Can We Clarify the Trinity?
- Thread starter Poor Beggar
- Start date
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,589
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Your "not subject to time" argument is apparently used to address the fact that God did exist before all matter in the universe. But you never explain how your statement addresses the point.
Upvote
0
- May 22, 2004
- 33,100
- 6,437
- 39
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
Thread cleaned!
Congregational Forum Restrictions and Christians Only Forums
Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum. There are forums reserved for Christian members only. Please do not post in these forums unless you are truly a Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is). If you wish to discuss unorthodox Christian theology, you may do so in the Controversial Theology forum.
Upvote
0
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,358
- 3,626
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
You asked, "I agree with God the Son being from eternity past - and being fully God - however in all of eternity past - prior to creating a spec of matter - did the Father always refer to Him as "Son"??
I tried to explain but failed, apologies, but it’s really quite simple. All actions that take place in time are imminent acts in the mind of God which include the Incarnation of the Son.
Stephan Charnock offers the following:
“There is no succession in the knowledge of God. The variety of successions and changes in the world make not succession, or new objects in the Divine mind; for all things are present to him from eternity in regard of his knowledge, though they are not actually present in the world, in regard of their existence. He doth not know one thing now, and another anon; he sees all things at once; “Known unto God are all things from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18); but in their true order of succession, as they lie in the eternal council of God, to be brought forth in time. Though there be a succession and order of things as they are wrought, there is yet no succession in God in regard of his knowledge of them. God knows the things that shall be wrought, and the order of them in their being brought upon the stage of the world; yet both the things and the order he knows by one act. Though all things be present with God, yet they are present to him in the order of their appearance in the world, and not so present with him as if they should be wrought at once. The death of Christ was to precede his resurrection in order of time; there is a succession in this; both at once are known by God; yet the act of his knowledge is not exercised about Christ as dying and rising at the same time; so that there is succession in things when there is no succession in God’s knowledge of them. Since God knows time, he knows all things as they are in time; he doth not know all things to be at once, though he knows at once what is, has been, and will be. All things are past, present, and to come, in regard of their existence; but there is not past, present, and to come, in regard of God’s knowledge of them, because he sees and knows not by any other, but by himself; he is his own light by which he sees, his own glass wherein he sees; beholding himself, he beholds all things.”
Now apply what we know about time and eternity to the question you asked and you shall have an answer.
Yours in the Lord,
jm
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,589
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
While it is possible that God the Father and God the Son referred to each other that way before the universe was created - there are places in the O.T and New Testament where they refer to the other one as simply "God".
One cannot say with certainty what contains or sums up infinite God or what He has been doing in the eternity before the universe was created.
Upvote
0
OzSpen
Regular Member
- Oct 15, 2005
- 11,541
- 707
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Private
I agree. In discussing with atheists, I ask: 'Are you open to sharing with me why you are an atheist and are you open to my sharing with you why I'm not an atheist?'
I'm currently gaining much benefit from reading Norman L Geisler & Frank Turek 2004. I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books.
Oz
Upvote
0
In general I'll often ask people what criteria would change their mind. Then after I've presented the criteria and their minds don't change, it puts them in an awkward spot and they'll usually disengage, helping me avoid the endless debater.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,358
- 3,626
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
Right. So what's your point? Christ refers to Himself as "I am" in the Gospel of John. Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Holy Spirit is God. God is one.
We are limited to biblical revelation. I'm good with that.
Yours in the Lord,
jm
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,589
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Dawkins, Provine and P.Z Meyers all went on record saying that they were raised as Christians but then became atheists when they found out about evolution vs the Bible.
Upvote
0
OzSpen
Regular Member
- Oct 15, 2005
- 11,541
- 707
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Private
The term 'Christian' is used quite loosely these days. I've just concluded a major research project on John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar. In his writings, over and over he makes statements such as 'I am a Christian' or 'as a Christian, I' and his books proceed to deny many fundamentals of the faith. Therefore, to use the term, 'Christian' in association with Dawkins, Provine and Meyers, we need to have them clearly define their understanding of what 'Christian' meant to them.
What's your point in raising this issue?
Oz
Upvote
0
- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,358
- 3,626
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,589
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Your link says this --
"“Biblical Evidence for the Eternal Submission of the Son to the Father”1Wayne Grudem [published in The New Evangelical Subordinationism? edited by Dennis W. Jowers and H. Wayne House (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 223-261. ] There is no question that, during the time of Jesus’ life on earth, he was subject to the authority of God the Father. He said, “'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God” (Heb. 10:7). He also said, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work” (John 4:34). And he said, “I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me” (John 8:28). But some evangelicals today claim this was only a temporary submission to the authority of the Father, limited to the time of his earthly life or at least to actions connected to the purpose of earning our salvation."
But my statement above was in reference to time before Earth and before any beings in heaven had been created - so then no "salvation" context for some non-God being to observe/benefit from.
so my statement above
"I agree with God the Son being from eternity past - and being fully God - however in all of eternity past - prior to creating a spec of matter - did the Father always refer to Him as "Son"?? I would not know about that. It may be that they only use such human-family terms for our benefit."
Upvote
0
- Aug 6, 2017
- 5,118
- 1,649
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
that article directly addresses that issue.
The son has always been the son begotten in eternity. The son has eternally been the son to the father, which is why scripture says the father SENT his son.
Scripture does not say the father asked his son to go. It says the father SENT his son and GAVE his only be gotten son for the Salvation of humanity clearly indicating the eternality of the father son relationship...
Within which the father has the ultimate authority to give and SEND the son who obediently submits to the same authority and obeys.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,589
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Your link says this --
"“Biblical Evidence for the Eternal Submission of the Son to the Father”1Wayne Grudem [published in The New Evangelical Subordinationism? edited by Dennis W. Jowers and H. Wayne House (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 223-261. ] There is no question that, during the time of Jesus’ life on earth, he was subject to the authority of God the Father. He said, “'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God” (Heb. 10:7). He also said, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work” (John 4:34). And he said, “I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me” (John 8:28). But some evangelicals today claim this was only a temporary submission to the authority of the Father, limited to the time of his earthly life or at least to actions connected to the purpose of earning our salvation."
But my statement above was in reference to time before Earth and before any beings in heaven had been created - so then no "salvation" context for some non-God being to observe/benefit from.
so my statement above
"I agree with God the Son being from eternity past - and being fully God - however in all of eternity past - prior to creating a spec of matter - did the Father always refer to Him as "Son"?? I would not know about that. It may be that they only use such human-family terms for our benefit."
So the salient point is "before creation" of anything ... so then "without reference to saving anything".. a time for which we have no record. Which is why I say it is unknown.
Not in the quote I show from it above. Do you have one?
You are restating your position. God the Son is from eternity past .. but what was His "role" before creation? Do you have a quote? There is not "begotten in eternity" in the Bible.
Another statement for which there is no text.
God is Love - God does not send (as in force) someone to die that He loves.
We would expect that of the family role they describe themselves in now - but what about before creation?
But does not indicate that He does so without the consent of the Son or even at the insistence of the Son. In Isaiah 53 it appears that the Son had this as His plan.
Which would be true in either case.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
