God: Triune or Unipersonal?

[Monergism]

I would like to say that I am searching for information, truth, and the history of the early church. I am here to find out, and hopefully gain responses from people who know more about the early church than I. Now, we cannot find out as to whether or not the Apostles believed in a Trinity or a unipersonal God, let alone, modalistic in nature. Please keep in mind that while Sabellianism and Modalism were condemned, some people hold to this thought to this day. What is the earliest writings that we can find that speak of God as Trinity or unipersonal? I ask this question, because if anything, the early church believed that Christ was God, and they were monotheistic in their beliefs.

I suppose we could find hints of binitarianism, but there was no council or synod at the time that established the doctrine of the Trinity. Some even had their own thoughts. For example, the church condemned subordinationism. This is to say that they condemned the belief that Jesus was inferior to the Father. However, Origen had this thought in mind (as well as other heretical teachings, such as universalism). Who is right to say that there is a Trinity as both Catholic and Protestant would say? Or who is to say that God is not unipersonal, as the Pentecostals would say? I am very much in search for this truth. I had read an article that concerned the Trinity, and how the early church did not believe in it, but rather, a "oneness" of God. Of course, there were no names mentioned of this, and the names that did believe in a "oneness," such as Aristides, he was said to have moved away from the "oneness" and ready to see the Father and Son as two different persons.

Could this really be seen as proof for a "oneness," especially if, as far as I know, there is no written text of such thought? Right now, I am in a situation between wondering if there is a triune or unipersonal God. Until then, I will have to say that I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that He is God, for "whatever is begotten of God is God" (Irenaeus of Lyons). But, right now, while I believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that Christianity is monotheistic, I will have to hold only to these beliefs and not think of anything else. In other words, while I'll commit to myself to both monotheism and the Deity of Christ, I will make no effort yet, to reconcile the two.

I implore anyone and everyone who knows of the Patristic Era better than I, that I may find the truth and believe in it, and believe in it in "truth and in spirit" (John 4:24). Thank you for your time.

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

A question that I had in the back of my mind for along time is when the early church consider Yeshua/Jesus as god? The term, itself, the son of god, was widely used during biblical times in Grecian culture by Roman rulers. But it had to be narrowed down to Paul´s writings or to 1st and 2nd Ct because later the church was more or less led by gentiles, who were thoroughy educated in Grecian philosophy and some of them tried to tied it to their understanding of who Jesus was in His divine and human nature. Plus, the fact, they were trying to distant themselves from the Jewish roots.

My conclusion so far after couple of yrs of study this is: (I will not list scripture or references because it would take too long)

YHWH the Father cannot be seen because He is Spirit. Yeshua, in His pre-existence, the Word of God, created everything...you know, in the beginning. Yeshua/Jesus, the son, is the only who has seen the Father. So the LORD, Adonai/YHWH of OT scriptures is Jesus in His pre-existence. He pre-existed until the time came that everything was to be fulfilled...Galatians.

It is interesting that the Aramaic word "Milta" (Greek for Logos/Word) in some Aramaic versions will not translate it as "Word" because Milta means much more such as fire, idea, mind, thought, plan. One could say that YHWH thought, or had in His mind the plan; The
Word/Logos spoke; and the Holy Spirit created....can see that in Gen 1:2 where the Holy Spirit hovered over the waters..

I know there may be finer points to talk about, but must save it for much later when there is more time to post.
So the proof that Jesus was god according to Paul is Romans 1:4. Jewish writings had alot to say about the world of angels, and the pre-existence of Messiah, etc.

Shalom, David.

 

[isshinwhat]

"Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,13A.D. 155),in ANF,I:166-167

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/triune.htm

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I would like to say that I am searching for information, truth, and the history of the early church. I am here to find out, and hopefully gain responses from people who know more about the early church than I. Now, we cannot find out as to whether or not the Apostles believed in a Trinity or a unipersonal God, let alone, modalistic in nature.

I own and have been reading the Church Fathers (I recommend them highly), so I think I can help you a little bit with a few quotes.

Justin Martyr was Platonic philosopher who converted to Christianity. He and a number of companions were martyred for the faith in the 160s. He wrote the following items in the 150s.

This is from Justin Martyr’s First Apology:
Chapter XXXII: And what is spoken of as "the blood of the grape," signifies that He who should appear would have blood, though not of the seed of man, but of the power of God. And the first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word, who is also the Son; and of Him we will, in what follows, relate how He took flesh and became man.

In Chapters 37,38 and 39 Justine speaks of the “person” of the Father (37) in 38 he speaks of the “person” of the son and in 39 Justine speaks of the Spirit as “He” and differentiated from Father and Son.

In Chapter LXI on the subject of baptism we read, “For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.”

In chapter LXIII of his first Apology Justin Martyr said this about modalistic teachings “For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.”

This is from Justin Martyr’s Second Apology:
Chapter VI: But these words, Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all things through Him…

Now let’s look at Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. In this book Justine is speaking to Trypho and his companions, all of who are Jews. Main thrust of the book is to show them that Jesus is the Christ and He is truly God. There is much in the book that is clearly Trinitarian in its thrust. I would especially point to Chapter CXXIX. In this Chapter Justin is pointing out that the Old Testament Scriptures show that there is a plurality of being in the one true God.

Athenagoras wrote A Plea for the Christians to Emperor Marcus Aurelius around 177 AD.

Here or some items from this work.
Chapter III: But, since our doctrine acknowledges one God, the Maker of this universe, who is Himself uncreated (for that which is does not come to be, but that which is not) but has made all things by the Logos which is from Him, we are treated unreasonably in both respects, in that we are both defamed and persecuted.

Chapter X is a great example of an early attempt to explain the plurality and unity of the true God of the Christians. Athenagoras says “That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being--I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God.” And then he says, “The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?”

I am about out of time, but I can add more when I have a few more minutes to spare.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Here is an article written a few of years back. You may find it helpful: The Trinity in the Old Testament

I will be happy to help more if I can.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[TruthMiner]

I would like to say that I am searching for information, truth, and the history of the early church. I am here to find out, and hopefully gain responses from people who know more about the early church than I. Now, we cannot find out as to whether or not the Apostles believed in a Trinity or a unipersonal God, let alone, modalistic in nature. Please keep in mind that while Sabellianism and Modalism were condemned, some people hold to this thought to this day. What is the earliest writings that we can find that speak of God as Trinity or unipersonal?

The earliest documents that speak of the ONE God as three persons is the fourth century.

Tertuallian for example, does NOT comprehend Father, Son and HS to be one the one God.

While the word "trinity" (trinitas, trias) has been used since the 2nd century, the word did not then imply a doctrine of a God of three persons. The word then was used to denote the threeness between Father, Son, and HS, which even a JW could accept. In other words, it was a term to denote this particular trio of beings but did not imply these three were together to be identified as the one God.

I ask this question, because if anything, the early church believed that Christ was God,

Did they believe Christ was God or did they believe Christ was god?

The first statement alludes to identity, the second to nature. having the nature of Adam does not make me Adam by identity does it?

and they were monotheistic in their beliefs.


I suppose we could find hints of binitarianism, but there was no council or synod at the time that established the doctrine of the Trinity. Some even had their own thoughts. For example, the church condemned subordinationism.

When?

This is to say that they condemned the belief that Jesus was inferior to the Father.

Tertuallian taught it explicitly.

However, Origen had this thought in mind (as well as other heretical teachings, such as universalism). Who is right to say that there is a Trinity as both Catholic and Protestant would say? Or who is to say that God is not unipersonal, as the Pentecostals would say?

Oneness Pentecostals. Many (most actually) Pentecostals are Trinitarian.

I am very much in search for this truth. I had read an article that concerned the Trinity, and how the early church did not believe in it, but rather, a "oneness" of God. Of course, there were no names mentioned of this, and the names that did believe in a "oneness," such as Aristides, he was said to have moved away from the "oneness" and ready to see the Father and Son as two different persons.

The early church did not have any notion that God was three persons. Trinitarians however do not wish to accept this reality and would rather see things in their writings which aren't there.

Could this really be seen as proof for a "oneness," especially if, as far as I know, there is no written text of such thought? Right now, I am in a situation between wondering if there is a triune or unipersonal God.

Here's a wild idea. Maybe the one God is simply and only the Father of Jesus Christ.

Until then, I will have to say that I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that He is God, for "whatever is begotten of God is God" (Irenaeus of Lyons).

Are you sure Irenaeus didn't write, "whatever is begotten of God is god"?... meaning whatever is begotten of the one true God is therefore divine by nature.

Irenaeus didn't know anything about capitalization conventions.

 

[Monergism]

The earliest documents that speak of the ONE God as three persons is the fourth century.

Tertuallian for example, does NOT comprehend Father, Son and HS to be one the one God.

While the word "trinity" (trinitas, trias) has been used since the 2nd century, the word did not then imply a doctrine of a God of three persons. The word then was used to denote the threeness between Father, Son, and HS, which even a JW could accept. In other words, it was a term to denote this particular trio of beings but did not imply these three were together to be identified as the one God.

Then what, my friend, do you suppose the word "person" (Lat. persona, lit. "mask") meant? For would Tertullian have said anything of the persons being distincti non divisi (distinct yet not divided), if he had not spoken of them as three persons in one substance? Please tell me this.

Did they believe Christ was God or did they believe Christ was god?

The first statement alludes to identity, the second to nature. having the nature of Adam does not make me Adam by identity does it?

It looks like you have been to a site that uses such an example, an example of which I have seen while searching for the truth. Or, you could be the owner of the site. Now, to ask me if Christians believed that Christ was God or that Christ was "god" is a play of what we call "semantics." I'm sure you've heard of such word. Let me guess? You checked up on a website that said, "The Trinity on Trial," or something of the sort. Perhaps you have read that Christians today go about saying that "Jesus is God," and that we have two meanings of this, thus, we are being deceptive. But who is being deceptive, really? If one is, by nature, god, then they are entitled to be called "God." If not, then what should God be called? Furthermore, we are not speaking of two different human beings, are we? Anyway, it is not like I am in support of either the unipersonal or Trinitarian thought right now, so it is not as if my beliefs will be tarnished. You see, while I have nothing to lose, you might have something to lose.

So, let us go through this then, shall we? You ask if Christians believed that Jesus was God or if Jesus was god. Again, this is semantics, for if the word "God" is a title, an identification, then God the Father, a Biblical word, is simply nothing more than an identity. But, my friend, what have you missed is this. If one is, by nature, a deity, then they are to be identified as "God," or "Deity," for that is their very nature. For if I am a descendant of Adam, and though I am not identified as "Adam," I still am, nevertheless, Adam in nature, and so can be called "Adam." This nature is called "human." Even so, Christ is known as another "Adam," for He took upon Himself a human nature, though not subject to the flesh, that is, the sinful nature. Again, one is a name, while the other is a nature. So if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, they are indeed "God" or "god," as to whichever you may choose to give or not give a capitalization. As if the title "God" really was anything that mattered, except to see it as one person puts it, "a job description." But, I suppose we miss the real thought, and that it would be better to use the Hebrew word, rather than the English word for God, which would be YHWH. And so, if the Father is YHWH, and if the Son is the Son of the Father, who is YHWH, He would then, by nature, be YHWH. If YHWH is a name and not a nature, then what are the Father and the Son? Who should they be identified as by nature?

Even though I said we are not speaking of two human beings, I want to demonstrate the nature. To place it another way, which is, no doubt, an observable truth, when a man and a woman procreate, they bear a child. That child is by nature, a human. The mother and father are both human. The child, who is a son, is a human by nature, though he is identified as "child" or "son." Nevertheless, this does not give alteration to his nature, for his nature is human, just as the father and mother's nature is human. Thus, there substance, nature, or kind are no different. The only difference is their role. The father ranks above in the home, and the mother is below the father, but above the child. The father and mother are above the child, though the child is the same nature as the father and mother. The words "father," "mother," and "son" are merely identifications, yet again, there is no alteration in nature, which is manhood.

If you identify that "God" is a title while "god" is a nature, you really make no difference. And it should be known that Christ, if He is God as title, or god as substance or nature, really makes no difference, since there is only one God, not two. For He would have the very nature of deity, despite the differences in title. For if this is the case, and if we call the Father, God, the Son, God, and the Holy Spirit, God, we attribute such a title upon all three. Yet, if we call the Father, god, and the Son, god, as well as the Spirit, god, we attribute with them all a nature of deity. So then, therefore, if capitalization does indeed make a difference, I should then call the Father, god, since that is, according to you, His nature, not His title.

When?

I believe that it would be considered at the first emunical council at Nicea.

Tertuallian taught it explicitly.

Yes, it seems noticeable that some of these Christians did teach some form of subordinationism. Yet, I am not one who wants to step on that Christian's toes. For what I desire to know is the Christological teachings of early church fathers, such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Hermas, Papias, to name a few. I suppose I will never come to a conclusion, and so believe that Christ is Deity, yet be monotheistic and never reconcile the two thoughts.

The early church did not have any notion that God was three persons. Trinitarians however do not wish to accept this reality and would rather see things in their writings which aren't there.

Perhaps not, but this is why I am trying to go far back. Even if early Christians saw Jesus as the Logos, not a person, but the very Word or Reason of God.

Here's a wild idea. Maybe the one God is simply and only the Father of Jesus Christ.

And if He is the Father of Jesus, then what does that make Jesus, my friend?

Are you sure Irenaeus didn't write, "whatever is begotten of God is god"?... meaning whatever is begotten of the one true God is therefore divine by nature.

Like it matters, really. According to your thought, you would see Irenaeus as saying, "Whatever is begotten of God (the title) is god (the nature)."

Irenaeus didn't know anything about capitalization conventions.

And you don't know the cure for pride, but you don't see people jiving you, do you? The cure for pride, by the way, is humility. Learn to use it when you're in a discussion instead of being condescending towards those whom you seem to have a distaste for.

 

[isshinwhat]

""Next, I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partitive subsistences and god-heads three. I am told that some among you who are catechists and teachers of the Divine Word, take the lead in this tenet, who are diametrically opposed, so to speak, to Sabellius's opinions; for he blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and the Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Monad into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate. For it must needs be that with the God of the Universe, the Divine Word is united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God; thus in one as in a summit, I mean the God of the Universe, must the Divine Triad be gathered up and brought together. For it is the doctrine of the presumptuous Marcion, to sever and divide the Divine Monarchy into three origins,--a devil's teaching, not that of Christ's true disciples and lovers of the Saviour's lessons, For they know well that a Triad is preached by divine Scripture, but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods. Equally must one censure those who hold the: Son to be a work, and consider that the Lord has come into being, as one of things which really came to be; whereas the divine oracles witness to a generation suitable to Him and becoming, but not to any fashioning or making. A blasphemy then is it, not ordinary, but even the highest, to say that the Lord is in any sort a handiwork. For if He came to be Son, once He was not; but He was always, if (that is) He be in the Father, as He says Himself, and if the Christ be Word and Wisdom and Power (which, as ye know, divine Scripture says), and these attributes be powers of God. If then the Son came into being, once these attributes were not; consequently there was a time, when God was without them; which is most absurd. And why say more on these points to you, men full of the Spirit and well aware of the absurdities which come to view from saying that the Son is a work? Not attending, as I consider, to this circumstance, the authors of this opinion have entirely missed the truth, in explaining, contrary to the sense of divine and prophetic Scripture in the passage, the words, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works .' For the sense of He created, as ye know, is not one, for we must understand 'He created' in this place, as 'He set over the works made by Him,' that is, mode by the Son Himself.' And 'He created' here must not be taken for 'made,' for creating differs from making. 'Is not He thy Father that hath bought thee? hath He not made thee and created thee?' says Moses in his great song in Deuteronomy. And one may Say to them, O reckless men, is He a work, who is 'the First-born of every creature, who is born from the womb before the morning star,' who said, as Wisdom, 'Before all the hills He begets me?' And in many passages of the divine oracles is the Son said to have been s generated, but nowhere to have come into being; which manifestly convicts those of misconception about the Lord's generation, who presume to call His divine and ineffable generation a making. Neither then may we divide into three Godheads the wonderful and divine Monad; nor disparage with the name of 'work' the dignity and exceeding majesty of the Lord; but we must believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and hold that to the God of the universe the Word is united. For 'I,' says He, 'and the Father are one; 'and, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me.' For thus both the Divine Triad, and the holy preaching of the Monarchy, will be preserved."
Pope Dionysius[regn 260-268],to Dionysius of Alexandria,fragment in Athanasius' Nicene Definition 26(A.D. 262),in NPNF2,IV:167-168

 

[davidoffinland]

The early church did not have any notion that God was three persons. Trinitarians however do not wish to accept this reality and would rather see things in their writings which aren't there.

From Finland.

Some times I wonder if it would be better to say 3 "essence" of the One God, instead of 3 "persons". This is the confusion in many minds...thinking of 3 individual persons instead of the One G-D revealing Himself through the Word and Spirit. It is something I have thought about.

Forgot to mention that Ariel ben-lyman has a 3 part pdf lesson on the Shema at:

http://www.graftedin.com/moreLessons.html Scroll down to the middle to find.

Shalom, David.

 

[JVAC]

I must speak up for St Ignatius of Antioch (?-110 AD). St Ignatius' theology gave each person of the trinity a distinct role in the church: "prepared for the edifice of God the Father, to be taken aloft by the hoisting engine of Jesus Christ, that is, the Cross, while the Holy Ghost serves you as a rope" (Epistle to the Ephesians, ch 9). Also, he referst to Jesus as God (Epistle to the Ephesians ch 7). Also it must be noted that St Ignatius continually talks about one God. It is in the writings of Ignatius that one can see a very early concept of the triune nature of God.

-James

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

Some one emailed this to me in their understanding of the Trinity. It is deserves some thought.

Quote: The Triune God, is comprised of the Father: The Mind of God, who conceives and designs all that is.

The Son: The Wisdon of God, that forms the physical universe.

The Ruach HaKodesh(the Holy Spirit): The life of God, that infuses life into all things in the universe.

The Peshitta on John 1:1: "In the beginning, the Milta was, and the Milta was with God, and the Milta is God."
A Midash text says: Before all things, the Mind of God was in exisence; it originated with God and is in fact God Himself. The Aramaic word in the Peshitta is "Milta" and rarely translaed as "Word" because it means so much more (fire, idea, mind, thought, plan, etc.) Unquote.

Shalom, David.

 

[Monergism]

I must speak up for St Ignatius of Antioch (?-110 AD). St Ignatius' theology gave each person of the trinity a distinct role in the church: "prepared for the edifice of God the Father, to be taken aloft by the hoisting engine of Jesus Christ, that is, the Cross, while the Holy Ghost serves you as a rope" (Epistle to the Ephesians, ch 9). Also, he referst to Jesus as God (Epistle to the Ephesians ch 7). Also it must be noted that St Ignatius continually talks about one God. It is in the writings of Ignatius that one can see a very early concept of the triune nature of God.

-James

Ignatius of Antioch may have held the view known as "economic Trinity." In other words, Theophorus (another name for Ignatius) believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had different roles. I do not know if it is possible, but perhaps you could show me if any early church father held an ontological view of the Trinity, which speaks of the essence or nature of God. The ontological Trinity shows who God is, while the economic Trinity shows what God does in the redemptive history.

 

[Monergism]

From Finland.

Some one emailed this to me in their understanding of the Trinity. It is deserves some thought.

Quote: The Triune God, is comprised of the Father: The Mind of God, who conceives and designs all that is.

The Son: The Wisdon of God, that forms the physical universe.

The Ruach HaKodesh(the Holy Spirit): The life of God, that infuses life into all things in the universe.

The Peshitta on John 1:1: "In the beginning, the Milta was, and the Milta was with God, and the Milta is God."
A Midash text says: Before all things, the Mind of God was in exisence; it originated with God and is in fact God Himself. The Aramaic word in the Peshitta is "Milta" and rarely translaed as "Word" because it means so much more (fire, idea, mind, thought, plan, etc.) Unquote.

Shalom, David.

It is interesting that the word "fire" may be used. It is interesting to me, because there was a man named Heraclitus who associated the Logos with fire.

 

[JVAC]

Ignatius of Antioch may have held the view known as "economic Trinity." In other words, Theophorus (another name for Ignatius) believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had different roles. I do not know if it is possible, but perhaps you could show me if any early church father held an ontological view of the Trinity, which speaks of the essence or nature of God. The ontological Trinity shows who God is, while the economic Trinity shows what God does in the redemptive history.

I don't know if your analysis is entirely true of Ignatius' theology (and seeing how we have few records, it might be impossible to difinitively know one way or the other). Ignatius talks much about the present state of God. He refers to the present actions of each person of the Trinity. One cannot limit Ignatius' trinitarian theology to salvation history, but must see in it salvation's pressence. Ignatius is centered on the immediacy of it all, for him all three persons were immediate and active and yet there is but one God.

-James

 

[Monergism]

I don't know if your analysis is entirely true of Ignatius' theology (and seeing how we have few records, it might be impossible to difinitively know one way or the other).

Well, all I am saying is that making God present as three persons to speak of what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit did does not necessarily refer to the ontological Trinity. Remember, I have put aside all my Trinitarian thoughts, as well as the thoughts of those Pentecostals. So, I have neither side to agree with yet. I am still searching for what the early church believed in concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For all we know, they could have been Binitarians and associated the Holy Spirit with either the Father or Son, so that, if the Father is God, then then Holy Spirit may be called "Spirit of God." And if that is the same truth for the Son, Jesus Christ, then the term from the Bible, "Spirit of Christ" may be used. But either way, even the Trinitarian thought can support this idea with the thought of "and the Son." In other words, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and so, even though the Holy Spirit is called the "Spirit of Christ," it can really refer to, "Spirit from Christ."

Ignatius talks much about the present state of God. He refers to the present actions of each person of the Trinity. One cannot limit Ignatius' trinitarian theology to salvation history, but must see in it salvation's pressence.

How do you know that he speaks of the present actions of each person of the Trinity? And why do you say that one "cannot" limit Ignatius' Trinitarian theology to redemptive history, but must see a redemptive presence? Surely one can! But, do your ideas come from a preconceived notion of the Trinity, or are you trying to really figure out, with a new open mind as to what the early church believed in, and so to see if it leads to a Trinitarian, rather than Unitarian thought?

Ignatius is centered on the immediacy of it all, for him all three persons were immediate and active and yet there is but one God.

May you show me this? And what shall you say of Polycarp and/or Irenaeus? What I must find out is if whether or not they held at least a Pentecostal thought. And if they did not, then what did they hold? And were they subordinationists? And if so, was it ontological (which would be contrary to Trinitarian thought) or economical (which would be in harmony with Trinitarian thought, even though some Trinitarians are trying to rid of this thought)?

-With sincerity in finding the truth,
Monergism

 

[Atlantians]

Some times I wonder if it would be better to say 3 "essence" of the One God, instead of 3 "persons". This is the confusion in many minds...thinking of 3 individual persons instead of the One G-D revealing Himself through the Word and Spirit. It is something I have thought about.

I must reconcile this to you.

I would state it thusly:
God is One.

Jesus is God and Holy Spirit is God
and together with the Father they are One.

We recognize three personalities here, three personal identies, three persons as it were, and thus he is One God as Three Persons, eternally equal and coexistent, and each eternal and self-existent.

All in and of One. One in and of All.

One what(God, essense of nature being God) three whos(Father, Son, Spirit, each being personal in identity).

 

[Atlantians]

Well, all I am saying is that making God present as three persons to speak of what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit did does not necessarily refer to the ontological Trinity. Remember, I have put aside all my Trinitarian thoughts, as well as the thoughts of those Pentecostals. So, I have neither side to agree with yet. I am still searching for what the early church believed in concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For all we know, they could have been Binitarians and associated the Holy Spirit with either the Father or Son, so that, if the Father is God, then then Holy Spirit may be called "Spirit of God." And if that is the same truth for the Son, Jesus Christ, then the term from the Bible, "Spirit of Christ" may be used. But either way, even the Trinitarian thought can support this idea with the thought of "and the Son." In other words, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and so, even though the Holy Spirit is called the "Spirit of Christ," it can really refer to, "Spirit from Christ."

If the Holy Spirit were not an individual, why would Christ make the destinction between himself and the Spirit?
Why, furthermore, would the Epistles of the Apostles reffer to the Spirit as 'he' if he himself was not seperate as 'he'.

 

[dazzlefaeri]

to that

 

[dorcus]

How do we get beyond Deut 6:4? Did the Hebrew children not believe in one god? Did God not say in Exodus 20:2 I am the lord thy god, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,... It doesn't say We are the lord it says I am. Jesus said unto them, verily verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am John 5:58. If Jesus is eternal how could god be his father? Something eternal doesn't have a beginning. Also Colossians 2:15 tells us "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily." The Tyndale study bible states "Again, Paul asserts Christ's deity. All the fulness of the godhead bodily translates in Christ there is all of God in a human body(pg 2101). I believe there is one god who functions in three ways.

 

[mythbuster]

Big Dave,

How about this: God is essentially one but three in His economy.
God in Christ as the Spirit reaches us so that we can enjoy Him, be one with Him, drink Him, be constituted with Him.

He then transforms us during the course of our life into living stones for His building, His purpose, the New Jerusalem.

The Son with the Father breathed Himself as the Spirit into us, to be one with us.

This is our intimate relationship with God, the wonderful triune God.

Rock of ages cleft for me.

We now can drink Him as the Spirit, the blessing of Abraham.

We love God.

Shalom