Trinitarian view

shag · #1 09-22-2014, 11:39 PM

In a recent discussion w some trinitarian friends...they said "how could God be love, if He had noone to love before creation of anything including angels? Insinuating love for one another in the trinity was only logical answer.

And, let us make man in our image could not be speaking of God and angels making man, because angels did not make man. Meaning had to be a trinity.

Thought?

Praxeas · #2 09-22-2014, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shag

In a recent discussion w some trinitarian friends...they said "how could God be love, if He had noone to love before creation of anything including angels? Insinuating love for one another in the trinity was only logical answer.

And, let us make man in our image could not be speaking of God and angels making man, because angels did not make man. Meaning had to be multiple in the deity.

Answers?

Being Love is not the same thing as "God Loved someone". Love is a part of His nature. He does not need to have an object in order to be Love

Second couldn't God love us before we existed?
1Jn 4:19 We love because he loved us first.

Angels did not create but were present at Creation, making then passive participants so God could have included them in that manner

Jason B · #3 09-23-2014, 12:12 AM

The "love" between members of the trinity is considered one of their best arguments by them. They think it is unassailable.

Personally I'm not convinced that is a good argument. Who says God needs an object to love to be loving? Using that same logic what keeps one from dualism (that there is an eternally good God and an eternally evil god/force)? For one could argue that since God is just in His essential nature He must therefore have an object to demonstrate His justice upon.

Maybe that's not a good counter argument but IMO the love argument is weak.

shag · #4 09-23-2014, 06:49 AM

I know one thing, in last 15-18yrs, I've never been so underfire verbally for not achknowleging a trinity. Went to have a friendly dinner, maybe talk a little bible...got ready to leave and basically got a solid 30 min verbally attacked for not going along with 3 in the deity and the love the 3 had for one another. Had me so frustrated afterward I didn't get to sleep till 3:30 am. Their child is even named trinity. I just wanted to leave, wore out from work, and couldn't get out the door because they had both barrels going. A pastor and his wife for about the past 28 yrs.

I took the heat and tried to reply when they'd let me but they were so busy firing away they wouldn't hardly let met talk. I had nvr heard the 'love argument b4. Didn't help matters for me that she was very studied in the Hebrew.

So what about a trinitarian view sends that view into tritheism?
Seeing 3 thrones in heaven or what?

Pliny · #5 09-23-2014, 12:04 PM

So if love can ONLY exist so long as there is an object to love then we can also say that evil MUST exist or good could never have existed? Crazy. Then again the whole idea of 1 = 3 and 3 = 1 is pure lunacy and is beyond comprehension.

FlamingZword · #6 09-23-2014, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pliny

So if love can ONLY exist so long as there is an object to love then we can also say that evil MUST exist or good could never have existed? Crazy. Then again the whole idea of 1 = 3 and 3 = 1 is pure lunacy and is beyond comprehension.

I do not belive you have gone far enough in describing the trinity.

It is sheer pure lunacy and way beyond comprehension.
not only that but is completely false and a heresy of the first rank.
The doctrine of the trinity is offensive to God for it turns him into a Cerberus monster or Hecate the three bodied Goddess.
The trinity is the abomination above all abominations.

Praxeas · #7 09-23-2014, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shag

I know one thing, in last 15-18yrs, I've never been so underfire verbally for not achknowleging a trinity. Went to have a friendly dinner, maybe talk a little bible...got ready to leave and basically got a solid 30 min verbally attacked for not going along with 3 in the deity and the love the 3 had for one another. Had me so frustrated afterward I didn't get to sleep till 3:30 am. Their child is even named trinity. I just wanted to leave, wore out from work, and couldn't get out the door because they had both barrels going. A pastor and his wife for about the past 28 yrs.

I took the heat and tried to reply when they'd let me but they were so busy firing away they wouldn't hardly let met talk. I had nvr heard the 'love argument b4. Didn't help matters for me that she was very studied in the Hebrew.

So what about a trinitarian view sends that view into tritheism?
Seeing 3 thrones in heaven or what?

Orthodox trinitarians would never speak of seeing 2 or 3 thrones with Divine Persons sitting on them

Most Trinitarians today are not Orthodox and tend to separate the persons into beings (Tritheism)

shag · #8 09-23-2014, 07:50 PM

She even said anytime the word satan was used in the OT, the Hebrew was plural adversaries...But singular in the new. Never heard that one either.
Maybe something about Elohim plurality or whatever. I wanted to say do u need 3 satans to match 3 gods or is Satan 3 in one too or what....but held my tongue.

I asked them if they got that from the book of Enoch and she denied, but said it was from studying Hebrew. I know she has read Enoch quite a bit tho...

Is the ot always plural satan in the hebrew(aka adversaries) a common opinion?

shag · #9 09-23-2014, 08:49 PM

If trinitarian doesn't believe in God setting on a literal throne', then what explanation of 3 in unity would be too far and instead make 3 separate gods?

IOW, what would a person say in descriptions of God, that would undeniably put them as believing in 3 gods?

3 wills? 3 minds? 3 what?

DaveC519 · #10 09-23-2014, 09:14 PM

Hello shag,

Quote:

Originally Posted by shag

In a recent discussion w some trinitarian friends...they said "how could God be love, if He had noone to love before creation of anything including angels? Insinuating love for one another in the trinity was only logical answer.

This is a popular argument, but flawed IMO. As I see it, if God couldn't be "love" without an object, then that would mean an essential attribute of his being would be contingent upon someone/thing else. And that would mean God was not complete in himself apart from an object to love. This seems to be counterintuitive to everything Scripture tells us about God- that he is complete in himself and is not dependent upon anyone/thing else for his existence.

Quote:

And, let us make man in our image could not be speaking of God and angels making man, because angels did not make man. Meaning had to be a trinity.

Thought?

Another popular argument. If, as you say elsewhere, the wife was familiar with OT Hebrew, then she should know that in Gen 1:26 where it states "And God said...", "said" is a singular verb, not plural. And in Hebrew, as well as Greek, verbs must agree with their subjects as to number (singular, plural, etc.). Therefore, the grammar of the text itself is asserting that Elohim is also being treated as singular.

In addition, many miss that we humans are actually created in two images: the image of God (Gen 1:26, 27), and the image of the dust from which man formed us (Gen 2:7; 1 Cor 15:49). Therefore, in created man, God was addressing in vs. 26 not angels nor other divine persons, but rather the earth from which man was formed, and whose image man also bore.