I find the Triune nature and concept of our God to be an attractive mystery. The bible presents to us a view of our Creator that is absolutely true in every way. Yet on this side of heaven our knowledge cannot be complete (in the sense of us knowing everything), because it is God’s pleasure that dictates exactly what we need to know. And even more likely is that there is so much that is beyond our ability to understand. This is much like the human parent talking to his three year old. The parent can be completely truthful, while still not sharing knowledge that would not be understood by the child, or worse, be harmful to him. When we remind ourselves that we are yearning to know more about a God that “breathed” our universe into existence, should we be surprised that there will be some information that is beyond our grasp? Of course not.....! Why would a loving God reveal to His children information that by His assessment we don’t need and would not be helpful to His plan?
Regarding our wonderment of what the word “essence” really means when it is used in our meager, human attempts to describe an infinitely unique and uniquely infinite Godhead. The essence of the Triune Godhead is precisely that substance or spirit which is shared or common among Them, that connects Them, and defines Them. The very “essence” of anything implies that if you remove or modify anything about “it”, no matter how small the change, then “it” is essentially no longer the same “it”. To be of the same “essence” is to be “One” and yet free to be distinctly “Three” in the truest sense as the bible says it is with our Father God, His Son, and The Holy Spirit! They are One in Essence and Spirit, yet They are Three in consciousness. The beautiful mystery continues.......
Here’s a quote from a website that I have found enlightening. I can’t vouch for the entire site but the page discussing the Trinity seems to be faithful to the biblical/orthodox view:
“The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words, that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Jesus is God, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but He is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of looking at God.
The personhood of each member of the Trinity means that each Person has a distinct center of consciousness. Thus, they relate to each other personally—the Father regards Himself as “I,” while He regards the Son and Holy Spirit as “You.” Likewise the Son regards Himself as “I,” but the Son and the Holy Spirit as “You.”
I think there is a typo in the last sentence of the quote above that should read: “Likewise the Son regards Himself as “I,” but regards the Father and the Holy Spirit as “You.” “
Good thoughts everyone. Sheryl, I also wonder why the Adventist church will not stand with the historic Christian church in affirming that God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of one essence. I’ve heard Adventists describe the Trinity doctrine as a “Catholic” doctrine that must necessarily be opposed, but in their zeal to oppose the Catholics, I think the early Adventists disposed of a precious Christian truth. The early Adventists also taught that Jesus was a created being who was subordinate to God the Father, making him more of an example to follow rather than a Savior to trust. They reasoned that since Jesus was a created being like we are and he kept the law perfectly, it is possible for humans to do likewise. By denying the eternal quality of Jesus, he is brought down to our level as primarily an example of how to live a righteous life rather than seeing him as uniquely qualified to be our substitute who exchanges his righteousness for our unrighteousness.
Speaking more broadly about the various Christian heresies surrounding this doctrine, please look at this diagram I found on James White’s website: click here to see image
Commenting on this diagram, White says:
The three sides of the triangle represent the three Biblical doctrines, as labeled. When one denies any of these three teachings, the other two sides point to the result. Hence, if one denies that there are Three Persons, one is left with the two sides of Full Equality and One God, resulting in the “Oneness” teaching of the United Pentecostal Church and others. If one denies Fully Equality, one is left with Three Persons and One God, resulting in “subordinationism” as seen in Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Way International, etc. (though to be perfectly accurate the Witnesses deny all three of the sides in some way---they deny Full Equality (i.e., Jesus is Michael the Archangel), Three Persons (the Holy Spirit is an impersonal, active “force” like electricity) and One God (they say Jesus is “a god"---a lesser divinity than Yahweh; hence they are in reality not monotheists but henotheists). And, if one denies One God, one is left with polytheism, the belief in many gods, as seen clearly in the Mormon Church, the most polytheistic religion I have encountered.
Looking at this diagram, it seems that historic Adventism fits more readily into the “subordinationism” camp than into “tritheism”.
I wonder if it is because what is meant by essence is not clearly defined. My experience in the church is that if it is not clearly supported by the Bible, the church is hesitant to make any official statement. I would not want to see our church adopt wording just to be in line with some other “mainstream Christian” definition. We all agree the Bible needs to be our standard. Its hard for me to form an opinion unless I can get a clear idea of what essence really means…
I can see there are small differences between one in essence or our view of one in unity. However, they could both be saying the same thing using different words… Don’t know.
Ok, I thought of the same thing, that maybe the official statement is trying to be true to what is explicitly stated in the Bible. If the explanation given in official publications (such as Seventh-day Adventist Believe, etc.) further explained that One includes meaning One in essence, I might go along with that. Instead the explanations I’ve read say One means One in mind, character, and purpose. Those are just as easily interpretations rather than what is explicitly stated in the Bible, so it doesn’t fly to say they just didn’t want to adopt wording outside of what the Bible actually says. In my opinion, the SDA church has gone out of their way to avoid using “one in essence” and there must be a reason.
I think we’ve pretty much exhausted my thoughts on this topic !
In googling trinity history, I came across the following site with a good writeup of the trinity. I noticed an interesting paragraph that I thought I would share as it seems to hit up all our views… The author goes on to argue against the trinity, but I thought this paragraph was interesting.
http://www.heaven.net.nz:
The reality is that many Christians who accept the doctrine of the Trinity, also remain confused and even those who have a deeper understanding of it, will admit that they do not understand it completely when challenged. An answer you often hear is that the Trinity is hard to understand because God is beyond our thinking and understanding.
It also seems that many people believe in different Trinity doctrines or at least they understand this doctrine in different ways. Some believe that God is a being that shows himself in 3 different ways like water shows itself in the form of ice, steam, and liquid. Others believe that the Trinity is made up of 3 distinct personalities and these 3 are in complete unity in love and purpose. This last explanation is probably the most common.
Now I guess is a good time to explain the Trinity doctrine:
The Trinity doctrine basically says that there is one God.
The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
Hence God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Three, but they make up one God. Each is co-equal and co-eternal.
God is described as a class or family made up of these three personalities.
This old diagram explains the Trinity doctrine quite well.
Part 7 of the same article had the following (this was the history part which I was most interested in):
The emperor Constantine was at first very amused by all the squabbling. It kept the people occupied. But as the controversy dragged on, he finally called a council of nearly 300 bishops to settle the matter, although only a fraction turned up. The first ecumenical council of the Christian church took place in Nicaea, now in modern Turkey (c.325), 294 years after the death of Christ. The presence of the emperor added to the vehemence of the arguments. He would listen to all sides and then rule. His verdict would decide truth.
As to the main point, the Son was declared to be of the “same substance” with the Father. Arius was branded a heretic and banished to one of the remote provinces of Illyricum. The conclusion was ambiguous and settled nothing. The ruling of the Emperor was clear. He quickly issued letters denouncing Arius, and ordered that anyone found with a copy of his writings must burn it or be put to death.
Concerning the nature of Christ, the first Nicene Creed reads: “The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not; and that before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made out of nothing, or out of another substance or essence, and is created, or changeable, or alterable.”
At the Council of Nicaea, the debate was over the nature of Christ (begotten vs unbegotten). The nature of the Spirit was not an issue. It would be another fifty-six years before the institutional church would decree worship of the Holy Spirit.
The article goes on to describe that Constantine’s son overturned his fathers decision some three years later, since the son believed Arius’s stance, and ever since it has been heavily debated. I noticed the use of the word “essence” by the first Nicene Creed.
SO, essence seems to be interchangeable with “substance” in the Nicene Creed. Is Jesus made of the same substance? Good question. If you believe Jesus is God’s “biological” or whatever “Son” than substance makes sense. If Jesus is co-eternal with the Father, belief in substance is more presumption than empirical. It seems to me this may be one of the potential problems with the word “essence”. Few have a good definition of its meaning in the context of the Trinity. To add to this problem, per the reference that Sheryl gave me, “Only the Son has a glorified, physical body”, this would certainly make it hard to define essence as substance since there are definite physical differences since Jesus has adopted human form. So, perhaps nobody wants to define essence in context of the Trinity.
I think that I am more of the opinion of the third class who “believe that the Trinity is made up of 3 distinct personalities and these 3 are in complete unity in love and purpose”. According to this article this class is the most “common”.
I wonder if it is because what is meant by essence is not clearly defined. My experience in the church is that if it is not clearly supported by the Bible, the church is hesitant to make any official statement. I would not want to see our church adopt wording just to be in line with some other “mainstream Christian” definition. We all agree the Bible needs to be our standard. Its hard for me to form an opinion unless I can get a clear idea of what essence really means…
I can see there are small differences between one in essence or our view of one in unity. However, they could both be saying the same thing using different words… Don’t know.
Ok, I thought of the same thing, that maybe the official statement is trying to be true to what is explicitly stated in the Bible. If the explanation given in official publications (such as Seventh-day Adventist Believe, etc.) further explained that One includes meaning One in essence, I might go along with that. Instead the explanations I’ve read say One means One in mind, character, and purpose. Those are just as easily interpretations rather than what is explicitly stated in the Bible, so it doesn’t fly to say they just didn’t want to adopt wording outside of what the Bible actually says. In my opinion, the SDA church has gone out of their way to avoid using “one in essence” and there must be a reason.
I think we’ve pretty much exhausted my thoughts on this topic !
Hey Sheryl, I see we were posting at the same time!
I agree with you that unity and essence do not appear to be the same concept. I think I am comfortable with our (SDA) approach. It seems the best definition that I can come up with on essence is substance and I’m not sure I’m comfortable with going that far. I believe in three separate beings, but have no idea what makes up their substance. I do know they are united in love, purpose and their efforts to save me…
Just have to say I wouldn’t take too seriously anything from the heaven.net website. I’m not sure who they are, but here are the things they believe are necessary to ensure admittance to heaven (what a long list!):
If you want to be assured of going to Paradise/Heaven when you die then here is a simple guideline on what you should do.
You need to acknowledge that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek him. (See Hebrews 11:6)
You must also acknowledge that you are a sinner. (See Romans 3:23)
Next you need to ask God for forgiveness of your sins and promise Him that you will serve Him and stop sinning. You are required to ask God for forgiveness of your sins from now on and make an effort not to continue sinning. (Please Note that everyone sins, but what is required from you is the effort to not practice a sinful life). (See Matthew 4:17)
You must believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died in your place for your sins that you may go free. (See John 11:25-28 & )
You are required to be obedient to God from now on. This is easy if you really love God. Being obedient includes Jesus command to be baptised in water. If you live in God’s will then you will have the victory over this wicked world and you will live forever. (See 1 John 2:17) You will also experience God’s love and fellowship here on this earth, and as you mature spiritually you will get to know his voice.
It is advisable for you to fellowship with other believers as they will encourage you. Remember we become like the people we socialise with the most. This will be good for your spiritual growth and there is less danger of temptation when you mix with the right people. (See 2 Corinthians 6:14)
It is important to pray everyday and learn to seek God and love him more each day. In fact we are suppose to love him more than anything else, even more than your own family. (See Luke 14:26)
In addition, what they are describing as the way “most believe” is not the official doctrine of the Trinity, and it can’t be what most believe. I say that, because it is not what Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and many other Christian denominations teach. That pretty much takes up most of them. Although I would agree that description seems to be what SDA’s generally believe.
Looking at this diagram, it seems that historic Adventism fits more readily into the “subordinationism” camp than into “tritheism”.
Greg
Interesting diagram. I would agree that historic Adventism fits the “subordinationism” camp. I think today’s official Adventist teaching, upon correcting the earlier error, falls into the “tritheism” camp. I think it does this when not affirming one in essence, which in turn makes it not monotheistic even though they claim to teach monotheism.
Looking at this diagram, it seems that historic Adventism fits more readily into the “subordinationism” camp than into “tritheism”.
Greg
Interesting diagram. I would agree that historic Adventism fits the “subordinationism” camp. I think today’s official Adventist teaching, upon correcting the earlier error, falls into the “tritheism” camp. I think it does this when not affirming one in essence, which in turn makes it not monotheistic even though they claim to teach monotheism.
I agree that historic Adventism did not believe in the Trinity, but that view began to change in 1888 with the Minneapolis GC.
Sheryl:
As far as what “one in essence” actually means, I don’t have a good explanation. It is a mystery, but it is also what makes a Triune God actually One (and also Three Persons at the same time) instead of “Three Beings in agreement as One” (tritheism).
So, according to what you are saying, if you don’t adopt wording on essence or substance, which you consider “a mystery”, but are convinced that it is what makes the Godhead a Trinity, you are tritheistic. Do you really intend to accuse us???
Wikipedia:
Ironically, there is no group that claims to believe in or teach tritheism; the term is solely used as an accusation against others, somewhat similar to the usage of the word cult, in accusing a group of holding an alternate or distorted view of the Christian doctrine of Trinity. The main branches consider tritheism heretical.
In order to have a correct view, it is not only necessary to reject the subordinationist position. If the transition from arianism or semi-arianism tor trinitarianism tops here, it stops short of affirming that God is ONE.
The true view of Trinity looks at God as one, not three beings. Here is the mystery, because we have no categories in our finite life to conceptualize three persons who are not at the same time three beings.
When the Bible speaks about Father and Son, it uses the language of family, and here is a tricky situation. We are in danger of thinking of Godhead as an equivalent of family. Family is singular with a plural meaning. It denotes two or more persons tied together in a single unit. It denotes also a plurality of beings which compose this unity, the family.
It is only one step further to think about the term trinity as tri-unity in the same way we think about family as a bi-unity (husband and wife), or a tri-unity (husband, wife, and child). The problem with this view is that Trinity is mistakenly understood as tri-unity of a plurality of beings, which is not. God is one being, not a family. His singleness is not defined as “one family” singleness is defined, as a singular with a plural meaning.
A good illustration of this view is a chat posted on CARM with a mormon, under the name LDS Missionary. His views, beside adding a goddess to the three persons, is manifesting my point above. Interesting is that the mormon is claiming to believe that there is one God,
Matt: I’ll restate my assertion: The Bible says that there is only one God. Period. Therefore, Mormonism is wrong.
LDS Missionary: Yes there is only one god.
Matt: …in all existence in all places in all time?
LDS Missionary: We believe there is only one God
Matt: LDS, do you believe that there is only one God in all the universe? in all times? in all places?
Mormon: We believe in God the eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, that is the first article of faith.
LDS Missionary: Yes. He is eternal, from everlasting to everlasting
Matt: Is Jesus a god?
LDS Missionary: Yes. He is divine. He is the son of God the Eternal Father.
Matt: So then, the Father is a god, and the Son is a god. That is two gods, right?
Mormon: Jesus is a part of the Godhead, they together make up one eternal God.... inseparable so to speak
Matt: I thought you said there was only one?
Matt: Mormon. Your church teaches that the godhead is three separate gods.
Mormon: Okay. He is a member of the Godhead.... TOGETHER they make up “God”.
Matt: Your church also teaches that there is a wife to God, a goddess wife.
LDS Missionary: As Mormon said, there’s the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. They are one in purpose. We know very little about that doctrine or the goddess mother. But yes we believe there is a heavenly mother.
Matt: LDS, I thought you said there was only one god in all the universe. Now you just admitted there is more than one god. So, you have God the Father, a god the Son, a god the Holy Ghost, and a goddess mother. That’s four gods.
LDS Missionary: Three separate personages, but one in spirit and purpose.
The unity of essence is a way of saying that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not a family, three beings, but one being. In order to see the difference, let’s suppose that one person disappears. In the case of three beings, if one person disappears, this means that one being disappears, but the other two beings continue their existence, in some sort of bi-unity, a unity of two beings. Since they had their separate existence, they can survive on their own. In the other case, the orthodox view, if one person disappears, one being disappears as in the previous case, but since there is only one being, there is no other being to survive the disappearance of the other. In this case, we have no God. The Trinity is seen as one in three and three in one, if one is out, nothing remains. It is not 3-1 = 2, but 1-1= 0
The concept of God being one in substance was the terminology used to express that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one being and not three. The Athanasian creed is purposefully written with the goal of “nor dividing the substance”. Notice that, beside the goal of not confounding the persons, the goal of not dividing the substance is realized by using words which shows that there are not three beings but one being.
Now the catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords. .
All Adventists definitions of trinity I know are a tritheistic flavor in it, and reflect the family image, three beings instead of one being. The qualifications that accompany the orthodox definitions of trinity are lacking in their definitions of Trinity. They started with two beings, moved to three, but failed to present the concept of unity in substance, that there are not three beings, but one being, and if one person disappears, there is no God. Maybe they are excused for not using the terminology, but I don’t have found the conceptions behind the orthodox formulation present in adventist theology. Coupled with the declarations of SDA scholars who say that the orthodox view of trinity contains unscriptural elements, it is time to ask the SDA church to align with the orthodox definitions, or reject them.
I find amusing that SDAs complain about being unfairly accused of not being trinitarian when they reject the orthodox definition of trinity, and don’t affirm the unity of substance.
Just after I posted, I found this definition about Trinity in the extended review of “The Shack” by Tim Challies.
The doctrine of the Trinity affirms that God’s whole and undivided essence belong equally, eternally, simultaneously, and fully to each of the three distinct Persons of the Godhead
Maybe they are excused for not using the terminology, but I don’t have found the conceptions behind the orthodox formulation present in adventist theology. Coupled with the declarations of SDA scholars who say that the orthodox view of trinity contains unscriptural elements, it is time to ask the SDA church to align with the orthodox definitions, or reject them.
I find amusing that SDAs complain about being unfairly accused of not being trinitarian when they reject the orthodox definition of trinity, and don’t affirm the unity of substance.
That is a good summary of what I’ve been trying to say - thanks!
Here’s my overdue reply to our exchange on May 12th:
Bill - 12 May 2008 12:16 PM
Dan,
If a person does not know Christ by faith while living, he will have no claim in heaven!
Easy my friend! Then you may not believe that Joshua or Moses were saved? I’m sure you don’t believe that, but the OT gives us many examples of people who were saved because they responded to God’s call and didn’t necessarily know the name of Jesus. I believe that God reveals right and wrong to every person and that person has a chance to respond.
My mind set when discussing salvation is perhaps flawed in that I always look at it from a NT perspective. Because if you think about it, we are still living in the NT times until the final and triumphant return of Christ. Of course, Christ’s work on the cross changed everything. While the OT standard of a fervent and heartfelt faith in the Father (the God of Abraham) was clearly sufficient for him and his decendents; a new standard was pronounced by Christ Himself in John 14:6 (no one comes to the Father...). Here is your statement that triggered my concern:
Bill:
...I believe there will be people saved that did not know the name of Jesus but loved and followed the light that God revealed to them to the best of their abilities.
Now, from a NT perspective I think you can see why I was concerned. Your statement was pretty broad and other than what is clearly stated in scripture I don’t assume salvation for anyone unless they are covered by either the OT standard or the NT standard. All believers, either OT or NT have a well defined path to our Triune God. For those of us living in these times, we find ourselves given the charge by Christ in the Great Commission to reach all nations with the Gospel.
I too appreciate your kindness in this forum. Although there are times when you seem to be (easily?) offended by some of the arguments or counterpoints made in this forum; I don’t believe that anyone here wishes you anything other than a better understanding of the scriptural truth. I believe this is what we all seek for ourselves here…
Keep in mind that this forum is largely attended by and maintained by former SDAs that are truly concerned for others. Because I am neither SDA or former SDA; I believe I can say with some objectivity that no one here has malice in their hearts. Strong opinions perhaps, but no malice....
Now, from a NT perspective I think you can see why I was concerned. Your statement was pretty broad and other than what is clearly stated in scripture I don’t assume salvation for anyone unless they are covered by either the OT standard or the NT standard. All believers, either OT or NT have a well defined path to our Triune God. For those of us living in these times, we find ourselves given the charge by Christ in the Great Commission to reach all nations with the Gospel.
Did you want to deal with the following text?
Bill:
Romans 2:12-16, “For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.”
This text, by the way, is a good text to show that there are some who are accepted in God’s sight that may never have had the law or the gospel preached to them, but were doers of the law and observed the gospel in their hearts. I notice that you said you hadn’t forgotten this subject in one of my posts, but that you had not had time to respond yet…
Dan Hagan - 04 June 2008 09:23 AM
I too appreciate your kindness in this forum. Although there are times when you seem to be (easily?) offended by some of the arguments or counterpoints made in this forum; I don’t believe that anyone here wishes you anything other than a better understanding of the scriptural truth. I believe this is what we all seek for ourselves here…
Point well taken. I try not to get offended, but wish folks would show more charity… Thanks.
Gabriel:
The unity of essence is a way of saying that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not a family, three beings, but one being. In order to see the difference, let’s suppose that one person disappears. In the case of three beings, if one person disappears, this means that one being disappears, but the other two beings continue their existence, in some sort of bi-unity, a unity of two beings. Since they had their separate existence, they can survive on their own. In the other case, the orthodox view, if one person disappears, one being disappears as in the previous case, but since there is only one being, there is no other being to survive the disappearance of the other. In this case, we have no God. The Trinity is seen as one in three and three in one, if one is out, nothing remains. It is not 3-1 = 2, but 1-1= 0
The concept of God being one in substance was the terminology used to express that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one being and not three. The Athanasian creed is purposefully written with the goal of “nor dividing the substance”. Notice that, beside the goal of not confounding the persons, the goal of not dividing the substance is realized by using words which shows that there are not three beings but one being.
Your statement “that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not a family, three beings, but one being is in itself anti-trinitarian. To say they are one in essence should imply they are not one in physical reality, but that they are one in purpose, unity, knowledge, divinity, etc. In other words, I would agree they are one in everything except physical attributes. This may include certain divine attributes that Jesus may have given up taking on the nature of humanity. Furthermore, what you are saying seems unscriptural. First of all, the Bible says that man was created in “our” image. The family unit is a good representation of the Trinity. Secondly, Jesus said, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me”. Jesus was, at that time, separated from the Godhead and the Godhead didn’t seem to disappear. So, 3-1=2 can apply to the Godhead.
Sheryl Barker - 31 May 2008 06:37 PM
GABRIEL PROKSCH - 30 May 2008 10:41 AM
Maybe they are excused for not using the terminology, but I don’t have found the conceptions behind the orthodox formulation present in adventist theology. Coupled with the declarations of SDA scholars who say that the orthodox view of trinity contains unscriptural elements, it is time to ask the SDA church to align with the orthodox definitions, or reject them.
I find amusing that SDAs complain about being unfairly accused of not being trinitarian when they reject the orthodox definition of trinity, and don’t affirm the unity of substance.
That is a good summary of what I’ve been trying to say - thanks!
I’m not saying that we don’t agree on the unity of substance or essence. I would be more comfortable accepting whatever that means if someone here could tell me what that means… I am not willing to accept Gabriel’s definition that it is 1-1=0. 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.
[ In other words, I would agree they are one in everything except physical attributes.
God is spirit, he has no physical attributes.
Bill - 05 June 2008 03:03 AM
This may include certain divine attributes that Jesus may have given up taking on the nature of humanity.
Jesus became human without losing any part of his divinity (Col. 2:9)
Bill - 05 June 2008 03:03 AM
Furthermore, what you are saying seems unscriptural. First of all, the Bible says that man was created in “our” image. The family unit is a good representation of the Trinity.
Similarity does not mean perfect match. God is one being and three persons, the plurality is limited to the persons, and does not extend to God’s essence.
Bill - 05 June 2008 03:03 AM
I am not willing to accept Gabriel’s definition that it is 1-1=0.
There is no problem in accepting 1-1=0 if there is one God. If the Son (Jesus) is God, without Jesus there is no God.
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily Col. 2:9
What else remains if you take away “the whole fullness”? Nothing.
!
