The Nicene Creed

[Teo9969]

EDIT: This was taken from a previous post I made, so there might be some impertinent content in here.

1. God is three persons: God is three persons means that The Father is not the Son, that The Father is not the Holy Spirit, and that The Holy Spirit is not The Son.

2. Each person is fully God

3. There is one God

1. John 1:1-2 talks how the word was with God, and that Jesus was the word shows disticintion of the two. John 17:24 shows says "my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world" informs us that the Father is not the Son, that they shared glory, and that they have had an eternal relationship of love. "If any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1)

[Markk]

Hi Trespass,

There are certain attributes that only God possesses, He is all knowing, all powerful, sinless and Holy, ever present

[enummaelish]

Hello Mark:

I can go on and on, but like I said before, you first need to understand and believe the Bible when it says there is only One God, and except that three are called God.

Come on Mark. I know you know the Bible professes the existence of multiple gods.

[TrespassersW]

Teo9969:

Look, let me save you (and anyone else who wants to jump in) a lot of trouble. I've heard plenty of explanations of the Trinity. I know that Trinitarians believe each of the three principles you outlined and I'm familiar with the scriputres used to back up those principles. I'm not wondering about that. I'm wondering about one thing, and only one thing. This: What is the difference between a "person" and a "being"? Or, in your words, between a "person" and a "God"? What is the difference between the person Jesus and the God Jesus? That's it. That's the part of the explanation I'm missing for this whole discussion to make sense. Explain that, and I'll be satisfied that I understand the Trinitarian concept of God. Without that explanation, I don't see that the Trinitarian description of God has any real meaning.

[Markk]

Hi David,

Sure it does, but it also says these gods are false and idols and to stay away from idol worship. If you want to discuss who these other gods are, show me who they are and what was their duty. Show me the attributes they posessed that would bring them to the level and substance of the Godhead? If you want to rehash Deut 32, Psalms 82, John 10, and others, then lets open another thread and go for it, I love to discuss this with you, you are such a push over

Love ya

Mark

John 1;12

[enummaelish]

This is why Mark is my favorite Anti-Mormon Christian:

Sure it does, but it also says these gods are false and idols and to stay away from idol worship. If you want to discuss who these other gods are, show me who they are and what was their duty. Show me the attributes they posessed that would bring them to the level and substance of the Godhead? If you want to rehash Deut 32, Psalms 82, John 10, and others, then lets open another thread and go for it, I love to discuss this with you, you are such a push over

I

[Markk]

Hi David,

You too, are my favorite anti Christian Mormon...Toooshay!!!

One thing, I am extremely jealous, how did you type that so fast, it takes me a minute or so just to type my name, but I can probably build a house faster that you, but I wish I could type with more than one finger, but now that I think of it I have the advantage in that I can type and pick my nose at the same time.

My qwik rebuttal to that is that it refers to angel and judges, why don

[enummaelish]

You too, are my favorite anti Christian Mormon...Toooshay!!! 

LOL! Ok, I'll start a new thread, but then will have to read your comments tomorrow, since I've got to go to bed.

[Tanyan]

Which Trinity Mode/Form is the correct one that we as LDS need to Accept/Adopt ?, Western, Eastern, Economic, Essential, Monarch, Social, Sabellian/Modalistic, ? [Or any others I cannot think of at the moment] ?. Grace.

[hooberus]

For Latter-day Saints, and biblical Israel, there is no deity in the skies who could compare with Jehovah. He is the one God who can save us.

Doesn't the the LDS Church teaches that in addition to Jehovah that there are at least two other Gods?

http://scriptures.lds.org/bdg/god

When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. All mankind are his children. The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times, and who is usually identified in the Old Testament as LORD (in capital letters), is the Son, known as Jesus Christ, and who is also a God. Jesus works under the direction of the Father and is in complete harmony with him. All mankind are his brethren and sisters, he being the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim. Many of the things that the scripture says were done were actually done by the LORD (Jesus). Thus the scripture says that

[Big Dogger]

Jesus Christ and Michael created this earth under Heavenly Father's direction.

What???? Jesus and Michael created this earth?? Where did that teaching come from?

Here is what St. Peter says on the matter

"Wherefore the Scripture exclaims in name of the God of the Jews, saying, 'Behold, behold, seeing that I am God, and there is none else besides me, I will kill, and I will make alive; I will smite, and I will heal; and there is none who can deliver out of my hands.' See therefore how, by some ineffable virtue, the Scripture, opposing the future errors of those who should affirm that either in heaven or on earth there is any other god besides Him who is the God of the Jews, decides thus: 'The Lord your God is one God, in heaven above, and in the earth beneath; and besides Him there is none else.' How, then, hast thou dared to say that there is any other God besides Him who is the God of the Jews? And again the Scripture says, 'Behold, to the Lord thy God belong the heaven, and the heaven of heavens, the earth, and all things that are in them: nevertheless I have chosen your fathers, that I might love them, and you after them.' Thus that judgment is supported by the Scripture on every side, that He who created the world is the true and only God.

Peace be with you.

[Teo9969]

Our own human personalities provide another faint analogy that can provide some help in thinking about the Trinity. A man can think about different objects outside of himself, and when he does this he is the object who is being thought about: then he is both subject and object. Moreover, he can reflect on his dieas about himself as a third thing, neither subject nor object, but thoughts that he as a subject has about himself as an object. When this happens, the subject, object, and thoughts are three dstinct things. Yet each thing in a way includes his whole being: All of the man is the subject, and all of the man is the object, and the thoughts (though in a lesser sense) are thoughts about all of himself as a person.

From Systematic Theology

Grudem, Wayne. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. 255.

Teo9969:

Look, let me save you (and anyone else who wants to jump in) a lot of trouble. I've heard plenty of explanations of the Trinity. I know that Trinitarians believe each of the three principles you outlined and I'm familiar with the scriputres used to back up those principles. I'm not wondering about that. I'm wondering about one thing, and only one thing. This: What is the difference between a "person" and a "being"? Or, in your words, between a "person" and a "God"? What is the difference between the person Jesus and the God Jesus? That's it. That's the part of the explanation I'm missing for this whole discussion to make sense. Explain that, and I'll be satisfied that I understand the Trinitarian concept of God. Without that explanation, I don't see that the Trinitarian description of God has any real meaning.

First I'm going to change it to the Father person and the God Jesus, because technically while Jesus was on the earth he was 100%human and 100%God...That's why Jesus could not have sinned, but at the same time, he was tempted, because God cannot be tempted, but Jesus was tempted in the desert by satan, Yet Jesus is God. It's kind of like that.

Anyway, it's easier to say: God is 3 persons, all 3 persons are fully God, There is one substance that is God.

Because the existence of three persons in one God is something beyond our understanding, Christian theology has come to use the word person to speak of these differences in relationship, not because we fully understand what is meant by the word person when referring to the Trinity, but rather so that we might say something instead of saying nothing at all.

Grudem, Wayne. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. 255.

...we must say that the persons are real, that they are not just different ways of looking at the one being [substance] of God...Rather, we need to think of the Trinity in such a way that the reality of the three persons is maintained, and each person is seen as relating to the others as an "I" (a first person) and a "you" (a second person) and a "he" (a third person).

The only way it seems possible to do this is to say that the distinction between the persons is not a difference in "being" but a difference in "relationships." This is something far removed from our human experience, where every different human "person" is a different being as well. Somehow God's being is so much greater than ours that within his one undivided being there can be an unfolding into interpersonal relationships, so that there can be three distinct persons.

Grudem, Wayne. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. 253-54.

[1dc]

, because technically while Jesus was on the earth he was 100%human and 100%God...That's why Jesus could not have sinned, but at the same time, he was tempted, because God cannot be tempted, but Jesus was tempted in the desert by satan, Yet Jesus is God. It's kind of like that.

On another post a person or two stated that Jesus emptied Himself of his glory . . (and apparently wisdom as well since He grew in wisdom). He was tempted because He put Himself in a position susceptible to being tempted. That is why He was able to suffer for us and pay our debt because He was better than us AND did so freely.

IMO, God didn't play a little charade with Himself to fulfill justice AND mercy. Justice was fulfilled because Jesus by His own will emptied Himself and carried through to bear our sins under a plan accepted by the Father of His own separate and free will. Mercy was provided when Jesus fulfilled His promise to sacrifice for us and the Father accepted Jesus' sacrifice as valid for our resurrection by Him. It's (not kinda) like that.

[mom4life]

If you want to understand the Trinity, the easiest thing to do is to just go ask the local parish Priest. He will be happy to discuss it. See...easy.

[Rtifs]

Look, let me save you (and anyone else who wants to jump in) a lot of trouble. I've heard plenty of explanations of the Trinity. I know that Trinitarians believe each of the three principles you outlined and I'm familiar with the scriputres used to back up those principles. I'm not wondering about that. I'm wondering about one thing, and only one thing. This: What is the difference between a "person" and a "being"? Or, in your words, between a "person" and a "God"? What is the difference between the person Jesus and the God Jesus? That's it. That's the part of the explanation I'm missing for this whole discussion to make sense. Explain that, and I'll be satisfied that I understand the Trinitarian concept of God. Without that explanation, I don't see that the Trinitarian description of God has any real meaning.

If you go to the OCA website (Eastern Orthodox Church) there is a book series online. Here is the section on the Trinity. It takes about 10 minutes to read, but I've cut and paste the portion that I think'll help you understand.

Thus, the Church teaches that while there is only One God, yet there are Three who are God -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- perfectly united and never divided yet not merged into one with no proper distinction. How then does the Church defend its doctrine that God is both One and yet Three?

First of all, it is the Church's teaching and its deepest experience that there is only one God because there is only one Father.

In the Bible the term "God" with very few exceptions is used primarily as a name for the Father. Thus, the Son is the "Son of God," and the Spirit is the "Spirit of God." The Son is born from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father -- both in the same timeless and eternal action of the Father's own being.

In this view, the Son and the Spirit are both one with God and in no way separated from Him. Thus, the Divine Unity consists of the Father, with His Son and His Spirit distinct from Himself and yet perfectly united together in Him.

What the Father is, the Son and the Spirit are also. This is the Church's teaching. The Son, born of the Father, and the Spirit, proceeding from Him, share the divine nature with God, being "of one essence" with Him.

Thus, as the Father is "ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, ever-existing and eternally the same" (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom), so the Son and the Spirit are exactly the same. Every attribute of divinity which belongs to God the Father -- life, love, wisdom, truth, blessedness, holiness, power, purity, joy -- belongs equally as well to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The being, nature, essence, existence and life of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are absolutely and identically one and the same.

There's more, especially the section on wrong doctrines of the Trinity, but perhaps this helps to answer your question. My opinion is that essence is a better translation from Greek than substance or being. I think that essence just fits in with the modern American dialect than the other two.

[mom4life]

Very beautifuly put, Rtifs.

[TrespassersW]

Rtifs:

Thank you. I had given up on this thread. I appreciate what you've provided.

In this view, the Son and the Spirit are both one with God and in no way separated from Him.

I don't mean to get hung up on the vocabulary, but is it true to say they are "in no way separated from Him"? It seems like they are separated from Him in at least some ways.

The Son, born of the Father, and the Spirit, proceeding from Him, share the divine nature with God, being "of one essence" with Him.

This is where I tend to get lost. "Divine nature" or "essence" is somehow different from "person". We seem to be drawing a distinction between "nature" and "identity". Is there, perhaps, some analogy that could illustrate the difference between the two? I honestly can't imagine what it is. Take me, for example. My identity is what makes me uniquely me. But what is my "nature" or "essence"? This is part of my problem. I've never seen anyone able to define "person," "essence," "nature," or "being" without referring to one or more of the other terms. This makes it very difficult to draw a comprehensible distinction between them--particularly one capable of being separated in the way that the Trinity doctrine wants to separate them.

My opinion is that essence is a better translation from Greek than substance or being.

Better translation of what? Is there a scripture that uses the word "essence"?

(from the website)

Still another wrong doctrine is that the Father is one God, the Son is another God, and the Holy Spirit still another God. There cannot be "three gods," says the Church, and certainly not "gods" who are created or made. Still less can there be "three gods" of whom the Father is "higher" and the others "lower." For there to be more than one God, or "degrees of divinity" are both contradictions which cannot be defended, either by divine revelation or by logical thinking.

I found this paragraph to be very curious. How is it that the existence of more than one God is a "contradiction which cannot be defended", but we seem perfectly willing to defend the contradiction of "there is only One God, yet there are Three who are God"? Seems to me that the former can be comprehended and resolved much more readily than the latter.

[Big Dogger]

The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity." The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e., by nature one God." In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."

The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary." "Father," "Son," "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son." They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds." The divine Unity is Triune.

The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance." Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship." "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."

Please don't try to reason out the Holy Trinity mathematically...that is not what this is about.

Peace be with you.

[TrespassersW]

Big Dogger:

I'm not sure if your post was intended for me. If it was, then you may want to read a few of the previous posts. Your post just covered old ground and didn't really address any of my specific questions. I'm not looking for yet another description of the Trinity. I'm looking for an explanation of the terms used to describe the Trinity.

Please don't try to reason out the Holy Trinity mathematically...that is not what this is about.

I'm not trying to understand anything mathematically. I'm simply trying to understand what is meant by terms such as "divine substance, essence or nature". I'm perfectly willing to concede that man can not fully understand God, but if someone is going to provide a description of God, they should at least understand their description. If they don't, then I'm not especially inclined to believe that they know what they are talking about.

[Big Dogger]

I'm simply trying to understand what is meant by terms such as "divine substance, essence or nature". I'm perfectly willing to concede that man can not fully understand God, but if someone is going to provide a description of God, they should at least understand their description. If they don't, then I'm not especially inclined to believe that they know what they are talking about.

I'm certainly not a great theologian, but I shall try my best to explain it as I understand.

When we speak of God as one in Being, Essense, Substanse...etc. We are speaking of the Nature of God. "Persons" is viewed as being the final complement of the Nature: the Nature is regarded as logically prior to the "Persons". Hence, because God's Nature is one, He is known to us as One God before He can be known as Three Persons. And when theologians speak of God without special mention of a Person, conceive Him under this aspect.

3 Persons = One in Being

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit = Nature of God

I hope this helps you understand what we mean.

Peace be with you.

[TrespassersW]

Big Dogger:

I hope this helps you understand what we mean

Not even a little, I'm afraid.

When we speak of God as one in Being, Essense, Substanse...etc. We are speaking of the Nature of God.

But we're just replacing one vocabulary word for another. What does "essence" actually mean in this context? The question I asked earlier was, if we speak of my "nature" or "essence", what are we referring to?

Here's an example: LDS view the "oneness" of God as a unity of purpose, power, and authority between the three persons of the Godhead. In this view, what you call "nature" would refer to "purpose, power, and authority". Since Trinitarians explicitly reject this view, obviously they are insisting on something specific by "nature" or "essence". Something that specifically excludes such conceptual possibilities as "purpose" or "character". Something a bit more tangible, I presume.

My question is... what is it? Is it something physical? Something spiritual? Something mental? An aspect? (obviously not the aspect of "purpose", but something else?)

"Persons" is viewed as being the final complement of the Nature

This has no meaning to me. I don't know what is meant by "final complement". I take it that the identity "completes" the nature, but since I don't know what nature refers to, that doesn't tell me anything.

[mom4life]

When trying to understand anything, it always helps to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten your mind. Your understanding may not come overnight; but if you sincerely seek it, understanding will come.

[Fiat Lux]

My question is... what is it? Is it something physical? Something spiritual? Something mental? An aspect? (obviously not the aspect of "purpose", but something else?)

Your nature is a combination of your soul and your body. God's nature is pure spirit.

[TrespassersW]

Fiat Lux:

Your nature is a combination of your soul and your body. God's nature is pure spirit.

OK, good. That helps. Now, how is this spirit different from God's "person" (or one of His "persons"). Normally, I would consider my identity, or "person," to be very closely tied to my spirit. Perhaps inseparably so. Apparently Trinitarians do not feel this is the case?

mom4life:

When trying to understand anything, it always helps to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten your mind. Your understanding may not come overnight; but if you sincerely seek it, understanding will come.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I have spent much time in prayer coming to know and understand God, and I am adequately satisfied with my current understanding of the nature and characteristics of God. But I also like to try to understand the beliefs of others. The Trinity is a doctrine that has long been a source of frustration to me because I felt that those who attempted to explain it always fell back to "we don't understand it." I appreciate the patience of those on this thread who are trying to help me in this.

[Teo9969]

Essence, Substance, Being, is like God's "body"...that's the best I can explain that, but it's not really a body, it's his, form, his anatomical make-up...for lack of better words.

More from Grudem:

Grudem goes about his Chapter 14: Trinity through these sub-catagories, and if there is anything you want me to expound on, then I will try to sum up what he says.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 14 - God in Three Persons: The Trinity

A. The Doctrine of the Trinity Is Progressively Revealed in Scripture

1. Partial Revelation in the Old Testament

2. More Complete Revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament

B. Three Statements Summarize the Biblical Teaching

1. God Is Three Persons

2. Each Person Is Fully God

3. There Is One God.

4. Simplistic Solutions Must All Deny One Strand of Biblical Teaching.

5. All Analogies Have Shortcomings. (I will use this further in the rest of my post)

6. God Eternally and Necessarily Exists as the Trinity.

C. Erros Have Come By DEnying Any of the Three Statements Summarizing the Biblical Teaching

1. Modalism Claims That there Is One Person Who Appears to Us in Three Different Forms (or "Modes)

2. Arianism Denies the Full Deity of the Son and the HOly Spirit

a. The Arian Controversy

b. Subordinationism

c. Adoptionism

d. The Filioque Clause

e. The Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity

3. Tritheism Denies That There Is Only One God.

D. What Are the Distinctions Between the FAther, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

1. The Persons of the Trinity Have Different Primary Functions in Relating to the World.

2. The Persons of the Trinity Eternally Existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

3. What Is the Relationship Between the Three Persons and the Being of God?

4. Can We Understand the Doctrine of the Trinity?

E. Application

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see he goes into extensive detail about this.

...I'll just say I REALLY recommend this book if you want to see a good book of Theology by a protestant, and it can answer most of your questions about the majority of beliefs held by the protestant faiths, but that's not necessarily always (just a forewarning). The book is "Systematic Theology" by Wayne Grudem, it's published by Zondervan and Inter-Varsity Press....

as far as Analogies:

If we cannot adopt any of these simple solutions, then how can we put the three truths of Scripture together and maintain the doctrine of the Trinity? Sometimes people have used sever analogies drawn from nature or human experience to attempt to explain this doctrine. Although these analogies are helpful at an elementary leve of understanding, they all turn out to be inadequate or misleading on further reflection. To say, for exmaple that God is like a three-leaf-clover, which has three parts yet remains one clover, fials because each leaf is only part of the clover, and any one leaf cannot be said to be the whole clover. But in the Trinity, each of the persons is not just a separate part of God, each person is fully God. Moreover, the leaf of a clover is impersonal and does not have distinct and comples personality in the way each person of the Trinity does.

  Others have used the analogy of a trhee with three parts: the roots, trunk, and branches all constitute one tree. But a similar problem arises, for these are only parts of a tree, and none of the parts can be said to be the whole tree. Moreover, in this analogy the parts have different properties, unlike the persons of the Trinity, all of whom possess all of the attributes of God in equal measure. And the lack of personality in each part is a deficiency as well.

  The analogy of the three forms of water (steam, water, and ice is also inadequate because (a) no quantity of water is ever all three of these at the same time, they have different properties or characteristics, [c] the analogy has nothing that corresponds to the fact that there is only one God (there is no such thing as "one water" or "all the water in the universe"), and (d) the element of intelligent personality is lacking.

  Other anoalogies have been drawn from human experience. It might be said that the Trinity is something like a man who is both a farmer, the mayor of his town, and an elder in his church. He functions in different roles at different times, but he is one man. However, this anoalogy is very deficient because ther eis only one person doing these three activities at different times, and the analogy cannot deal with ther personal interaction among the members of the Trinity. (n fact, this analogy simply teaches the heresy called modalism, discussed below.)

  Another analogy taken from human life is the union of the intellect, the emotions, and the will in one human person. While these are parts of a personality, however, no one factor constitutes the entire person. And the parts are not identical in characteristics but have different abilites.

So what analogy shall we use to teach the Trinity? Although the Bible uses many analogies from nature and life to teach us various aspects of God's character (God is like a rock in his faitfulness, he is like a shepherd in his care, etc.), it is interesting that Scripture nowhere uses any analogies to teach the doctrine of the Trinity. The closest we come to an analogy is found in the titles "Father" and "Son" themselves, titles that clearly speak of distinct persons and of the close relationshp that exists between them in a human family. But on the human level, of course, we have twon entirely separate human beings, not one being comprised of three distinct persons. It is best to conclude that no analogy adequately teaches about the Trinity, and all are misleading in significant ways.

(Grudem, 240-241).

more later...I'm tired of typing for now... Ask any questions you want to, ask for a summary of any of the sections in the book..

by the way the citation for this information is

Grudem, Wayne. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994. 226-61.

And that's for any time I quote this book in this thread.