Selective Salvation

[Seority]

Cometh The Inquisitor

I'm not basing it off of God being eternal, but, as I explained to John, outside of time, and, as such, to God we are the past, present, and future. All things happen at once to God.

-x> XP

Ok. I get what your saying now. That must be interesting. I wonder why anything would matter to him. If we arn't even a blip of a second, then what does God need us for?
This is confusing me...
~Ex.Kin.Fin

 

[ElenaMason]

John Calvin

All right, but I do not see how this has proven anything, especially since you have not set it up in a syllogism. Do you think that the syllogism is made for such point? I can say something, and you might agree. With that, I can say something else that is related to what I said previously, and if you agree, you agree with me completely on what I was saying, and thus, you have brought yourself into an agreement with me, even though you might have not thought of doing so.

it was a syllogism to me.....and the point at the time i was making was because he is an almighty being, he didn't have to be coporeal to make a physical tear...but we already discussed that.

John Calvin

Because, it's not of His nature. If His nature is immutability, then all shall follow through. With this in mind, God is incapable of sinning, since to sin, He would have to change His nature. Hebrews 6:18 shows that it is "impossible" for God to lie. God cannot cause another great deluge, for He promised that He would never do it again. God cannot cease to exist, because He will forever remain the same, as the psalmist writes. And if God did, then everything else would cease to exist, for by the Logos, all things we created through Him (John 1:3). Keep in mind that James writes that God does not tempt anyone, for God cannot be tempted by evil. This is yet, another impossibility. God is not called omnipotent, because He can do this or that, but because nothing happens without His deliberation. If God so wills that a branch fall on a passer-by and kill him, it will occur.

okay NOW i have something to work with. and now that ive read it, and re read your side of the debate, i've reiterated my thoughts. what you say also makes a lot more sense too, how its in OUR nature to sin, not in gods, thus its impossible for him to sin let alone tempted by sin. i concure

Quote:

God is indeed, logical. For it is written, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God." Logos is a Greek word that can be translated as "speech," "word," "discourse," "reason," et cetera. Indeed, God is logical, especially if He is the Creator of logic and law.

We are all logical but not all the time. And from a point of view, the concept of predestination, sending those to hell or heaven doesn't "seem" logical either, but its in the bible. But, thats leaning on our own understanding of it. If its logical to god....guess that makes it logical then.

Quote:

No, it is our nature, that we do this or that. We are sinners, therefore, we sin. A magnet connects to metallic objects, because that is its nature. If it did not do such, it would not be a magnet. Holiness is God's nature, and He demands it of His children (Lev. 11:44, 45). God, who is holy, will only do what is holy, for He, by nature, is a holy God. If He sinned, He would not only lack holiness, but He would also be bound by sin, since sin is an oppression. And with that in mind, God would not be immutable as well as omnipotent, since first, He would have changed, and second, something would be greater than Him.

ah okay. yes...more verses to work with. thank you. i shall definately keep these verses in mind for the future.

Quote:

While the Word of God does state that all three "persons" if you will, are God, there is no Scriptural references that state that God is one in substance. I could simply say, as the Modalist, that the Father is the Son, and the Son is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the Father. Of course, this would be wrong, since the Bible clearly shows a distinction. However, if you want to know, I'll tell you. First, there is no Father-Son relationship found anywhere in the Old Testament. The only relationship between God and man is God's relationship to Israel, and He calls Himself the Father, and Israel, His "firstborn son." He may also refer to Himself as Father, concerning the Davidic tribe. Another reason is that you ought to ask yourself, Why is God known as Yahweh in the Old Testament, and that He is all by Himself, and yet, in the New Testament, He is not called Yahweh anymore, but is now "Father"? My other problem is that there is no Scriptural reference that the Son has always been the "Son." You believe in an eternal Sonship, while I believe in an Incarnational Sonship. Consider those two thoughts.

im going to save this for later. i want to discuss this with my dad and see what he has to say. so yeah...just saving the statement as a quote.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but where again, is God seen as "physically"? And by "mentally," you make me think of the Mormons, who say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all "separate" beings, yet one in purpose.

if a person is one, in three different forms, wouldn't they all have or at least SHARE the same thoughts? that what i believe...i mean it would make sense if god is one person seperated into three different forms that share the same thoughts but slightly different actions by each. im not mormon but religions do tend to share beliefs.....

im....going to get to you on this later, what you brought up earlier was interesting.....so yeah....going to discuss it with my dad and post about it later tonight probably.

Quote:

Then, not only do you accept an odd view of Mormonism, but also the thought of the Modalistic teaching of Patripassianism, a heresy.

Now, who is the Logos? The Logos is the preexistent, pre-Incarnate Christ. The Logos is the "Word" found in John 1:1.

"As far back as man can think, in the beginning...the Word was existing. The term "Word" as you said, is a comon Greek word logos, which meant "speaking, a message, or words." "logos" was widely used in Greek philosophical teaching as well as in Jewish wisdom literature and philosophy. John chose this term because it was familliar to his readers, but he invested it with his OWN meaning, which become evident in the prologue. "The Word was with God" in a special reltionship of eternal fellowship in the Trinity. The word "with" translates the Greek pros, which here suggest "in company with" (cf. the same use of pros in 1:2; 1 Thes 3:4; 1 John 1:2). John then added that "the Word was God". Jehovah's Witnesses tanslate this clause, "the Word was a god." This is incorrect and logically is polytheism. Others have translated it "the Word was divine," but this is ambiguous and could lead to a faulty view of Jesus. If this verse is correctly understood, it helps clarify the doctrine of the Trinity. The Word is eternal; the Word is in relationship to God (the Father); and the Word is God.'"

-According to the New Testament Bible Knowledge Commentary

The Bible was created way after the earth and the universe was...from a personal point of view, i see "the word" no differently than a journal. A journal is something we write our very thoughts, sayings, our TEACHINGS into on a piece of paper, so in a metaphorical sense, the journal IS us, in thought and word.

And the bible is God's word is it not? And according to the commentary, logos is words of teaching and of the like, and thats exactly what the bible is, a word of teaching

According to you, maybe it would be more appropriate to say that "the Word" is a pre-incarnation of God...a form of God. But this is kind of out of speculation.

Quote:

You don't know why He would need the use of a physical body? Were you not saying that God did have a body?

I said it was a POSSIBILITY. I never said it was proof shown that he has a physical body. we don't KNOW if he has a physical body or not because we've never seen him face to face.

But the more I thought about the own words I was saying, and what you were saying, the more i began to wonder "why would god need a physical body in the first place?"

Quote:

I proved to you, by logic. The burden of proof is not on me. You now must explain away my logic, or concede that you were incorrect.

logic is NOT always proof, logic is a point of view MOST of the time. your logic at the time i didn't agree with nor did I see it as proof as to what I needed you to show me that WASN'T a point of view. But since you've shown me verses now that "relate" to what you were saying to me, I've already reiterated my thoughts.

Quote:

Regard it as a theory, but you contradict yourself. How can one be under control, if one is influenced by something else? If one is influenced by, say for example, alcohol, what control does that person have? The lack of judgment and reflexes is no control at all.

It probably would have been more appropriate for me to say "tempted" instead of influenced.....but nevermind.

Quote:

I would never be in a stalemate. But now, you must provide to me that God is capable of sinning and lying. If not, then you know who is correct.

no offense but thats a load of arrogant bull crap. we ALWAYS have a chance of being in error OR being in a stalemate of thought. you don't know everything.  

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

SaintChaos

We are all logical but not all the time. And from a point of view, the concept of predestination, sending those to hell or heaven doesn't "seem" logical either, but its in the bible. But, thats leaning on our own understanding of it. If its logical to god....guess that makes it logical then.

That might be supralogical.

SaintChaos

if a person is one, in three different forms, wouldn't they all have or at least SHARE the same thoughts? that what i believe...i mean it would make sense if god is one person seperated into three different forms that share the same thoughts but slightly different actions by each. im not mormon but religions do tend to share beliefs.....

You might want to consider the words of Tertullian, the man who introduced the Trinity (read Against Praxeas, or at least some of it). Tertullian teaches the economic Trinity in this treatise against Praxeas. He uses the word "separate," which I am not pleased with, but he shows one how God can be one, yet have three distinctions. Tertullian taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God, and he taught that these three persons were distinct, but not divided, different, yet not separated or independent of each other. Consider Tertullian's words:

Against Praxeas, ch. viii

But the Word was formed by the Spirit, and (if I may so express myself) the Spirit is the body of the Word. The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, "I am in the Father;" and is always with God, according to what is written, "And the Word was with God;" and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since "I and the Father are one." This will be the prolation, taught by the truth, the guardian of the Unity, wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from Him. For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are probolai, or emanations, of the substances from which they proceed. I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root, and the river of the fountain, and the ray of the sun; because every original source is a parent, and everything which issues from the origin is an offspring. Much more is (this true of) the Word of God, who has actually received as His own peculiar designation the name of Son. But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. Following, therefore, the form of these analogies, I confess that I call God and His Word-the Father and His Son-two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones. Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated: Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, whilst it at the same time guards the state of the Economy

SaintChaos

"As far back as man can think, in the beginning...the Word was existing. The term "Word" as you said, is a comon Greek word logos, which meant "speaking, a message, or words." "logos" was widely used in Greek philosophical teaching as well as in Jewish wisdom literature and philosophy. John chose this term because it was familliar to his readers, but he invested it with his OWN meaning, which become evident in the prologue. "The Word was with God" in a special reltionship of eternal fellowship in the Trinity. The word "with" translates the Greek pros, which here suggest "in company with" (cf. the same use of pros in 1:2; 1 Thes 3:4; 1 John 1:2). John then added that "the Word was God". Jehovah's Witnesses tanslate this clause, "the Word was a god." This is incorrect and logically is polytheism. Others have translated it "the Word was divine," but this is ambiguous and could lead to a faulty view of Jesus. If this verse is correctly understood, it helps clarify the doctrine of the Trinity. The Word is eternal; the Word is in relationship to God (the Father); and the Word is God.'"

Consider the Hebrew word, dabar, which is a reference to God's creative word, active during the creation (cf. Psa. 33:6). In the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, it would be written as logos. This might have been what John was pointing towards. I have at least a basic knowledge bout the word logos, especially of Hellenistic philosophy. The Logos, in Grecian thought is first found by Heraclitus, who associated the Logos with fire. I could get into what was meant by this, or what people have to offer in a commentary, but I will not. And I know of Philo Judaeus, commonly known as Philo of Alexandria (Alexandria is a place in Egypt), who was a Hellenized Jew. The Logos was, in Greek philosophy, reason, which governed the world, and was a intermediary between God and man. For Philo, the Logos was impersonal. However, many early Christians found that the same word was found in the Johannine text, and so applied such thought to the verse. Does this make it correct? Not at all. But even so, if one was to use the Wisdom Christology or Logos Christology, I do not believe that it would be in any way, support for the Trinity. In fact, even Wisdom Christology would probably teach a different "Trinity."

SaintChaos

The Bible was created way after the earth and the universe was...from a personal point of view, i see "the word" no differently than a journal. A journal is something we write our very thoughts, sayings, our TEACHINGS into on a piece of paper, so in a metaphorical sense, the journal IS us, in thought and word.

I love the idea of the Logos being a person. Read on to see what Tertullian had to say of this. Really, please read all of it. It is vital for Christians to know what the early church actually taught.

Against Praxeas, ch. v

But since they will have the Two to be but One, so that the Father shall be deemed to be the same as the Son, it is only right that the whole question respecting the Son should be examined, as to whether He exists, and who He is and the mode of His existence. Thus shall the truth itself secure its own sanction from the Scriptures, and the interpretations which guard them. There are some who allege that even Genesis opens thus in Hebrew: "In the beginning God made for Himself a Son." As there is no ground for this, I am led to other arguments derived from God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone-being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call logos, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; because also Word itself consists of Reason, which it thus proves to have been the prior existence as being its own substance. Not that this distinction is of any practical moment. For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason, as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything which He was afterwards about to utter through His Word. Now, whilst He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, He was actually causing that to become Word which He was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse. And that you may the more readily understand this, consider first of all, from your own self, who are made "in the image and likeness of God," for what purpose it is that you also possess reason in yourself, who are a rational creature, as being not only made by a rational Artificer, but actually animated out of His substance. Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought, at every impulse of your conception. Whatever you think, there is a word; whatever you conceive, there is reason. You must needs speak it in your mind; and while you are speaking, you admit speech as an interlocutor with you, involved in which there is this very reason, whereby, while in thought you are holding converse with your word, you are (by reciprocal action) producing thought by means of that converse with your word. Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech, and through which also, (by reciprocity of process, ) in uttering speech you generate thought. The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness even you are regarded as being, inasmuch as He has reason within Himself even while He is silent, and involved in that Reason His Word! I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.

Take note that Tertullian said this of the Logos: "Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you." So, the Logos is, in a certain sense, a person.

SaintChaos

According to you, maybe it would be more appropriate to say that "the Word" is a pre-incarnation of God...a form of God. But this is kind of out of speculation.

Did I say either of these? No. I said that "The Logos is the preexistent, pre-Incarnate Christ." I never said that He was a pre-incarnation of God, or a form of God, as you think. By preexistence, He was there with God. By pre-Incarnate Christ, I mean that He existed, even before He came in bodily form. But I do not, in any way or form, say what you have said. And take note that I also never mention that the Logos is the Son, in the sense of Him being an eternal Son, as most Christians believe.

SaintChaos

But the more I thought about the own words I was saying, and what you were saying, the more i began to wonder "why would god need a physical body in the first place?"

That would be a wise question to consider. Mormons, again, believe that God has a physical body. One wonders then, that if the Son of God had a physical body before coming down to earth, then why would He need to go in the womb of a woman to be begotten as a man? That is logically absurd.

SaintChaos

logic is NOT always proof,

Would you have then delighted in watching me attempt to prove it by empirical evidence? One can prove a point by logic.

SaintChaos

logic is a point of view MOST of the time. your logic at the time i didn't agree with nor did I see it as proof as to what I needed you to show me that WASN'T a point of view. But since you've shown me verses now that "relate" to what you were saying to me, I've already reiterated my thoughts.

While I do accept the fact that Scripture must be used as authoritative when concerning the Christian God, I do not think that we should put aside logic.

SaintChaos

no offense but thats a load of arrogant bull crap. we ALWAYS have a chance of being in error OR being in a stalemate of thought. you don't know everything.

I do not claim to know everything. But with my points at hand, I do not see why what I've just said, could be incorrect. Sure, I am a fallible creature, and I make errors, but if there is any error, then point them out.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

John Calvin

I do not believe that God must be in every part of time to know exactly what He must do, and know who to deal with. God is active in His creation, and everything has its "motion and being in Him," as Paul says. Again, to say that God is in the past, present, and future is to make God a spatial being, which is not the case.

Neither do I. I am saying that time has no meaning to God. I am not saying that God is in the past, present and future (though, I realize that I might have come off as saying as such, and apologize for that), but that He appears to us to be in the past, present, and future.

Quote:

I will seriously have to think this over. Still, however, it still teaches that God is spatial, thus, He has a physical being.

I never said God has a physical body (well, ignoring Christ's body). One does not need to have physical properties to be outside of time. In fact, I think it would be impossible to he corpreal and outside of time, as a body would create a sense of time (because, as we must remember, time does not actually exist as a property like gravity; it is a way of measuring movement).  

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Neither do I. I am saying that time has no meaning to God. I am not saying that God is in the past, present and future (though, I realize that I might have come off as saying as such, and apologize for that), but that He appears to us to be in the past, present, and future.

I've been searching around on the term "omnitemporal," and I was not really given any good site to read. Anyway, I have some idea of God now. Because God is transcendent, to Him, everything is the present time, so the past and future would be present to Him. Humans have memory, and so when we do something, we cannot go back in time and undo what we have done. But, whatever the past is, it is kept in our minds as memory, to seem as though it is the past. And then again, we have the future, and everything we do, we're moving into the future. But it is questionable as to whether or not we are even in present time, because everything we do is future, and then it becomes the past. It might be considered as "present." But, for God, because He is eternal, everything to Him is present. This is the best way I can describe this. When someone speaks to you, you do not say that what they've said is the past, but you consider every single word in that sentence as "present." This might be the way we can see God. Everything is present before Him, regardless of past or future, since for God, everything is "present." It's an interesting thought I've come across, but not by any kind of site that spoke of "omnitemporality." From Wolfhart Pannenberg, a German Christian, wrote this, I believe:

Wolfhart Pannenberg

The perception of duration in time has a certain resemblance to the divine eternity, where nothing passes away and where the future is present already. But the eternal God is not in need of keeping the past present to himself by way of memory, because our memory is but a substitution for the continuing actual presence of the past, while in God's eternity the past itself remains present to God. Similarly the future is not just anticipated, but is itself present to God. Therefore, the way we experience a piece of music as a whole with the help of memory and anticipation, is but a faint analogy of the divine eternity, where all things are present to God in their actuality.

Cometh The Inquisitor

I never said God has a physical body (well, ignoring Christ's body). One does not need to have physical properties to be outside of time. In fact, I think it would be impossible to he corpreal and outside of time, as a body would create a sense of time (because, as we must remember, time does not actually exist as a property like gravity; it is a way of measuring movement).

There has been a bit of confusion. I never said that you said that God has a physical body. I said that if God is omnitemporal, or that if God is in every part of time, then God must be spatial, and that would mean that God would need to have a physical body. But because God is outside of time, He would need to be incorporeal. Interesting enough, even though the Word of God says that God is "Spirit," one wonders if He is really a Spirit, or if that is only a good way to describe what He is like. It seems as though that if God is Spirit, it is as if there was something that preceded Him.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

John Calvin

I've been searching around on the term "omnitemporal," and I was not really given any good site to read. Anyway, I have some idea of God now. Because God is transcendent, to Him, everything is the present time, so the past and future would be present to Him. Humans have memory, and so when we do something, we cannot go back in time and undo what we have done. But, whatever the past is, it is kept in our minds as memory, to seem as though it is the past. And then again, we have the future, and everything we do, we're moving into the future. But it is questionable as to whether or not we are even in present time, because everything we do is future, and then it becomes the past. It might be considered as "present." But, for God, because He is eternal, everything to Him is present. This is the best way I can describe this. When someone speaks to you, you do not say that what they've said is the past, but you consider every single word in that sentence as "present." This might be the way we can see God. Everything is present before Him, regardless of past or future, since for God, everything is "present." It's an interesting thought I've come across, but not by any kind of site that spoke of "omnitemporality." From Wolfhart Pannenberg, a German Christian, wrote this, I believe:

Wolfhart Pannenberg

The perception of duration in time has a certain resemblance to the divine eternity, where nothing passes away and where the future is present already. But the eternal God is not in need of keeping the past present to himself by way of memory, because our memory is but a substitution for the continuing actual presence of the past, while in God's eternity the past itself remains present to God. Similarly the future is not just anticipated, but is itself present to God. Therefore, the way we experience a piece of music as a whole with the help of memory and anticipation, is but a faint analogy of the divine eternity, where all things are present to God in their actuality.

Thank you. I was trying to say something like that the whole time and, obviously, failed. That's pretty much what I believe.

Quote:

Interesting enough, even though the Word of God says that God is "Spirit," one wonders if He is really a Spirit, or if that is only a good way to describe what He is like. It seems as though that if God is Spirit, it is as if there was something that preceded Him.

Well, 'spirit' doesn't necessarily mean that something preceeded it. We humans would tend to think that way because we go from physical to spiritual, but that's not necessarily how all things work. Just look at the Heavenly Host.  

[ElenaMason]

First off, I would like to say I'm finding this an interesting read so far John Calvin, on the words of Against Praxaes. However I'm just going to comment as I go along here.

Quote:

For before all things God was alone-being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things.

I have to disagree here. God says how he is the beginning and end, but there is nothing in the bible that states that God was "alone". How do we know that there wasn't heavenly beings with him before he created the earth? Also, it says "In a beginning God created the Heavens and Earth" and then in verse 2 it says "...and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." Now this is getting a little techincal but is the "spirit" HIMSELF....or is it the Holy Ghost? Course...thats probably irrelevent. Also, to relate back to what you and I agree to a point, "In the beginning was the Word..." if God is the beginning and the Word is WITH god...yet again how is that being alone? Of course as Praxaes stated according to this "alone theory" if God was alone yet all he has was his reasoning...his thoughts...the Word being the form of his thoughts...does that make sense? ^^;

And sorry, I don't know what bible version says "In the beginning God made for Himself a Son." but I recall NO verse saying that. Jesus didn't come until he was born in Jerusalem so I must protest against Praxaes also on that account.

I'm starting to agree though that the Word is most likely another form of God just like Jesus is and just like the Holy Ghost is...which I'll get to in a sec.

John Calvin

Did I say either of these? No. I said that "The Logos is the preexistent, pre-Incarnate Christ." I never said that He was a pre-incarnation of God, or a form of God, as you think.

sorry ^^; i meant to say pre-incarnate

John Calvin

That would be a wise question to consider. Mormons, again, believe that God has a physical body. One wonders then, that if the Son of God had a physical body before coming down to earth, then why would He need to go in the womb of a woman to be begotten as a man? That is logically absurd.

ah, yes you make a very good point there. I never thought of it like that before. I'll definately try to keep that in mind. smile

John Calvin

Would you have then delighted in watching me attempt to prove it by empirical evidence? One can prove a point by logic.

most of what you said "logically" proved a point, but some of it, yes, i did require biblical verses so I had something more to identify by what you were saying compared to just a logical statement....again its situational.

John Calvin

While I do accept the fact that Scripture must be used as authoritative when concerning the Christian God, I do not think that we should put aside logic.

lol i didn't say we should put logic aside. THAT would be illogical xD what should have been said is i "prefer" to see scriptual evidence depending on what it is your saying.

John Calvin

I do not claim to know everything. But with my points at hand, I do not see why what I've just said, could be incorrect. Sure, I am a fallible creature, and I make errors, but if there is any error, then point them out.

lol okay just checking. there are some people in the world that believe they are never in error...which is "illogical" wink



okay NOW for the verses i was trying to find regarding the Trinity.

Isaiah 48: 16 "...And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit." According to my father, this is probably the ONLY verse in the entire bible that has setence involving the whole Trinity being mentioned at once. The significance of this? This is more or likely I guess in simple terms to show that there IS a Trinity, all of them being mentioned at once.

The only verse my dad could find that involves "God being one substance" is in John 10: 30 "I and the Father are one."

Now I don't know how more blunt that could be...so...knowing that verse, if the father and jesus are one, so must be the holy ghost as well, meaning in substance he's one...but seperate into three different forms of himself....make that four forms assuming the "word" is also there. (darn you and your views! i feel converted! rofl )  

[ioioouiouiouio]

SaintChaos

And sorry, I don't know what bible version says "In the beginning God made for Himself a Son." but I recall NO verse saying that. Jesus didn't come until he was born in Jerusalem so I must protest against Praxaes also on that account.

The physical body of Jesus did not come until birth (well, the Conception, really, but whatever). However, Jesus, being the third member of the Holy Trinity, is fully and completely God, and, thusly, was around the entire time that God has been around (if that makes any sense what-so-ever in light of the recent temporal discussions).  

[ElenaMason]

Cometh The Inquisitor

SaintChaos

And sorry, I don't know what bible version says "In the beginning God made for Himself a Son." but I recall NO verse saying that. Jesus didn't come until he was born in Jerusalem so I must protest against Praxaes also on that account.

The physical body of Jesus did not come until birth (well, the Conception, really, but whatever). However, Jesus, being the third member of the Holy Trinity, is fully and completely God, and, thusly, was around the entire time that God has been around (if that makes any sense what-so-ever in light of the recent temporal discussions).

ohhhh.....thats....thats very true >_>.....i was thinking that Praxeas was spekaing more of Jesus being created right then and there when the earth was created.....but now that you mention it, he probably meant that he "created a son for himself" when God actually existed, which IS in "the" beginning.....in that case.....i take back what i said earlier xD  

[divineseraph]

SaintChaos

First off, I would like to say I'm finding this an interesting read so far John Calvin, on the words of Against Praxaes. However I'm just going to comment as I go along here.

Quote:

For before all things God was alone-being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things.

I have to disagree here. God says how he is the beginning and end, but there is nothing in the bible that states that God was "alone". How do we know that there wasn't heavenly beings with him before he created the earth? Also, it says "In a beginning God created the Heavens and Earth" and then in verse 2 it says "...and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." Now this is getting a little techincal but is the "spirit" HIMSELF....or is it the Holy Ghost? Course...thats probably irrelevent. Also, to relate back to what you and I agree to a point, "In the beginning was the Word..." if God is the beginning and the Word is WITH god...yet again how is that being alone? Of course as Praxaes stated according to this "alone theory" if God was alone yet all he has was his reasoning...his thoughts...the Word being the form of his thoughts...does that make sense? ^^;

And sorry, I don't know what bible version says "In the beginning God made for Himself a Son." but I recall NO verse saying that. Jesus didn't come until he was born in Jerusalem so I must protest against Praxaes also on that account.

I'm starting to agree though that the Word is most likely another form of God just like Jesus is and just like the Holy Ghost is...which I'll get to in a sec.

John Calvin

Did I say either of these? No. I said that "The Logos is the preexistent, pre-Incarnate Christ." I never said that He was a pre-incarnation of God, or a form of God, as you think.

sorry ^^; i meant to say pre-incarnate

John Calvin

That would be a wise question to consider. Mormons, again, believe that God has a physical body. One wonders then, that if the Son of God had a physical body before coming down to earth, then why would He need to go in the womb of a woman to be begotten as a man? That is logically absurd.

ah, yes you make a very good point there. I never thought of it like that before. I'll definately try to keep that in mind. smile

John Calvin

Would you have then delighted in watching me attempt to prove it by empirical evidence? One can prove a point by logic.

most of what you said "logically" proved a point, but some of it, yes, i did require biblical verses so I had something more to identify by what you were saying compared to just a logical statement....again its situational.

John Calvin

While I do accept the fact that Scripture must be used as authoritative when concerning the Christian God, I do not think that we should put aside logic.

lol i didn't say we should put logic aside. THAT would be illogical xD what should have been said is i "prefer" to see scriptual evidence depending on what it is your saying.

John Calvin

I do not claim to know everything. But with my points at hand, I do not see why what I've just said, could be incorrect. Sure, I am a fallible creature, and I make errors, but if there is any error, then point them out.

lol okay just checking. there are some people in the world that believe they are never in error...which is "illogical" wink



okay NOW for the verses i was trying to find regarding the Trinity.

Isaiah 48: 16 "...And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit." According to my father, this is probably the ONLY verse in the entire bible that has setence involving the whole Trinity being mentioned at once. The significance of this? This is more or likely I guess in simple terms to show that there IS a Trinity, all of them being mentioned at once.

The only verse my dad could find that involves "God being one substance" is in John 10: 30 "I and the Father are one."

Now I don't know how more blunt that could be...so...knowing that verse, if the father and jesus are one, so must be the holy ghost as well, meaning in substance he's one...but seperate into three different forms of himself....make that four forms assuming the "word" is also there. (darn you and your views! i feel converted! rofl )

also, i notice God says things, when Adam and Eve eat the fruit, something along the lines of "they are like US"- plural. though this is taken as being a royal pluralization, it doesn't explain who else He would be talking to. in context, it looks an awful lot like he's talking to a small council.  

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

I am glad that you find my words interesting. I hope that reading Against Praxeas will give us a better understanding of the "Trinity." I believe that the Trinity taught by the ante-Nicene fathers, that is, the church fathers before the Council of Nicea, taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all God, but they had different understanding of this. For me, reading Against Praxeas is like returning to what Tertullian truly meant before the concept of the Trinity was completely formulized at the Council of Nicea. For me, going to Tertullian's thoughts on this has made me also reconsider what he meant by the Trinity.

SaintChaos

I have to disagree here. God says how he is the beginning and end, but there is nothing in the bible that states that God was "alone".

Are you sure that there is no reference of God being alone when He created the universe? I shall give you a verse that shows that God created the universe by Himself. Isaiah the prophet writes, "This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself," (Isa. 40:24). Yet, I also confess that "By the word [Sept. logos]* of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth." (Psa. 33:6). What you should realize is that God was not alone internally, but He was alone externally. In other words, there was nothing outside of God. This is why Tertullian says, "Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself." Wisdom-Christology might pay off.

SaintChaos

How do we know that there wasn't heavenly beings with him before he created the earth?

No one knows. But what we do know is that God created the heavenly beings. God was prior to the heavenly hosts, and they were prior to the creation of the universe.

SaintChaos

Also, it says "In a beginning God created the Heavens and Earth" and then in verse 2 it says "...and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." Now this is getting a little techincal but is the "spirit" HIMSELF....or is it the Holy Ghost?

I feel that people have come to the point when speaking of the Trinity, that they divide the Trinity, even though Tertullian says that the persons of the Trinity are "distinct, yet not divided," (distincti non divisi) "different, yet not separate or independent of each other" (discreti non separati). Tertullian also says that the Logos is in a "sense," a "second person." The Spirit of God is God's Presence, the Shekinah, according to Jewish thought. It is an interesting note of the Shekinah that the terms "the glory" and "radiance" refer to her. Yes, I said "her," since the Shekinah is feminine. But, all the more interesting thought is this, and that John writes, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling [literally, "tabernacled"] among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). Surely the Jews would understand who John was talking about when he mentioned the word "glory." Furthermore, the author of Hebrews writes this of Christ: "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word [logos]" (Heb. 1:3).

SaintChaos

Course...thats probably irrelevent. Also, to relate back to what you and I agree to a point, "In the beginning was the Word..." if God is the beginning and the Word is WITH god...yet again how is that being alone?

Again, God was alone externally, that is, there was nothing outside of God but God Himself. Within Him was His Logos, and thus, could be said to not be alone in that sense.

SaintChaos

Of course as Praxaes stated according to this "alone theory" if God was alone yet all he has was his reasoning...his thoughts...the Word being the form of his thoughts...does that make sense? ^^;

This is not Praxeas that is speaking of this "alone theory," as you say. Rather, it is Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, who is writing against Praxeas. That is why it's called "Against Praxeas." Praxeas was a Modalist, one who says that the Father is the Son, and that the Son is the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is the Father. This, however, is incorrect, since there is a distiction between the three. Instead, one should be in agreement when Christ said, "The Father is in Me, and I in Him."

SaintChaos

And sorry, I don't know what bible version says "In the beginning God made for Himself a Son." but I recall NO verse saying that. Jesus didn't come until he was born in Jerusalem so I must protest against Praxaes also on that account.

So, you argue against the thought of "eternal generation," a teaching that Trinitarians hold? Tertullian says that the Text does not say, "In the beginning God made for Himself a Son." Tertullian is arguing against this, and proceeds that the Logos was with God.

SaintChaos

I'm starting to agree though that the Word is most likely another form of God just like Jesus is and just like the Holy Ghost is...which I'll get to in a sec.

I do not believe that you should say, "another form of God," as if the Logos was not God Himself. I believe that makes it as though the Logos was a god, and not the true God. Let me show you an example. If a father has a son, that son is not less of a human, is he? No. The son is fully human, just as his father. But, what of Christ's words, when He says, "The Father is greater than I"? We see that Christ says that John is greater than others. If we understand this contextually, we find out that what is meant by this is not nature. If that were the case, then John would be the only true human, while everyone else would be a sub-human. Rather, in context, it speaks of the economy or "household management." In other words, Christ says that the Father is greater than He, because it is by economy. For example, while the father and son may both be fully, genuine human, the father is greater than his son, but only in function, not nature.

SaintChaos

okay NOW for the verses i was trying to find regarding the Trinity.

Isaiah 48: 16 "...And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit." According to my father, this is probably the ONLY verse in the entire bible that has setence involving the whole Trinity being mentioned at once. The significance of this? This is more or likely I guess in simple terms to show that there IS a Trinity, all of them being mentioned at once.

At face value, this might do, but I'll have to look into it.

SaintChaos

Now I don't know how more blunt that could be...so...knowing that verse, if the father and jesus are one, so must be the holy ghost as well, meaning in substance he's one...but seperate into three different forms of himself....make that four forms assuming the "word" is also there. (darn you and your views! i feel converted! rofl )

I think I have confused you, causing you to believe in something totally different from what I was attempting to show you. The Word is not a fourth form. The Word is the pre-Incarnate Christ. In other words, Jesus was alive, and He was preexistent with God. Before Jesus came to earth, He was known as the Logos. When God's Logos became flesh, His name was Jesus the Messiah. Before that, it was God, the Logos, and the Spirit of God, known as the Shekinah. The Father-Son relationship begins in the New Testament. This is why we do not see a Father-Son relationship in the Old Testament. Instead, we only see this in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, God was a Father to Israel. God was numerically one. The term "Son," refers to Christ's mode of existence as a human. The term "Father" is God's mode as a non-Incarnate God. This shows the distinction between the Father and the Son, while at the same time, they both can be called "God." As for the Holy Spirit, I haven't come to pneumatology, the study of the Holy Spirit, so as to give you an answer.

*Sept. means Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament.