Trinity

[Botz]

I think the L-rd Himself had a wee bit of a problem explaining how He was going to be with the disciples for a little longer, then go away, and then come back and be with them and in them with the Father and the Spirit, so it is hardly surprising that we continue to find the way G-d operates a little difficult to fully understand...especially the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost....and us.

As has been pointed out, the Athanasian Creed goes beyond a mere consolidation of theological data on the person and nature of G-d, and states or demands belief in the Trinity before one can formally be accepted as a Believer...it is as though the doctrine itself creates a new entity or at the very least a title conceived by man, that must be acknowledged. ( I know this is rather an extreme statement, but is what I feel sometimes, especially when talking to brethren who would class themselves as staunch Trinitarians.)

<< John 14 >>

New American Standard Bible

[JCISGD]

"Baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

Isn't HIS name YHWH? Why aren't we baptised in HIS name? Why are we baptised in the name of three titles or descriptions of God, instead of in HIS name? Just asking. Because I've often wondered why we are not baptised in the name of God.

because God is three yet one.

YHWH is one of Gods names, He is also known as I AM, Emmanuel, Jesus, The Lamb of God etc, but i take it you know that. Your question is very fitting to this thread however.

Isnt it clear to all that God Himself requires we are baptised in the name of all three, for where there is unity He commands a blessing.

God delights in being a trinity as He loves to move in unity. "Let us" and they all said great idea lets do it. (Pure speculation on my part, but not unlikely)

Correct me if im wrong, but i was told the word "Name" means "Character" in hebrew culture. Therefore some of Gods character is discovered in the doctrine of the trinity, and this might be why it says to baptise in the name of all three. This would be a baptism that acknowledges the fullness of who God is who seen in the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

[Smalcald]

So, the introduction to explaining the doctrine "central to our faith" states that it is beyond human understanding. So preceding the explanation is the declaration that no human can understand this, how is it that we don't have a problem with this? I submit it is a case of intellectual dishonesty, ignoring of the facts so that the story can be told, believed, and become required for all, though it is not able to be comprehended by any human.

The same can be said for God's eternal existence. It is beyond human comprehension how God can have no beginning and no end, yet that is exactly what we are expected to believe.

Belief and understanding are two completely different things. Belief does not necessarily depend on understanding. Much of what God does is beyond our understanding, but we are still accountable for believing it. So it should not seem so strange that any aspect of God's nature transcends human understanding. That does not make it unbelievable, though.

Consider this: In Ephesians 3:19, Paul's prayer for the saints is that we know the love of Christ that surpassess knowledge. It is the same kind of paradox. To know what is unknowable. The verb in that verse means to acknowledge. We can acknowledge that which is beyond our comprehension. It is the same with other aspects of God's nature that defy the limits of human comprehension. The concept is there, we can see it, but we don't understand it.

The Mormon's "baptism for the dead" is at least taking a single verse of scripture and twisting the meaning, but trinity the word, or trinity the explanation, or trinity the explanation of the summary of the explanation is not found in the scriptures.

Again, neither are the words, grandfather or legalism, but those concepts are in the Bible, nonetheless.

Try to find coequal, I can show you where Jesus said the Father is greater than I (John 14:28). Yes, but keep in mind that Jesus was speaking terms of His ministry on earth, not His divine nature. Jesus, in terms of being God was equal with the Father, but in terms of His humanity and ministry on earth was voluntarily submissive to His Father's will.

[Guest shiloh357]

I think the L-rd Himself had a wee bit of a problem explaining how He was going to be with the disciples for a little longer, then go away, and then come back and be with them and in them with the Father and the Spirit, so it is hardly surprising that we continue to find the way G-d operates a little difficult to fully understand...especially the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost....and us.

That is because it is something for which we have no earthly frame of reference to compare it to.

As has been pointed out, the Athanasian Creed goes beyond a mere consolidation of theological data on the person and nature of G-d, and states or demands belief in the Trinity before one can formally be accepted as a Believer...it is as though the doctrine itself creates a new entity or at the very least a title conceived by man, that must be acknowledged. ( I know this is rather an extreme statement, but is what I feel sometimes, especially when talking to brethren who would class themselves as staunch Trinitarians.)

Yes, but it is just a creed and is not binding on all believers. It is not Scripture and is thus not infallible or above scrutiny.

Some people may believe that a belief in the Trinity is somehow necessary for salvation. That belief is not a reflection on the teaching itself, but is a misapplication of the teaching.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (lekh l'kha @ Dec 27 2009, 09:00 AM)

"Baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

Isn't HIS name YHWH? Why aren't we baptised in HIS name? Why are we baptised in the name of three titles or descriptions of God, instead of in HIS name? Just asking. Because I've often wondered why we are not baptised in the name of God.

No one knows the correct pronunciation of YHVH. The Jewish people do not pronounce His Name out of reverence to God.

If anyone thinks the "three persons" teaching is a stumbling block to Jews, just go around trying to pronounce the ineffable Name of God and see how much more you will end up driving the Jewish people away from the Messiah.

[Botz]

If anyone thinks the "three persons" teaching is a stumbling block to Jews, just go around trying to pronounce the ineffable Name of God and see how much more you will end up driving the Jewish people away from the Messiah.

There are a number of stumbling blocks we can place before Jewish people, not least the two you mention...and Christian history, ancient and modern has not helped one bit either. I believe if Paul was alive now, he would have encouraged Gentiles to seek whatever means they could to present Messiah to the Jews, above all realizing the debt we owe, the shameful events of the past, and the obligation we have to be totally upfront about Yeshua their Messiah....they too need to fulfill the Law through faith in Yeshua.

[AnotherTraveler]

So, the introduction to explaining the doctrine "central to our faith" states that it is beyond human understanding. So preceding the explanation is the declaration that no human can understand this, how is it that we don't have a problem with this? I submit it is a case of intellectual dishonesty, ignoring of the facts so that the story can be told, believed, and become required for all, though it is not able to be comprehended by any human.

The same can be said for God's eternal existence. It is beyond human comprehension how God can have no beginning and no end, yet that is exactly what we are expected to believe.

Belief and understanding are two completely different things. Belief does not necessarily depend on understanding. Much of what God does is beyond our understanding, but we are still accountable for believing it. So it should not seem so strange that any aspect of God's nature transcends human understanding. That does not make it unbelievable, though.

Consider this: In Ephesians 3:19, Paul's prayer for the saints is that we know the love of Christ that surpassess knowledge. It is the same kind of paradox. To know what is unknowable. The verb in that verse means to acknowledge. We can acknowledge that which is beyond our comprehension. It is the same with other aspects of God's nature that defy the limits of human comprehension. The concept is there, we can see it, but we don't understand it.

The Mormon's "baptism for the dead" is at least taking a single verse of scripture and twisting the meaning, but trinity the word, or trinity the explanation, or trinity the explanation of the summary of the explanation is not found in the scriptures.

Again, neither are the words, grandfather or legalism, but those concepts are in the Bible, nonetheless.

Try to find coequal, I can show you where Jesus said the Father is greater than I (John 14:28).

Yes, but keep in mind that Jesus was speaking terms of His ministry on earth, not His divine nature. Jesus, in terms of being God was equal with the Father, but in terms of His humanity and ministry on earth was voluntarily submissive to His Father's will.

While we are certainly to have faith in the BIBLE, hence applying our believing to God's WORD, applying our believing to MAN'S DOCTRINE in the same manner is completely foolish and unscriptural.

[Smalcald]

I guess I would respond that the nature of who Christ is as revealed in scripture, is not mans doctrine.

[AnotherTraveler]

I guess I would respond that the nature of who Christ is as revealed in scripture, is not mans doctrine.

And I absolutely agree with your response!

Therefore the doctrine designed by man with doubtless good intentions comes out to be only so valuable as to point us back to the scriptures, where we began in the first place, and where we should not have left.

Like you, I know that believing on Him, as the scriptures have said, is the only real option anyway. John 7:38

[Smalcald]

Do believe that the Divinity of Christ is man's doctrine?