Bill - 05 June 2008 03:03 AM

Just because that concept of “essence” is included in someone’s definition doesn’t mean it is scriptural.  Thus I want to know just what it means so I can test it against the Bible.  If the way you define it matches up with scripture I won’t have a problem with it.

The expression to mean is set forth by St. Athanasius as follows:  “That the Son is not only like to the Father, but that, as his image, he is the same as the Father; that he is of the Father; and that the resemblance of the Son to the Father, and his immutability, are different from ours:  for in us they are something acquired, and arise from our fulfilling the divine commands.  Moreover, they wished to indicate by this that his generation is different from that of human nature; that the Son is not only like to the Father, but inseparable from the substance of the Father, that he and the Father are one and the same, as the Son himself said:  ‘The Logos is always in the Father, and, the Father always in the Logos,’ as the sun and its splendour are inseparable.” Athanasius., De Decret. Syn. Nic., c. xix., et seq.

Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. John 14:11

but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” John 10:38

As Hilary of Poiters said in Concerning the Trinity, the persons of the Trinity “ “reciprocally contain one another, so that one permanently envelopes and is permanently enveloped by, the other whom he yet envelopes”.

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 06 June 2008 01:35 AM

Bill - 05 June 2008 03:03 AM

Just because that concept of “essence” is included in someone’s definition doesn’t mean it is scriptural.  Thus I want to know just what it means so I can test it against the Bible.  If the way you define it matches up with scripture I won’t have a problem with it.

The expression to mean is set forth by St. Athanasius as follows:  “That the Son is not only like to the Father, but that, as his image, he is the same as the Father; that he is of the Father; and that the resemblance of the Son to the Father, and his immutability, are different from ours:  for in us they are something acquired, and arise from our fulfilling the divine commands.  Moreover, they wished to indicate by this that his generation is different from that of human nature; that the Son is not only like to the Father, but inseparable from the substance of the Father, that he and the Father are one and the same, as the Son himself said:  ‘The Logos is always in the Father, and, the Father always in the Logos,’ as the sun and its splendour are inseparable.” Athanasius., De Decret. Syn. Nic., c. xix., et seq.

Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. John 14:11

but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” John 10:38

As Hilary of Poiters said in Concerning the Trinity, the persons of the Trinity “ “reciprocally contain one another, so that one permanently envelopes and is permanently enveloped by, the other whom he yet envelopes”.

Gabriel

Thanks Gabriel,

I thought it worthwhile to paste the whole text that you quoted so the context will be clearer…

John 14:7-21,
7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

12 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.

15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

19 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.

How do you deal with the indwelling of the Father and the Son in me?  Does that mean I am of the same essence and substance as the Father and Son?  Will the Godhead disappear if I disappear like you claim the Father will disappear without the Son?  (by the way, I’m still waiting for you to respond to why the Father didn’t disappear when the Son was separated from Him at the cross)

In my opinion, the indwelling of the Father in the Son and the indwelling of the Son in the Father, spoken of here, is not necessarily a physical indwelling but a spiritual indwelling (a relationship of heart, mind and soul).  It could be physical, I know that devils can posses people and animals and force them to do what they want, but I don’t think that is what is being suggested.

Bill, if you want to name yourself trinitarian, you should not do what you are doing here. To clear any misunderstandings, I’m not saying that you must submit to the orthodox definition of Trinity just because it is the traditional view, I’m saying that, if you choose to take this path, you cannot claim to be trinitarian. From the perspective of the historic christian position on trinity, you’re a heretic. 

Do yourself a service, read the writings of the church’s fathers, Athanasius, Augustin and there are others who wrote on the subject of Trinity. Read from Philip Schaff the history of the debates at Nicaea, study the heretical views about Trinity which were rejected in history, understand what is modalism, arianism, semi-arianism, nestorianism, and how the correct view of Trinity differs from these heresies. My time is limited and correcting a life-long bad instruction about Trinity in the SDA Church will take a long time and energy than I can afford. Here is a site which contains all the writings of the church’s fathers, Schaff’s history of the Christian church, http://www.ccel.org/

Bill - 06 June 2008 05:11 AM

How do you deal with the indwelling of the Father and the Son in me?  Does that mean I am of the same essence and substance as the Father and Son?  Will the Godhead disappear if I disappear like you claim the Father will disappear without the Son?

You’re in danger of overlooking the infinite distance which is between the Creator and the creature. Apostle Peter talks about God’s “promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature” 2 Peter 1:4 If I’ll follow your line of thinking above, I’ll believe in the deification of man, if I’ll not make the proper distinction between Creator and creature. We are partakers of the divine nature in a radically different way than the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are partakers of the divine nature. Keep this in mind when you interpret John 17, otherwise you’ll end up with no differences between the believer being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus being indwelt of the Holy Spirit. This view sees Jesus as nothing else than a man which is indwelt by the divine nature, not God incarnate.  Either man is lifted up at the level of God or God is brought down to man’s level.

Gabriel

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 06 June 2008 09:43 AM

Bill, if you want to name yourself trinitarian, you should not do what you are doing here. To clear any misunderstandings, I’m not saying that you must submit to the orthodox definition of Trinity just because it is the traditional view, I’m saying that, if you choose to take this path, you cannot claim to be trinitarian. From the perspective of the historic christian position on trinity, you’re a heretic. 

Do yourself a service, read the writings of the church’s fathers, Athanasius, Augustin and there are others who wrote on the subject of Trinity. Read from Philip Schaff the history of the debates at Nicaea, study the heretical views about Trinity which were rejected in history, understand what is modalism, arianism, semi-arianism, nestorianism, and how the correct view of Trinity differs from these heresies. My time is limited and correcting a life-long bad instruction about Trinity in the SDA Church will take a long time and energy than I can afford. Here is a site which contains all the writings of the church’s fathers, Schaff’s history of the Christian church, http://www.ccel.org/

Bill - 06 June 2008 05:11 AM

How do you deal with the indwelling of the Father and the Son in me?  Does that mean I am of the same essence and substance as the Father and Son?  Will the Godhead disappear if I disappear like you claim the Father will disappear without the Son?

You’re in danger of overlooking the infinite distance which is between the Creator and the creature. Apostle Peter talks about God’s “promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature” 2 Peter 1:4 If I’ll follow your line of thinking above, I’ll believe in the deification of man, if I’ll not make the proper distinction between Creator and creature. We are partakers of the divine nature in a radically different way than the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are partakers of the divine nature. Keep this in mind when you interpret John 17, otherwise you’ll end up with no differences between the believer being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus being indwelt of the Holy Spirit. This view sees Jesus as nothing else than a man which is indwelt by the divine nature, not God incarnate.  Either man is lifted up at the level of God or God is brought down to man’s level.

Gabriel

Gabriel,
Its funny that you quote one of my paragraphs in which I am stating some obviously wrong conclusions that you have drawn and you present them as my conclusions and then argue against them as if they are not something you are trying to suggest.  Nice try.

Bill - 07 June 2008 11:27 PM

Bill - 06 June 2008 05:11 AM

How do you deal with the indwelling of the Father and the Son in me?  Does that mean I am of the same essence and substance as the Father and Son?  Will the Godhead disappear if I disappear like you claim the Father will disappear without the Son?

Gabriel,
Its funny that you quote one of my paragraphs in which I am stating some obviously wrong conclusions that you have drawn and you present them as my conclusions and then argue against them as if they are not something you are trying to suggest.  Nice try.

No Bill, you’re thinking that I’m stupid enough to fall in the trap you set previously for me, and when I exposed your mistake, you’re playing the straw man argument against me. your last post is another proof of the dishonest tactics of the SDAs.

Let me debunk your question, piece by piece, starting with my affirmation. I affirmed that Father’s indwelling in the Son and the Son’s indwelling in the Father means that both are of the same substance, share the same essence, and because of this reciprocal indwelling, if one of them disappears, the other disappears too.

Now, in your question, you asked me how I deal with the fact that the Bible speaks also in similar language about God indwelling in me and me in him. According to your question, I have a huge problem, because, if my view that indwelling = same substance, same essence, it results that God’s indwelling in us results in us having the same substance, same essence.  Beside this, if the mutual indwelling of the Son and Father implies that if one disappears, the other disappears too, how can I evade the conclusion that God’s indwelling in me does not mean that if I disappear God disappears.

All these questions were patterned after the reduction ad absurdum (latin for “reduction to the absurd"), or proof by contradiction. You wanted to disprove my first affirmation about the indwelling between Father and Son by showing how absurd it is if I apply the same meaning for the indwelling in the case of God’s indwelling in us.

I recognize that this will be indeed an absurd affirmation about Father’s indwelling in the Son and Son’s indwelling in the Father only if God’s indwelling in us is identical with the indwelling between the Persons of the Trinity. Your questions implied that my affirmations are absurd because you assumed that indwelling has the same meaning in both cases.

Things are very simple: If God’s internal indwelling (Father in the Son, Son in the Father) is not identical with God’s indwelling in us, your questions are absurd, because we have two different situations, and you cannot compare the two. Your questions assumed that the two situations are identical, and this wrong assumption I addresed in my reply.

it should be good for you if you will recognize that your question was based on the false assumption with which I dealt in my answer rather than evading the responsibility for your views.

Gabriel

Gabriel, I completely agree that Bill drawing an absurd conclusion by comparing the indwelling of the Father in Jesus with the indwelling of the Spirit in Christians. Jesus is the eternal “I am” (John 8:58) and as such, is indivisible from the Father and the Spirit who are co-eternal with Him. Humans are created in the image of God, but are not co-eternal with God and therefore any fellowship we have with Him is by default different than what the Father, Son and Spirit exhibit within the Holy Trinity. Said another way, we are partakers of the divine nature but we are not originators of it. If any human ceases to exist, the divine nature of the Trinity remains intact, but the same cannot be said if the Father, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit ever ceases to exist.

Bill acknowledges that his view of the Trinity is different from the historic Christian belief, yet he wants to retain ownership of the term “Trinity” while redefining it with Adventist terminology. What is the motivation for holding on to this term if the underlying meaning is fundamentally different from what the Christian church believes? It would be far more honest for Bill to simply admit that he does not hold to the historic Christian understanding of the Trinity and is therefore uncomfortable using this term to describe his own belief.

Greg

Greg and Gabriel,

You folks are sooo quick to draw conclusions and judge!  No grace!  My goodness.

I point out the analogy because I think there are some components to what you are saying that are also absurd.  The truth is the Bible is not clear on the exact intricacies of the “Oneness” of the Trinity and I think it unwise to make conclusions that are not supported by Biblical texts.  I believe that marriage is a valid analogy of the relationship between the Trinity because the Bible says “Let Us (Trinity) make man in Our (Trinity) image” (Genesis 1:26).  Is it a complete representation, of course not.

Give me the plain statements of the Bible that support your concept of substance or essence.  I can accept substance or essence if it is referring to knowledge, wisdom, love, purpose, etc.  I’m not sure I can accept substance or essence if it is referring to physical qualities.  As for not being separable, Jesus at the cross states the falsehood of your claim that without one of the three the others would not exist.  That concept to me is absurd and unbiblical.

Show me your proof from the Bible!

Bill,

Just as the Trinity doctrine an implied truth of Scripture, so is the shared essence or substance of God the Father, Son and Spirit.

To keep this as simple as possible, consider that God simultaneously describes himself as “us” and “our” but also insists that he is “one”.

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’” (Genesis 1:26 ESV)

“Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.’” (Genesis 3:22 ESV)

“Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” (Genesis 11:7 ESV)

“And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?’” (Isaiah 6:8 ESV)

“To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.” (Deuteronomy 4:35 ESV)

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4 ESV)

“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10 ESV)

“...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 8:6 ESV)

“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6 ESV)

“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus...” (1 Timothy 2:5 ESV)

Taking all of these texts into consideration, we cannot help but conclude that there is one God comprised of three distinct Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If we bring our human understanding to this, we can make a variety of erroneous conclusions. We can conclude that Scripture contradicts itself by identifying God as “three” in some places and “one” in others. We can conclude that God is one but can take on multiple forms without existing as all three at once (modalism). We can conclude that God the Father is the only one who qualifies as “God”, with the Son and Spirit as created subordinates (subordinationism). We can conclude that God is really three separate gods who together make up one big god (tritheism). Or we can simply take Scripture at face value in identifying each member of the Godhead as very God while simultaneously affirming that God is “one”.

The Nicene creed captures this latter, orthodox, understanding of the Trinity as follows:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
...
And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified;

One cannot claim to be a Trinitarian and simultaneously claim that the Father, Son and Spirit do not share one substance or essence. The very doctrine of the Trinity depends upon this understanding and falls apart without it. If someone disagrees with the implied Scriptural truth that the members of the Trinity share the same essence, he has a problem with the Trinity doctrine itself and logically, cannot identify himself as trinitarian.

Greg

Bill - 08 June 2008 11:31 AM

As for not being separable, Jesus at the cross states the falsehood of your claim that without one of the three the others would not exist.  That concept to me is absurd and unbiblical.

Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor. 5:18-21

A simple reading of this passage will show you that God is used here with reference to Father, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ. Father was in Christ when he reconciled the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and instead counting, imputing those trespasses to Christ. As a result, Christ suffered all things a sinner will suffer, all horrors of hell, but he was not separated from the Father in essence.

Neither was Jesus in his sacrifice separated from the Holy Spirit

how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, Hebrews 9:14

If you insist that what I’m stating about 1 -1 = 0 is absurd, you need to harmonize your views with monotheism.

1. There is no other God, God is one
2. Jesus is God

From 1 and 2, it results
If Jesus ceases to exist, God ceases to exist. because beside Jesus there is no other God. It is the consequence of the basic monotheism. It’s not rocket science.

Gabriel