The Holy Trinity?

[Paper mache]

7 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

There is tons of evidence for the Trinity.  It is one the most well supported doctrines we have in Scripture.  The word English word, "Trinity" is actually from  a Latin word, so you won't find it in either the Greek or Hebrew text of Scripture, but it is completely derived from Scripture.

The Father is God

First of all, there is only one God (Is. 44:8).  That is not something anyone can dispute, so I don't really need to spend much time on that.  He is the only God.  

The Father is God or, as we say it, "God the Father."  Most of the time when people talk about "God"  that is who they are talking about.  I don't think that is up for debate so I don't need to post a bunch of Scripture to defend what is not in dispute, there.

The Son is God

The Son (Jesus is also called "God."  Hebrews 1:8 has the Father directly referring to His Son Jesus as "God."   Not only that but Jesus, in the book of Revelation, refers to Himself as the "beginning and the end,"   and "The first and last." 

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
(Rev 1:8)

Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
(Rev 1:11-13)

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
(Rev 1:17)

And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
(Rev 2:8)

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(Rev 22:12-13)

Those verses are Jesus calling Himself by titles only ascribed to God in the Old Testament, namely "The first and the last." Compare those verses with what God says about Himself in Isaiah (Isa_41:4, 44:6, 48:12).  In those places God refers to Himself as the "first and the last."  I could post more proofs that Jesus is God, but that is sufficient to make my point.

The Holy Spirit is God

The Holy Spirit is referred to as God in Acts 5:3-4.  Annanias and his wife Sapphira were accused of lying to God when they lied to the Holy Spirit.

We also see the Holy Spirit, as a Person, present at the Baptism of Jesus along with God the Father.   God the Father speaks, saying that Jesus was His beloved Son in whom He was well pleased, Jesus is coming up out of the water and the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus in bodily form as a dove.  

The Holy Spirit is even more distinguished from Jesus (in opposition to Binitarianism)  because Jesus said that just as God the Father sent Jesus, Jesus is sending the Holy Spirit as another comforter (John 15:26).  The Comforter would come in Jesus' Name (John 14: 26).  So if the Holy Spirit is coming in Jesus' Name, it indicates that He is a separate Person from Jesus.  He is sending someone who is distinct from Himself and Jesus said that if He did not leave the Comforter, the Holy Spirit could not come (John 16:7).

If you'll study out the Holy Spirit, you will see that the Bible ascribes all kinds of divine attributes.  He is called "eternal" (Heb. 9:14)  He knows God's thoughts (I Cor. 2:10-11).  The Holy Spirit is omnipresent (Ps. 139: 7-10).   The Holy Spirit is mentioned as a separate divine Person in II Cor. 13:14 who can be communed with.

Conclusion

So all three are called God in Scripture and yet are three separate Persons.  How is that possible?   How do we make sense of that?   We don't.   We cannot explain it and the Bible doesn't call on us to explain it.   There is no point of reference in our experience that serves as proper analogy for the Trinity.   But just because it doesn't make sense, doesn't mean it isn't true.    It doesn't make sense to us because it is a great example of how God is beyond our understanding, beyond our ability to explain. 

The Trinity  is not explained in Scripture because it can't be explained.  So what we find is that it is demonstrated, acted out for us to see.   Even though none of the biblical writers wrote out a treatise on the Triune nature of God in the New Testament, it doesn't make the Trinity any less of a doctrine.  Binitarianism is really a false teaching that either rejects part of the Bible, or is the result of a rather lack luster understanding of the whole counsel of Scripture.

 

If the Holy Spirit is a distinct person of the Godhead, why is it we never see him physically speak? Why is it that, when the apostles were writing their epistles, they gave glory to "One God, the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ"? They didn't give glory to the Holy spirit. 

Here's a question; since Jesus was begotten of the Holy Spirit, why doesn't He call the Holy Spirit His father, if the Holy Spirit is a personal being of the Godhead? 

There have been cases in the New Testament where the Holy Spirit has been personified, but is there any evidencefor a Triune God in the Old Testament? Usually (if not always), New Testament doctrines can be found in the Old Testament as well. 

2 hours ago, enoob57 said:

The plurality of Persons in The God head is from the very beginning a fact... undisputed fact! The only exception being satan's efforts to pervert truth. Love, Steven

I do not doubt this. But, plurality doesn't mean 3. It could mean 2, or 5, or 100. 

4 hours ago, Ezra said:

Actually I am fully aware of the history of this verse. However, its presence in the earliest manuscripts is well attested through the writings of the Early Church Fathers.  And regardless of that dispute, the truth of the Trinity is a Bible doctrine.

Do you have any sources?

[Zach]

2 hours ago, enoob57 said:

The plurality of Persons in The God head is from the very beginning a fact... undisputed fact! The only exception being satan's efforts to pervert truth. Love, Steven

I respectfully disagree. What is known from the very beginning is the "Council of God". When God takes a people for himself, entering into a Covenant relationship with them, He makes it clear; 'He is One'

Edited January 6, 2017 by Zach

[Paper mache]

6 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Augustine is the one credited with the teaching of the Trinity as we know it today, but there were others before him who developed the view.

"The doctrine of the Trinity was formally developed in the early church in reaction to errant teaching on the nature of God as found in Arianism. Arianism attempted to protect monotheism (the belief in one God) by denying the full deity of Jesus, a belief most Christians held at this time. Arianism taught that Jesus was divine, but that he was a lesser deity than the Father. To affirm the Church's stance on the nature of God, the Trinity was formally stated in the Nicene Creed(325 A.D.) and the later Athanasian Creed. As a result of these early ecumenical creeds, any departure from the Christian doctrineof the Trinity was considered heresy. These creeds affirm the early Christian conviction that Jesus was God. Arianism caused the church to dogmatically affirm what was already believed and inherent to the earliest of Christian theology.

The term "Trinity", is not found in the Bible. Theophilus of Antioch around 180 A.D. first used the Greek term trias(a set of three) in reference to God, his Word, and his Wisdom. However, Tertullianin 215 A.D. was the first one to state this doctrine using the Latin term, Trinitas(Trinity), referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (W. Fulton in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics)." http://www.theopedia.com/trinity

 

"One of the leading defenders of a full-orbed Trinitarianism during this period was Basil of Caesarea (c.330-379). In his book On the Holy Spirit, the first book in the history of the church wholly devoted to the subject of the Spirit, Basil rightly reasoned from the teaching of Scripture as a whole that it is God alone who can save fallen men and women. Texts like 1 Corinthians 2:10 and 12:3 clarified for Basil how salvation was imparted: through the power of the Spirit men and women come to a saving knowledge about God's redemptive work in the crucified Christ and are enabled to call him “Lord.” If the Spirit, therefore, is not fully divine, the work of salvation is short-circuited, for creatures simply cannot give such saving knowledge.¹⁰ It should also be noted that Basil was a central figure in the rise of monasticism, which began largely as a renewal movement in response to the politicization and “secularization” of large sectors of the church following Constantine's toleration of Christianity in the first quarter of the fourth century. As such, Basil was very interested in Christian experience and can hardly be considered an ivory-tower academician.

Basil did not live to participate in the Council of Constantinople in 381 that drafted what has come to be called the Nicene Creed.¹¹ But the document, in particular the article on the Holy Spirit, strongly reflects his theological perspective. There is, in fact, good evidence that Basil's younger brother, Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395), who was present at the council and who had drunk deeply at the well of his brother's Trinitarianism, played a central role in the drawing up of the creedal statement.¹² Like his brother, Gregory was a strong proponent of monasticism and very interested in the experiential side of Christianity.

Also like his older brother, Nyssa wrote widely on the subject of the Trinity. One of his most intriguing and more dramatic statements about the Trinity occurs in a document that has been entitled “On the difference between ousia [being] and hypostasis [person].”¹³

You have before now, in springtime, beheld the brilliance of the bow in the clouds—I mean the bow which is commonly called the “rainbow.” ... Now, the brightness [of the rainbow] is both continuous with itself and divided. It has many diverse colors; and yet the various bright tints of its dye are imperceptibly intermingled, hiding from our eyes the point of contact of the different colors with each other. As a result, between the blue and the flame-color, or the flame-color and the purple, or the purple and the amber, the space which both mingles and separates the two colors cannot be discerned. For when the rays of all the colors are seen they are seen to be distinct, and yet at the same time ... it is impossible to find out how far the red or the green color of the radiance extends, and at what point it begins to be no longer perceived as it is when it is distinct.

Just as in this example we both clearly distinguish the different colors and yet cannot detect by observation the separation of one from the other, so, please consider that it is also possible to draw [similar] inferences with regard to the divine doctrines. In particular, one can both conclude that the specific characteristics of [each of] the Persons [of the Godhead], like any one of the brilliant colors which appear in the rainbow, reflect their brightness in each of the [other] Persons we believe to be in the Holy Trinity, but that no difference can be observed in the ... nature of the one as compared with the others.... Reason also teaches us through the created object [that is, the rainbow], not to feel distressed in doctrinal discussions whenever we encounter something hard to understand and our brains reel at the thought of accepting what is proposed to us. For, just as experience appears to be better than a scientific theory in the case of what is seen by our eyes, so also faith is better than the apprehension which comes from [logical] reasoning with regard to those doctrines which transcend our comprehension. For faith teaches us about what is separated in person and about what is united in being.¹⁴

Here Gregory is grappling with a perennial issue in the history of Trinitarian thought, namely, the difficulty that the human mind encounters in reconciling the oneness and threeness of God. He thus resorts to an illustration from the created realm, the rainbow. When a rainbow is seen clearly in the sky, the various colors of the spectrum can be easily distinguished, but they pass so gradually into each other without any abrupt transition that it is impossible to say where one color begins and another ends. Similarly, the individual members of the Godhead can be distinguished in their operations and activities, but this should never be done in such a way as to destroy their unity in being.

It is also noteworthy that Gregory—who did have definite philosophical inclinations, far more than most of the orthodox theologians of the fourth century—is quite prepared to say that in the final analysis the doctrine of the Trinity surpasses human comprehension. In the face of this mystery, logic and human reason can only go so far. It is only through faith that the believer can affirm what logic ultimately cannot: the threeness and the oneness of God."https://www.the-highway.com/trinity_Haykin.html

 

But do you have any Scriptural evidence? Thank you for this though. 

[Zach]

4 minutes ago, Brittany said:

Here's a question; since Jesus was begotten of the Holy Spirit, why doesn't He call the Holy Spirit His father, if the Holy Spirit is a personal being of the Godhead? 

Oh, this is good! Knocked it out of the park!

(Side note: some early Christians thought the Holy Spirit was Jesus' mother since it is feminine, but this kind of stuff is meaningless. People want to make it about what Jesus is rather than who; "Messiah")

[Paper mache]

Just now, Zach said:

Oh, this is good! Knocked it out of the park!

(Side note: some early Christians thought the Holy Spirit was Jesus' mother since it is feminine, but this kind of stuff is meaningless. People want to make it about what Jesus is rather than who; "Messiah")

Masculinity/feminity (if that's even a word) is actually based on grammar/translation. In spanish and french, some words were masculine and some were feminine (unlike english, where all words are neuter). in french, the word for "door" (la porte; la is feminine and words that end in '-e' are usually feminine) is feminine. Does that make the door a female person? No. same applies here. 

[Zach]

17 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Augustine is the one credited with the teaching of the Trinity as we know it today, but there were others before him who developed the view.

Apparently you and I have a different definitions of "early" church fathers. Augustine = 5th century. Lol! The best your article could do is squeak out something 150 years after Christ? The Greek/Roman church had already completely taken over at this time, incorporating their Greek thought into Jewish doctrine resulting in Hybrid Hellenistic doctrines

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Brittany said:

If the Holy Spirit is a distinct person of the Godhead, why is it we never see him physically speak?

 

Spirits are invisible.  But he did appear in bodily form as a dove.  And he is active and moving in the lives of believers and He speaks to us through the Word of God.  Speaking audibly is not the definition of a "person."

Quote

Why is it that, when the apostles were writing their epistles, they gave glory to "One God, the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ"? They didn't give glory to the Holy spirit. 

That is the role of the Holy Spirit.  It's the same reason we don't pray to the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit's job in Scripture is to point us to Jesus who then points us to the Father.

Quote

Here's a question; since Jesus was begotten of the Holy Spirit, why doesn't He call the Holy Spirit His father, if the Holy Spirit is a personal being of the Godhead? 

The Holy Spirit isn't the Father.   I mean, you could make the same argument about Jesus, couldn't you?  If Jesus is God why don't we call Jesus the Father?   What we see is that each person in the Godhead has a particular role that they play.  Each one is a unique person, but each one is God.

Quote

There have been cases in the New Testament where the Holy Spirit has been personified, but is there any evidencefor a Triune God in the Old Testament? Usually (if not always), New Testament doctrines can be found in the Old Testament as well. 

Keep in mind that the Bible is a system of progressing revelation and while many doctrines have their origin in the Old Testament, they are in seed form and are not developed more until the New Testament.  You will not find the Christian formula of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" mentioned explicitly, but you will find the different members of the Godhead mentioned together and separately from one another in the Old Testament.

In Genesis 1:2 we see the Holy Spirit mentioned separately from God who spoke the created order into existence.   We God the Father speaking to Satan about the coming deliverer we know to be Jesus (Gen. 3:16)

God said let us make man in our image.  (Gen. 1:26).  He wasn't' speaking to angels because angels are not made in God's image.

Other references to God being more than one person include:

Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever (Gen. 3:22)

Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech (Gen. 11:7)

Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah - from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus He overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities - and also the vegetation in the land

(Note that the Lord rained down burning sulfur...  from the Lord out of the heavens.  The Lord on the earth rained down fire from the Lord in Heaven.)

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me" (Is. 6:8)

Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there. "And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit. This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go (Is. 48:16-17)

Jesus is speaking in v. 16 "The sovereign Lord (God the Father) has sent me (Jesus) with His Spirit (the Holy Spirit).

The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him - the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD - and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears (Is. 11:2-3)

That is a major Messianic prophecy about Jesus.  Notice that it says the Spirit of the Lord (the Holy Spirit) will rest upon Jesus.

I could go on, but those are some Old Testament references to the Trinity in seed form.

[Zach]

7 minutes ago, Brittany said:

Masculinity/feminity (if that's even a word) is actually based on grammar/translation. In spanish and french, some words were masculine and some were feminine (unlike english, where all words are neuter). in french, the word for "door" (la porte; la is feminine and words that end in '-e' are usually feminine) is feminine. Does that make the door a female person? No. same applies here. 

I agree, however since the subject is an not inanimate object people tend to make it applicable. 

[Guest shiloh357]

11 minutes ago, Zach said:

Apparently you and I have a different definitions of "early" church fathers. Augustine = 5th century. Lol! The best your article could do is squeak out something 150 years after Christ? The Greek/Roman church had already completely taken over at this time, incorporating their Greek thought into Jewish doctrine resulting in Hybrid Hellenistic doctrines

Early church fathers are conventionally defined as being later than the apostles, early to mid 2nd century and onward to the post nicene period, and I think you know that.  Augustine was 4th century, actually.   But the point is that you didn't think the early church fathers had a trinitarian theology when in fact, they did.

[Zach]

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The Holy Spirit isn't the Father.   I mean, you could make the same argument about Jesus, couldn't you?  If Jesus is God why don't we call Jesus the Father?   

I know you think you've asked a rhetorical question, but that's because you've assumed a erroneous answer to fit your preconceived doctrine. Therefore I feel abliged to answer. 

The reason You don't call Jesus Father is because Jesus is called the Son. In your doctrine, in the context of the trinty being God is not mutually exclusive, how ever Father and Son is by definition.