- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Kathi said to WorshippingJesus:
Quote Keith,
So I am confused…are you a trinitarian as in a believer in the trinity doctrine or are you just someone that agrees with most of the trinity doctrine which would mean the doctrine as merely true-ish in your opinion?To All,
Kathi is not “confused.” She is just trying to trip up Keith. Her question is probably insincere and may or may not reflect her ignorance of the history of Christian doctrine.Kathi thinks that because Keith and I say that the eternal Word became Son that we are not true trinitarians. She erroneously thinks that all trinitarians believe that the Son was eternally generated. But the expression “eternal generation” is an oxymoron, that is, it is a contradiction within itself. Any person or thing that was generated has a beginning. Therefore, the eternal Word must have become the Son at some point in time.
According to Kathi this means that Keith and I are excluded from being truly trinitarians. But I insist that we are truly trinitarians because we adhere to the doctrine that God is of one substance yet He is three distinct Persons. On this ALL trinitarians agree. If Kathi wants to exclude us from being trinitarians because we deny “eternal generation” then she must also exclude Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus. For they did not adhere to the “eternal generation” idea.
Quote The second- and third-century African theologian Tertullian took exception to this widespread doctrine. Like his predecessors, the Apologists, he drew arguments and language from the Bible, Judaism, Stoicism, and other sources, but he introduced anew source for discussing Christology: Latin legal terminology. Tertullian argued that though God is one substance [unitas substantiae], He exists in three distinct persons [personae]. He was also the first author to use the Latin term trinitas (trinity). Tertullian's book Against Praxeas contains his arguments against the modalistic Monarchians. He wrote, for example, that:
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own dispensation. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity (Adv. Pra x. 3).
Tertullian was also the first Christian to deal specifically with the relation of the two natures in Christ. How, he asked, could the divine Word “become” flesh (Adv. Prax. 27)? Not, he asserted, by transforming himself into flesh, because then he would no longer be divine. Rather, he put on flesh; thus, the divine “substance” and the human “substance” both constitute the one “person” of Christ.
Like the Apologists, Tertullian posited a two-stage existence in the Word: First as immanent within the Father, then as expressed at the Son's generation:
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…. He BECAME also the Son of God, and was begotten when He proceeded forth from Him (from chs. 5,7).
For Tertullian, the Word BECAME the Son of God when it was begotten of the Father prior to creation. The Son, though God by nature, thus occupies a subordinate role within the divine economy. Similarly, the Holy Spirit occupies a status of third rank:
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 at the same time guards the state of the Economy (ch. 9).
As can be seen in this description of the divine economy, the Son and the Spirit are not divine in a static way but in a dynamic way; they proceed from the one substance as they have separate tasks to fulfill. They are three in order and distinction, but one in substance.
The Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from another in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I” [John 14:28]. In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels” [Psa. 8:5]. Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another;…the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy (ch. 9).
Considering this language it is easy to see why this is frequently called “the economic Trinity.” Irenaeus of Lyons and Hippolytus of Rome, other second- and third-century theologians, also thought about the Trinity in this way.
This changed significantly with the third-century Origen. Although Origen's Trinity was also hierarchical, the Son and the Spirit being subordinate to the Father, Origen conceived of the Trinity as God's eternal mode of being, not as an economy. In sharp contrast to the Apologists and Tertullian, Origen refused to postulate two stages in the existence of the Word. Rather, he held that the Word is eternally being generated by the Father (De princ. 1.2.2).
The idea of subordination within the Trinity has cropped up occasionally in the history of the Church. It surfaced again, for example, among early Arminians in Europe. However, most Christians are not satisfied with assigning the Son and the Spirit subordinate positions, and many evangelical scholars today prefer to talk about economic modes within the Trinity as only one aspect of the Trinity. The Son i
s described, for example, as voluntarily subordinating himself to the Father in the incarnation.The economic Trinity of Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus may not have been considered fully adequate by the Trinitarian standards of the fourth century and later, but it was successful in creating an alternative to the popular modalistic Monarchianism. However, modalism was not the only Monarchian position in the early Church.
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/trinity1.html#Economic
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Oct. 05 2009,09:27) Kathi said to WorshippingJesus: Quote Keith,
So I am confused…are you a trinitarian as in a believer in the trinity doctrine or are you just someone that agrees with most of the trinity doctrine which would mean the doctrine as merely true-ish in your opinion?To All,
Kathi is not “confused.” She is just trying to trip up Keith. Her question is probably insincere and may or may not reflect her ignorance of the history of Christian doctrine.Kathi thinks that because Keith and I say that the eternal Word became Son that we are not true trinitarians. She erroneously thinks that all trinitarians believe that the Son was eternally generated. But the expression “eternal generation” is an oxymoron, that is, it is a contradiction within itself. Any person or thing that was generated has a beginning. Therefore, the eternal Word must have become the Son at some point in time.
According to Kathi this means that Keith and I are excluded from being truly trinitarians. But I insist that we are truly trinitarians because we adhere to the doctrine that God is of one substance yet He is three distinct Persons. On this ALL trinitarians agree. If Kathi wants to exclude us from being trinitarians because we deny “eternal generation” then she must also exclude Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus. For they did not adhere to the “eternal generation” idea.
Quote The second- and third-century African theologian Tertullian took exception to this widespread doctrine. Like his predecessors, the Apologists, he drew arguments and language from the Bible, Judaism, Stoicism, and other sources, but he introduced anew source for discussing Christology: Latin legal terminology. Tertullian argued that though God is one substance [unitas substantiae], He exists in three distinct persons [personae]. He was also the first author to use the Latin term trinitas (trinity). Tertullian's book Against Praxeas contains his arguments against the modalistic Monarchians. He wrote, for example, that:
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own dispensation. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity (Adv. Pra x. 3).
Tertullian was also the first Christian to deal specifically with the relation of the two natures in Christ. How, he asked, could the divine Word “become” flesh (Adv. Prax. 27)? Not, he asserted, by transforming himself into flesh, because then he would no longer be divine. Rather, he put on flesh; thus, the divine “substance” and the human “substance” both constitute the one “person” of Christ.
Like the Apologists, Tertullian posited a two-stage existence in the Word: First as immanent within the Father, then as expressed at the Son's generation:
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…. He BECAME also the Son of God, and was begotten when He proceeded forth from Him (from chs. 5,7).
For Tertullian, the Word BECAME the Son of God when it was begotten of the Father prior to creation. The Son, though God by nature, thus occupies a subordinate role within the divine economy. Similarly, the Holy Spirit occupies a status of third rank:
Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated[/b]. 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 at the same time guards the state of the Economy (ch. 9).
As can be seen in this description of the divine economy, the Son and the Spirit are not divine in a static way but in a dynamic way; they proceed from the one substance as they have separate tasks to fulfill. They are three in order and distinction, but one in substance.
The Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from another in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I” [John 14:28]. In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels” [Psa. 8:5]. Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another;…the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy (ch. 9).
Considering this language it is easy to see why this is frequently called “the economic Trinity.” Irenaeus of Lyons and Hippolytus of Rome, other second- and third-century theologians, also thought about the Trinity in this way.
This changed significantly with the third-century Origen. Although Origen's Trinity was also hierarchical, the Son and the Spirit being subordinate to the Father, Origen conceived of the Trinity as God's eternal mode of being, not as an economy. In sharp contrast to the Apologists and Tertullian, Origen refused to postulate two stages in the existence of the Word. Rather, he held that the Word is eternally being generated by the Father (De princ. 1.2.2).
The idea of subordination within the Trinity has cropped up occasionally in the history of the Church. It surfaced again, for example, among early Arminians in Europe. However, mos
t Christians are not satisfied with assigning the Son and the Spirit subordinate positions, and many evangelical scholars today prefer to talk about economic modes within the Trinity as only one aspect of the Trinity. The Son is described, for example, as voluntarily subordinating himself to the Father in the incarnation.The economic Trinity of Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus may not have been considered fully adequate by the Trinitarian standards of the fourth century and later, but it was successful in creating an alternative to the popular modalistic Monarchianism. However, modalism was not the only Monarchian position in the early Church.
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/trinity1.html#Economic
thinker
Thank you! Thank you! Now I am saved, I was anti trinity until you showed me Tertullian was a trinity man and that he was anti modalistic.Not!
Tertullian was one of the Fathers of a pagan church of Rome and I am to set aside my beliefs for a pagan?
Not!
You need a better argument.
Hi,
TT is still modifying the trinity theory and gaining more followers by the day.
Evolution in action, or is it the natural progress of apostasy?Jack,
You say that YHWH is ONE existing as TWO beings a Father and a Son? Do we have TWO YHWH's or two persons that make up ONE YHWH together? I am confused at how you define YHWH.
The trinity does not make up three gods but one god right? YHWH does not consist of three persons, but just two? Why is the HS not included, or is he?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 04 2009,18:07) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 04 2009,14:07) Hi Con,
Poor TT believes God is a community following the trinity folly and is adding members like angels as he goes along.
None are following him and the trinitarians hide away in embarrassment.
NHThis is a broad statement and a lie IMO, because I am a Trinitarian and I am not hiding in embarrasment.
I know what Jack believes and I am in agreement with him.
You do not understand that messengers are not always Angels.
Was John the Baptist an Angel?
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2009,09:33)
Keith,
So I am confused…are you a trinitarian as in a believer in the trinity doctrine or are you just someone that agrees with most of the trinity doctrine which would mean the doctrine as merely true-ish in your opinion?
Kathi, I am sure your post is not about you being confused but about you being contentious and throwing stones. So continue with your attacks, for I am up to the task.You accuse me of being “true-ish” in what I believe yet you are being hypocritical in what you believe IMO. Are you a “Christian” Kathi? Can you define what the word means? Does everyone who are Christians hold to the letter in unity in their doctrines?
For example, in the simplest form we would probably agree that a true “Christian” holds the doctrine of the death and burial and resurrection of Jesus. Yet we find there are differences in those doctrines. Some believe Jesus was raised on the Sabbath while others believe he was raised on Sunday. the first day of the week. Some believe that Jesus literally went to the center of the earth (hell) while others believed he ceased to exist. Just on those two points lets summarize.
Christian = Believer in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ
Christianity = Every believer in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
According to Kathi’s logic, all Christians who do not believe exactly the same cannot be a Christian therefore cannot believe in Christianity!
Also, the word “true=ish” is an “oxymoron” for something cannot be partly “true” for it is either “True” or it is false. You invented the word Kathi and it doesn’t even exist. So according to you many Christians including yourself are “true=ish”
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2009,09:33) You wrote: Quote As far as me being true-ish, I never quote any creeds here. My explanation of the Trinitarian view is from the scriptures and the term Trinitarian is given to me by people like you!
From here: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;st=640Yet you call yourself a trinitarian, see here (see above quoted post):
Quote This is a broad statement and a lie IMO, because I am a Trinitarian and I am not hiding in embarrasment. So, people “like me” are calling you a trinitarian because you call yourself a trinitarian.
I maybe wrong here but isn't a person who calls them-self a “trinitarian” one who believes in the trinity doctrine? Yet you do not completely believe in the trinity doctrine so wouldn't that make the doctrine false if merely partially correct? Wouldn't that be Satan's style to have men believing in something that was almost true but not completely? Do you want to be identified with Satan's establishment?
You are not a Trinitarian and have closed your eyes to this truth, so your statements are invalid because you do not even understand what the “Trinitarian” doctrine is about or you would believe it. Also, either you are purposely being ignorant of the facts or you are just seeking to be contentious. I am not sure which but it seems that you are being disingenuous in your attacks. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you are just ignorant of the facts.The word “Trinity” was not invented when the creeds were made. Before the creeds the word was used by early church Fathers going back to the first century. As Jack has plainly shown you! But I will let you do your own homework In other words Kathi, the word “Trinity” is not exclusive to the creeds and in fact have variations just as the words “baptism”, “firstborn” “begotten God” “second coming” “preexistence', etc. etc. The truth is Kathi, if you say Jack and I are “True=ish (Which is ridiculous) then you are also “True=ish” for believing in a “begotten God” when all the translations (except for one) and the majority of Christianity disagrees with you. Does that mean that you are not a “Christian” Kathi or that your dotrine is false? In your own mind of course not! But in your own words “Wouldn't that be Satan's style to have men believing in something that was almost true but not completely? Do you want to be identified with Satan's establishment?”.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2009,09:33)
So, are you a trinitarian because people “like me” call you that or do you call yourself that? Is the trinity doctrine true or true-ish?
It is true! Because there is no darkness in light. So when you can show me that the definition of the word “Trinity” is limited to the creeds then you have a point! When you can show me that being a Trinitarian is limited to believing in the creeds, then you may have a point!Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 05 2009,09:33)
I just would like you to clear this up. I know that you can do that without dodging the question and diverting attention on others, can't you.Kathi
Hopefully I have cleared this up to your satisfaction. Hopefully you see that there is no such thing as being “True=ish”. Hopefully you will see that history proves you wrong in your accusations. And hopefully you will see that believing in a begotten God is not scriptural!God is not a big God who has a little god! That would be “Tru=ish” to
there being “ONLY ONE TRUE GOD” and none other, wouldn't it!WJ
WJ…………That really muddied the water. So now the word TRINITY is in SCRIPTURE but I have YET to SEE and The Idea of a Triune goes all the back to ancient Babylon as Has been posted and Shown Here before. But Jesus never said GOD the FATHER was the first GOD and HE was the Second GOD and the HOLY SPIRIT was a Third GOD. If He did please present it, and i will buy you theory of a “TRIUNE GOD”.
gene
Quote (Gene @ Oct. 06 2009,09:44) WJ…………That really muddied the water. So now the word TRINITY is in SCRIPTURE but I have YET to SEE and The Idea of a Triune goes all the back to ancient Babylon as Has been posted and Shown Here before. But Jesus never said GOD the FATHER was the first GOD and HE was the Second GOD and the HOLY SPIRIT was a Third GOD. If He did please present it, and i will buy you theory of a “TRIUNE GOD”. gene
Gene,
WJ did not say the word trinity is in the scripture. He said it existed before the creeds. We do not agree that Christ was a second god. We believe He was the eternal Word who became the Son as to His office. If I do not accurately represent WJ he will have to clarify his own view.Was what he said too tough a steak for you to digest?
thinker
Constitutionalist said:
Quote Tertullian was one of the Fathers of a pagan church of Rome and I am to set aside my beliefs for a pagan? The Father has committed all judgment to Constitutionalist so that all men may honor Constitutionalist even as they honor the Father. Be careful about calling people “pagan.” The Lord knows them that are His.
Tertullian was right about one thing: men must believe in God “IN HIS OWN DISPENSATION.” This means that under the new covenant “dispensation” we must believe in Christ. To believe in God as He was revealed according to the old covenant dispensation is apostasy (Hebrews 6:1-3).
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Oct. 05 2009,12:27) Kathi said to WorshippingJesus: Quote Keith,
So I am confused…are you a trinitarian as in a believer in the trinity doctrine or are you just someone that agrees with most of the trinity doctrine which would mean the doctrine as merely true-ish in your opinion?To All,
Kathi is not “confused.” She is just trying to trip up Keith. Her question is probably insincere and may or may not reflect her ignorance of the history of Christian doctrine.Kathi thinks that because Keith and I say that the eternal Word became Son that we are not true trinitarians. She erroneously thinks that all trinitarians believe that the Son was eternally generated. But the expression “eternal generation” is an oxymoron, that is, it is a contradiction within itself. Any person or thing that was generated has a beginning. Therefore, the eternal Word must have become the Son at some point in time.
According to Kathi this means that Keith and I are excluded from being truly trinitarians. But I insist that we are truly trinitarians because we adhere to the doctrine that God is of one substance yet He is three distinct Persons. On this ALL trinitarians agree. If Kathi wants to exclude us from being trinitarians because we deny “eternal generation” then she must also exclude Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus. For they did not adhere to the “eternal generation” idea.
Quote The second- and third-century African theologian Tertullian took exception to this widespread doctrine. Like his predecessors, the Apologists, he drew arguments and language from the Bible, Judaism, Stoicism, and other sources, but he introduced anew source for discussing Christology: Latin legal terminology. Tertullian argued that though God is one substance [unitas substantiae], He exists in three distinct persons [personae]. He was also the first author to use the Latin term trinitas (trinity). Tertullian's book Against Praxeas contains his arguments against the modalistic Monarchians. He wrote, for example, that:
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own dispensation. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity (Adv. Pra x. 3).
Tertullian was also the first Christian to deal specifically with the relation of the two natures in Christ. How, he asked, could the divine Word “become” flesh (Adv. Prax. 27)? Not, he asserted, by transforming himself into flesh, because then he would no longer be divine. Rather, he put on flesh; thus, the divine “substance” and the human “substance” both constitute the one “person” of Christ.
Like the Apologists, Tertullian posited a two-stage existence in the Word: First as immanent within the Father, then as expressed at the Son's generation:
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…. He BECAME also the Son of God, and was begotten when He proceeded forth from Him (from chs. 5,7).
For Tertullian, the Word BECAME the Son of God when it was begotten of the Father prior to creation. The Son, though God by nature, thus occupies a subordinate role within the divine economy. Similarly, the Holy Spirit occupies a status of third rank:
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 at the same time guards the state of the Economy (ch. 9).
As can be seen in this description of the divine economy, the Son and the Spirit are not divine in a static way but in a dynamic way; they proceed from the one substance as they have separate tasks to fulfill. They are three in order and distinction, but one in substance.
The Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from another in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I” [John 14:28]. In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels” [Psa. 8:5]. Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another;…the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy (ch. 9).
Considering this language it is easy to see why this is frequently called “the economic Trinity.” Irenaeus of Lyons and Hippolytus of Rome, other second- and third-century theologians, also thought about the Trinity in this way.
This changed significantly with the third-century Origen. Although Origen's Trinity was also hierarchical, the Son and the Spirit being subordinate to the Father, Origen conceived of the Trinity as God's eternal mode of being, not as an economy. In sharp contrast to the Apologists and Tertullian, Origen refused to postulate two stages in the existence of the Word. Rather, he held that the Word is eternally being generated by the Father (De princ. 1.2.2).
The idea of subordination within the Trinity has cropped up occasionally in the history of the Church. It surfaced again, for example, among early Arminians in Europe. However, most Ch
ristians are not satisfied with assigning the Son and the Spirit subordinate positions, and many evangelical scholars today prefer to talk about economic modes within the Trinity as only one aspect of the Trinity. The Son is described, for example, as voluntarily subordinating himself to the Father in the incarnation.The economic Trinity of Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus may not have been considered fully adequate by the Trinitarian standards of the fourth century and later, but it was successful in creating an alternative to the popular modalistic Monarchianism. However, modalism was not the only Monarchian position in the early Church.
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/trinity1.html#Economic
thinker
So, from this above quoted post we see that not all trinitarians agree with everything in the trinity doctrine.Also, that Thinker believes that the “eternal word” (which is an oxymoron btw since a word has an origin as does a son) is another term that is not found in the Bible) became the Son at some point and time…another idea not clearly taught in the Bible. We see that the word in the beginning became flesh but we see nowhere in the Bible any mention of anyone or anything “becoming” an only begotten son to the Father. The Son IS the only begotten Son of the Father, He didn't “become” one as if He was something else beforehand. The word became flesh, not an only begotten son. IMO
So Thank you for the “history” lesson Thinker. From it we can clearly see that the trinitarians disagree amongst each other. Some agree on this point and then some agree on that point. They used all sorts of extra-Biblical language to sum up their beliefs, i.e. “the economic trinity,” or “third degree in the Paraklete” or “eternally being generated,” etc.
So, there is confusion all over the place with the trinitarians as well as the non-trinitarians.
We are better off to stick with clear teachings and actual Biblical terms.
And Keith has finally figured it out that something that is “true-ish” is actually false…yeah for you.
So let's stick with what we know is true and the rest is merely theory. The Lord will clear all the theories up in the end of times when we see Him face to face. Let's not use our theories, or other's theories to judge. The trinitarians have differing theories that they believe, well fine, but it should not be made to be something that divides believers in Christ who hold to the clear truths and also have developed other theories which can be shown in scripture.
Also, I did not invent the term “true-ish” but thanks anyway Keith. I heard it from a pastor's series of Sunday messages
You can listen too if you would like. Just go to http://www.lifechurch.tv and look under their archived messages and find the ones titled “True(ish).” And yes, I know that that church declares the trinity doctrine…ironic. Even those that declare the trinity doctrine can have valuable teachings if they are first Christians.Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 06 2009,19:19) quote Kathi Also, that Thinker believes that the “eternal word” (which is an oxymoron btw since a word has an origin as does a son) is another term that is not found in the Bible) became the Son at some point and time…another idea not clearly taught in the Bible. We see that the word in the beginning became flesh but we see nowhere in the Bible any mention of anyone or anything “becoming” an only begotten son to the Father. The Son IS the only begotten Son of the Father, He didn't “become” one as if He was something else beforehand. The word became flesh, not an only begotten son. IMO
lightenup ……> i agree with this completely. The word which was GOD came to be (became) came to be in Jesus the uniquely born son of GOD. No preexistence Son, but a son brought forth at His berth to Mary and was the root and offspring of King David. Applying Preexistence to Jesus is just another false TRINITARIAN teaching. IMOpeace and love to you and yours…………….gene
Kathi said:
Quote So, from this above quoted post we see that not all trinitarians agree with everything in the trinity doctrine.
I am glad you see it. That's why I posted it. The Arians break down into even more sects. Right?Kathi:
Quote Also, that Thinker believes that the “eternal word” (which is an oxymoron btw since a word has an origin as does a son) is another term that is not found in the Bible)
The Greek “logos” simply means “reason.” Was there ever a time when God did not possess reason?
Have you forgotten that the Greek word is “LOGOS?” Kathi:
Quote So Thank you for the “history” lesson Thinker. From it we can clearly see that the trinitarians disagree amongst each other.
I've got nothing to hide. But do you understand what makes a trinitarian a trinitarian? Are the Arians less divided? Some confess pre-existence and some do not. Some believe the “logos” was personal and some do not (Paladin and Gene).You have become pathetic Maam! You can't win a theological encounter so you resort to this.
thinker
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 06 2009,03:19) The trinitarians have differing theories that they believe, well fine, but it should not be made to be something that divides believers in Christ who hold to the clear truths and also have developed other theories which can be shown in scripture.
The majority of Christianity and the Christian churches believe in the Trinity, and always have even back to the first century, so it is the opposers , the Arians that are causing the divisions when it comes to the nature of God!“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1 John 2:19
WJ
Hi WJ,
Indeed it is necaessary to come out of the world and follow Jesus outside of the city walls.
What your false new doctrines offer is death, not life, as you are in rebellionKathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 06 2009,03:19) Also, that Thinker believes that the “eternal word” (which is an oxymoron btw since a word has an origin as does a son) is another term that is not found in the Bible) became the Son at some point and time…another idea not clearly taught in the Bible.
How can you speak a word unless the word is in you?Not only was the Word always in God, but “God was the Word”.
“The Word was with God and the Word was God.“
Since the Word was God the Word was eternal because God is eternal! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the simple Truth that Jesus the “Word” is God!
WJ
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 06 2009,15:33) Hi WJ,
Indeed it is necaessary to come out of the world and follow Jesus outside of the city walls.
What your false new doctrines offer is death, not life, as you are in rebellion
NHThere you go acting like God again! You will be accountable for your words. You know nothing about my relationship with God and if I am in rebellion, do you?
WJ
Hi WJ,
So you are able to add the final touches to scripture so that you can say the Son is his own Father?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2009,07:39) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 06 2009,15:33) Hi WJ,
Indeed it is necaessary to come out of the world and follow Jesus outside of the city walls.
What your false new doctrines offer is death, not life, as you are in rebellion
NHThere you go acting like God again! You will be accountable for your words. You know nothing about my relationship with God and if I am in rebellion, do you?
WJ
Keith,
Nick's comment establishes what you said earlier that it is the Arians that divide.thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
