires.
I rarely attend "church" but rather attend to the church, which is each and every believer whether they hold my same views or not.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
