3 in 1 - I'M MORE ONENESS THAN YOU ARE ...

[sola gratia]

just some info for reference

The truth of the matter is the doctrine was evident biblically among the first church in a scriptural manner – by that I mean Paul, Peter, and John etc…. then to their successors and so on – in fact you’ll find incredible historical documentation supporting the doctrine of the Trinity - and or the doctrine of distinction for the weak at heart LOL!!

From the apostles to the church fathers, and to modern day – this history is very helpful in aiding us to understand the thought process alive in the early church. – and the doctrine it espoused….
When I say early church I mean times as early as 50 AD to 70 AD to 200 AD very early Christianity –
Lets start with the church fathers first – these where post apostolic leaders of the church- they are demonized by some as being pagan, and corrupt and so on, there is little documentation to show that – it is worthy however to note that if every bible in the world was destroyed totally – we could reconstruct the entire word of GOD from the letters and writings of the Church Fathers – that’s how much they used and respected the WORD

I know some dislike these guys - I am not validating them as much as I am showing that we cannot blame the catholics of the Nicea men for the trinity

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).
Next is some early instruction on baptism
Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).
Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, ……. (Against Heresies X.l)


Tertullian (160-215). A major apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. Very respected and influential
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).
Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
Origen
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).
Of great interest is this – because anti-trinitarians attest that the doctrine of the trinity was the molding of Emperor Constantine’s pagan theologies, with a politically motivated Catholicism, and that is a lie – Constantines Nicean Counsel was in 325 AD - these quotes date some 200 plus years before this counsel.
Anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325. However history vehemently disagrees.
Anti – Trinitarians assess that the doctrine developed in the bowels of paganism – history shows that the doctrine was common place discussion and teaching in the church by church leaders, early AD 70, early AD 100 through to the 200’s and beyond!
This history is not supposition and propaganda but credible, scholarly accepted documentation, of early church view.

[Sherri]

I don't think any of us will totally understand God this side of eternity. I have my ideas, but I can't really explain some scriptures--like the one that says that Jesus sits at the right hand of God, making intercession between man and God. Those kinds of things are just overwhelming to my little finite brain and so I just love God and have to trust Him. I've heard those things explained to me many times, but it still doesn't completely make sense when you read scripture.

I believe that God is one, but He can manifest Himself however He wants. There is a Creator side to Him, a fleshly body that housed His spirit, and then His Spirit that infills us. I can't totally separate it, but I can't totally put it together either. He's just God and He's bigger than our thinking.

Originally Posted by sola gratia

eternally begotten and trinity where used LONG before Nicea Bro - hundreds of years before

Tertullian used the word "trinitas," not the English word "trinity" (English did not exist as a language yet). As for whether there was a trinity doctrine before the Nicene Creed, that is subject to debate. Even so, one must ask "Which version of the trinity doctrine"? Just because Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned doesn't mean those who mentioned them believed they were (to quote some modern statements of faith) "three co-equal, co-eternal divine persons." The phrase "eternally begotten" was not in the original Nicene Creed. The original phrase was a Greek phrase that translates into the English "begotten before all worlds" (as used in the Eastern Orthodox version of the Creed). The phrase "eternally begotten" is an oxymoron because the word "begotten" necessitates having a beginning and the word "eternally" necessitates that the thing has not only been occurring throughout all of eternity "past" but that it will continue to occur throughout all of eternity "future." Thus, the phrase "eternally begotten" means that Jesus has always been in the process of being begotten and will always be in the process of being begotten.

Then, of course, there's the whole thing about an economic trinity and an immanent trinity.

For further reading: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Examinat...e=UTF8&s=books

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

While I do agree with this basic statement I would like to say this...

My experience has been that very few trinitarians believe that, when they approach the throne, they are going to see 3 beings.

They do use the term persons and if you asked them if they believed God is 3 persons they would say yes.

But if you asked them how many would see there if they looked at the throne they would say one.

One would hope they would say "one." I've actually heard some suggest they would see three thrones and I've actually heard some define "persons" as "beings." I've even heard one suggest that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are like members of a team or committee called "God." Then, of course, there's the whole thing about how the three persons supposedly interact with and relate to (have a relationship with) each other.

[Truly Blessed]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

No man has seen God. Jesus is the express image of God the Father. When you see Jesus, you have seen the Father.

You have seen the Father to the extent that flesh can see the Father. How do you suppose angels and the Father interact and see each other in the heavenlies. As I have said, the highest existence is spirit being. We are spirit, soul, and body. We are limited at the present by our flesh, but when we are released from the flesh, we will exist at the highest level of our being, which will be the same level as other spirit beings including God. I admit that we humans have a hard time to imagine that existence and rightly so. But it is the limitation of our flesh that causes us so much misunderstanding about the Godhead. We are still seeing through a glass darkly, but then face to face.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

You have seen the Father to the extent that flesh can see the Father. How do you suppose angels and the Father interact and see each other in the heavenlies. As I have said, the highest existence is spirit being. We are spirit, soul, and body. We are limited at the present by our flesh, but when we are released from the flesh, we will exist at the highest level of our being, which will be the same level as other spirit beings including God. I admit that we humans have a hard time to imagine that existence and rightly so. But it is the limitation of our flesh that causes us so much misunderstanding about the Godhead. We are still seeing through a glass darkly, but then face to face.

Thankfully, TB, what 'can' be seen ... was enough to rescue us!!!!

Originally Posted by Truly Blessed

You have seen the Father to the extent that flesh can see the Father. How do you suppose angels and the Father interact and see each other in the heavenlies. As I have said, the highest existence is spirit being. We are spirit, soul, and body. We are limited at the present by our flesh, but when we are released from the flesh, we will exist at the highest level of our being, which will be the same level as other spirit beings including God. I admit that we humans have a hard time to imagine that existence and rightly so. But it is the limitation of our flesh that causes us so much misunderstanding about the Godhead. We are still seeing through a glass darkly, but then face to face.

The scripture says what it says: No MAN has seen God at any time. The angels are not men. Further, according to Genesis God breathed into Adam the breath of life and he became a living soul. It doesn't say Adam was body, soul and spirit, it says that the combination of body and spirit produced a living soul. Thus, we don't have souls, we are souls.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by sola gratia

The aspect of GOD know as SON of God is recognized for HIS individuality, yes, HIS distinctive actions and existence, but not his separate ego, or being – in that manner HE is fully GOD, and cannot be separated in the manner where he is so individualized as is assumed by the post – I’d like to include a few thoughts from the Anthanasian Creed – he sort of was the one who first incorporated the word “person” –

Trinitarians by and large today DO indeed recognize the Son as a distinct ego or SELF...I did not say being. Nor did I say separate. They believe Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct SELFS or Individuals or WHOS. Some DO however say three separate individuals and even others say distinct or separate beings, but by and large most of they just see three distinct selfs or egos.

I would agree with this – but you have to qualify this more – modalists don’t mean when GOD morphed into the Son the throne was vacant – or the Father ceased to exist – so the statement is too narrow to be taken at face value

I didn't say "Morphed into the Son" nor did I say "throne was vacant".....nor that the Father ceased to exist. So I have no clue what you are trying to do here. You are putting words in my mouth.

It does mean individual self on some levels but is also akin to persona of which it did originate – Don’t yoy believe the Son had some individualization to him?

The issue is what Trinitarians believe. Please stop trying to redefine what I said into something other than what I meant. Trinitarians use the term Person to mean a hypostasis. They have three. Modalists had one that was three different modes. Oneness has one Hypostasis that is both Father and Son. I do not believe the Father and Son are two different persons. I do believe they are two different forms of being of the same person. I believe they are distinct due to the human nature/will/psyche of the Son. But to say they are different persons is either Unitarian or Binitarian or Trinitarian.

He prayed in that manner – not just incarnationally but eternally as well – to blur the lines of distinction on an eternal level is not biblical – does it make you a trinitarian?

Does it make WHO a Trinitarian? To blur what lines on an eternal level? I deny He prayed "eternally" as well. That WOULD be something more akin to Trinitarianism or Arianism. The Son's prayers did not begin until the incarnation and were the result of having a Human nature

To some maybe – but we cannot ignore certain text just to preserve our title – you can be oneness and still acknowledge eternal distinctions

No, you can't. Oneness definitionally is One Eternal Being/Person who became the Son AT the incarnation when he was hypostatically united with a Human nature. You are saying there was an Eternally existing Son. That is Neither modalism nor Unitarianism but is certainly Trinitarian, Binitarian and Arian (to some degree)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Chan

Correction: MOST modern Trinitarians believe God is three persons.

Well like I said, those that don't are really more like modalists in my view. Im talking about the current definition of Trinitarianism.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

While I do agree with this basic statement I would like to say this...

My experience has been that very few trinitarians believe that, when they approach the throne, they are going to see 3 beings.

They do use the term persons and if you asked them if they believed God is 3 persons they would say yes.

But if you asked them how many would see there if they looked at the throne they would say one.

Folks, this is because Trinitarians do not equate the term person with beings. They believe in 1 Divine being/essence that all three persons share. And those persons are said to interdwell one another