Father is "True God" in Scripture, though Son is God also

[Albion]

Seems you're only narrowing your focus to a few I mentioned

I'm responding to what you wrote, that's right.

We both are claiming to explain what Scripture means, so please don't demean our friendly debate by claiming you know what Scripture is actually saying. Especially since your explanation - not matter how popular today - is based on teachings that were promoted much later.

Well, this is just silly. My point was that Scripture is the basis, not that anyone has a corner on it. And you've now changed your claim, I see, in order to meet my objection. That's good. When you say that some belief was "promoted much later," that's hardly the same idea as saying--as you did before--"But you believe the teachings from much later generations." That's incorrect and an unwarranted allegation.

 

[younglite]

oops - forgot to address these...

How the writers of the Gospels come off in your mind as unreliable witnesses, I can't figure.

Never said this. I mentioned in post #15 that my sources draw upon their accounts in Scripture. The unreliable witnesses I spoke of was explained above in post #19.

And the comment about me not believing in the "Nicean (sic) Creed" comes from...who knows where?

I will address the initial portion of the 325 AD Nicaean Creed (and what the earliest writers believed).

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.”

Interesting that they believed the one God was the Father. Seems they believed the same as Paul and those of the NT era...

1 Cor 8:6 - yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

There are 18 verses in the NT explicitly calling the Father God, while in each of those exact verses referring to Jesus as Son of the Father, or as Lord. Perhaps is not such a stretch to believe the early writers believed the same, since they were sandwiched between the NT and Nicaean era.

Before I get accused of being a unitarian, the 325 AD creed continues...

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;”

Consistent with Scripture, the creed calls Jesus “Lord” and “Son of God.” Also consistent with Scripture, it says He is begotten. I believe this to mean born/brought forth/birthed, etc. I do not think that γεννηθέντα means anything else than being born. I don't believe μονογενῆ means “unique” or "only," but I believe it means only-begotten. What's interesting is that if you spend any time reading theological sites, there is a pervasive tiptoeing around these terms and their meanings for the first three centuries (and in this thread as well).

I am glad the Holy Spirit didn't tiptoe in using it, nor did our Nicaean fathers. They used the terms three times here. However they did go to great lengths to make it clear that, while born as the Son of God, He is still “very God” by nature of Him being the Father's Son. And if that wasn't enough, they state that He is “of the essence of the Father.” and “of one substance with the Father.” All of this is exactly what I believe. I am not tiptoeing around God being unbegotten, while Jesus is begotten, so as to make the Son somehow less than the Father. It doesn't seem to bother any of the church fathers for the first several centuries. I believe "begotten, not made" simply means the Son was never made (created out of nothing), or else He wouldn't be eternal. He was begotten - literally born of the Father, while having existed within the Father prior to being born.

Even the 381 AD version of the creed says, “Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds” is consistent with my belief that Jesus was brought forth in eternity past. I have no qualms with that version, either. Both creeds acknowledge the Holy Spirit, though the 381 AD version is clearer on the Holy Spirit being worshipped as God.

So yes, I do believe in the Trinity as the Nicaean Creed states. I don't redefine words, and thus theology/Christology as you see it. Just because I believe an earlier "orthodox" view doesn't make me any less of a Trinitarian than those who have redefined orthodox to what is accepted today.

This is what I meant by you not believing the Nicean Creed as it was put forth. It's not an attack - just an observation.

 

[Albion]

This is what I meant by you not believing the Nicean Creed as it was put forth. It's not an attack - just an observation.

No it isn't. You didn't "observe" anything like that because it didn't appear anywhere. You are merely stipulating it in order to help your argument. But that--inventing something to pin on your adversary--is no way to conduct a discussion, so we're done.

 

[younglite]

I'm responding to what you wrote, that's right.

Okay, Albion. In order to have an intelligent debate, you must use the context of ALL that is said. You can't just pick a few items that might not apply, and make sweeping statements - especially when your counterpoint was already addresses in the context of what was said.

Specifically, here's what you have ignored and not addressed...

1. Will you agree with scholars - ancient and modern - that there was an earlier orthodoxy for 3 centuries up until the formation of the Nicean Creed?
2. Why do you believe a later orthodoxy formed after the Nicean Creed instead of the earliest one?
3. Please explain why the Father is the only One in Scriptures mentioned as "True God" and the "Most High" God, but these terms are NEVER written about the Son or Spirit? If you disagree, please show me the Scriptures that do so.

 

[younglite]

But that--inventing something to pin on your adversary--is no way to conduct a discussion, so we're done.

Wow. I don't see you as an adversary, so I had no intent of offending you. By your responses, I assumed you believed the Nicean Creed as understood later. How is this an attack? You are free to be done if you wish. I just thought these forums were for debating in a civil manner.

 

[Der Alte]

I agree with this. But my point in showing the other textbook quotes wasn't to prove the Trinity, so much as to point out that there was another orthodoxy in the first three centuries that is all but ignored today in favor of a later orthodoxy.

But you did not do that! I posted a quote from and linked to the Catholic Encyclopedia online. What you quoted is not from the Catholic Encyclopedia. My guess is you copy/pasted the list of quotes from some website assuming that the information is correct. I have seen those quotes before. I suggest that you consult the primary sources not second hand "quotes" from questionable websites.

 

[younglite]

Thanks for guessing, but you guessed wrong. It's from the 1967 edition, volume 14, p.299.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/8558275.New_Catholic_Encyclopedia_14_299_

I forgot to post the reference in the previous post, but have edited it accordingly.

 

[Der Alte]

Thanks for guessing, but you guessed wrong. It's from the 1967 edition, volume 14, p.299.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/8558275.New_Catholic_Encyclopedia_14_299_

I forgot to post the reference in the previous post, but have edited it accordingly.

Then we have us a problem. The original Catholic Encyclopedia I quoted from and linked to does not say what the brief excerpt you posted says. But here is that brief excerpt in-context. Your quote in blue. That is why I suggested you quote from the primary source rather than a second hand quote from a questionable online source.

"Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism: From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. ... From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. ... If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins.(New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)​

 

[younglite]

I'm not sure what you're driving at, Der Alter. I agree with the whole context. Unlike other "oneness" religions, I believe in the Trinity. I have already quoted Theophilus, who was the first to use the term "trias" (Trinity) in his writings. Tertullian later used the term "Trinitas." But they taught that the Trinity applied to the essence of God, or as your quote above states - Elemental Trinitarianism. I agree with both of them, as well as your quote above.

The context of this entire paragraph speaks of those who think the Trinity is a later fabrication of later church fathers. I don't believe that, so this context certainly doesn't apply to me. Where we part ways - I assume - is that most Trinitarians believe a later "All are equal" dogma, whereas I believe in the earlier "True God" dogma of subordinationism in the Trinity as the earliest church fathers taught.

Even if you took this quote away, my point still stands that there was a different view of the Trinity prior to the 4th century.

 

[younglite]

Since Albion left the conversation, I'll ask you and anyone else willing to debate nicely...

1. Will you agree with scholars - ancient and modern - that there was an earlier orthodoxy for 3 centuries up until the formation of the Nicean Creed?
2. Why do you believe a later orthodoxy formed after the Nicean Creed instead of the earliest one?
3. I believe in the Scriptures and early writings that refer to Jesus as God. But please explain why the Father is the only One in Scriptures mentioned as "True God" and the "Most High" God, but these terms are NEVER written about the Son or Spirit? If you disagree, please show me the Scriptures that do so.

 

[Hoghead1]

Scripture, Albion, implies a Trinity, but that is it. It does not provide any definitive working out of the Trinity. You should remember that both the Trinitarians and anti-Trinitarians cited Scripture as their authority. A to the Holy Spirit, Gregory of Nizanzus said that there was great confusion, nobody was sure what it was, God, energy, a creature, some wouldn't say anything at all out of "out of reverence to Scripture, which makes no clear statement."

 

[Hoghead1]

I have moved out of subrodinationism in the trinity, largely because it makes the Father the Boss of bosses and then God, strictly speaking, with the Sin and Spirit being lieutenants sent to do the Father's bidding.

 

[younglite]

While that is a negative spin on it, what's wrong with that if He is a good God?

Due to our finite-ness, God wanted to reveal Himself in a way that wouldn't overwhelm/destroy us. So He became "self-begotten" as the early writers sometimes said. He begat His Reason (Logos-Word) out of Himself, and likely brought forth the Spirit from the Logos as he did Eve from Adam (hinted at, but not clear). In this way, He is now able to reveal Himself to His creation through His Son and Spirit, which are also God in His essence. I see this as a loving act, not some control-hungry God who needs to be the "Boss of bosses." Christ now becomes the Way, Truth and Life and our "Door" to the Father.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

While that is a negative spin on it, what's wrong with that if He is a good God?

Due to our finite-ness, God wanted to reveal Himself in a way that wouldn't overwhelm/destroy us. So He became "self-begotten" as the early writers sometimes said. He begat His Reason (Logos-Word) out of Himself, and likely brought forth the Spirit from the Logos as he did Eve from Adam (hinted at, but not clear). In this way, He is now able to reveal Himself to His creation through His Son and Spirit, which are also God in His essence. I see this as a loving act, not some control-hungry God who needs to be the "Boss of bosses." Christ now becomes the Way, Truth and Life and our "Door" to the Father.

You problem is you take men's opinions over God's word rather than what God's word states about your erroneous belief.

 

[younglite]

Welcome to the forum, BAC1. I have no problem with you having an opinion, but please back it up with specific rebuttals. Like you, I happen to believe God's Word, so it's important to clarify what you mean, Scripture references, etc. in your responses.

 

[Mrs.PGL]

While that is a negative spin on it, what's wrong with that if He is a good God?

Due to our finite-ness, God wanted to reveal Himself in a way that wouldn't overwhelm/destroy us. So He became "self-begotten" as the early writers sometimes said. He begat His Reason (Logos-Word) out of Himself, and likely brought forth the Spirit from the Logos as he did Eve from Adam (hinted at, but not clear). In this way, He is now able to reveal Himself to His creation through His Son and Spirit, which are also God in His essence. I see this as a loving act, not some control-hungry God who needs to be the "Boss of bosses." Christ now becomes the Way, Truth and Life and our "Door" to the Father.

If you want a good picture of the Trinity - Mark 1:9-11. You see Father, Son and Holy Spirit there. blessings

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Welcome to the forum, BAC1. I have no problem with you having an opinion, but please back it up with specific rebuttals. Like you, I happen to believe God's Word, so it's important to clarify what you mean, Scripture references, etc. in your responses.

I believe you're mistaken about me presenting scripture and just because you didn't agree with the ones I posted doesn't mean I didn't back up what I stated. Now because this is a different thread again doesn't mean I haven't backed up my facts through the bible. But on your claim I will post them here once again.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God (Elohim) said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:

Gen 11:7 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:

Exodus 3 : 14 And God answered Moses, I AM THAT I AM. Also he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, before

Abraham was, I am.

Isa 6:8 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:

Deu 4:4 Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is Lord only

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

John 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
14 And that Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw the
glory thereof, as the glory of the only begotten Son of the Father) full of grace and truth.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, and unto us a Son is given: and the government is upon his shoulder, and he shall call his name, Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The prince of peace.

Mark 12:32
Then that Scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth, that there is one God, and that there is none but he,

Romans 3:30
For it is one God, who shall justify circumcision of faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

1 Corinthians 8:4
Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed unto idols, we know
that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

Ephesians 4:6
One God and Father of all, which is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, which is the man Christ Jesus,

John 14:9
Jesus said unto him, I have been so long time with you, and hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me, hath seen my Father: how then sayest thou, Show us thy Father?

Philippians 2:5-7
5 Let the same mind be in you that was even in Christ Jesus,
6 Who being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with

God:
7 But he made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a
servant, and was made like unto men, and was found in shape as a man.

1 Corinthians 8:4
Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

Galatians 3:20
Now a Mediator is not a Mediator of one: but God is one.

 

[younglite]

...just because you didn't agree with the ones I posted...

I can't agree/disagree with something I didn't see.

...because this is a different thread again doesn't mean I haven't backed up my facts through the bible...

Since I don't read all threads, it definitely helps to post in the thread you're commenting on, so thanks for posting those verses.

I agree with every verse you posted. I believe God's Word, as I am confident you do, as well. Where we part ways is that you (I assume) believe that Jesus is both God and "True God." I believe He is God, because what is born of God, is God in essence. But I believe the Father is the only "True God," or "Most High" God. Since that is what this thread is about, I would be grateful if you showed me verses that refer to Jesus as True or Most High. So far, I haven't found any. And the first 3 centuries of Christianity refer to the Father as True God, but only acknowledge the Son as God by way of the Father's substance.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Welcome to the forum, BAC1. I have no problem with you having an opinion, but please back it up with specific rebuttals. Like you, I happen to believe God's Word, so it's important to clarify what you mean, Scripture references, etc. in your responses.

You have made several erroneous claims about the bible leading me to believe you're a mormon please correct me if I'm wrong?

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

I can't agree/disagree with something I didn't see.



Since I don't read all threads, it definitely helps to post in the thread you're commenting on, so thanks for posting those verses.

I agree with every verse you posted. I believe God's Word, as I am confident you do, as well. Where we part ways is that you (I assume) believe that Jesus is both God and "True God." I believe He is God, because what is born of God, is God in essence. But I believe the Father is the only "True God," or "Most High" God. Since that is what this thread is about, I would be grateful if you showed me verses that refer to Jesus as True or Most High. So far, I haven't found any. And the first 3 centuries of Christianity refer to the Father as True God, but only acknowledge the Son as God by way of the Father's substance.

Again I did provide you with many scripture that state without a doubt that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God in three persons that always existed in eternity.