One God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity

[concretecamper]

So your point is not that they needed a later decision to tell them Matthew was inspired text, a part of scripture - but rather to tell them some other writing was not inspired text

same result, look at it either way.

It appears you just made the exact opposite point.

like I said, feel free to look at it either way.

 

[Clare73]

Do you then conclude that God the Son stops existing if the Father no longer has Him proceed to Earth or proceed??

The point in the Creed is that he proceeds from within the Father, that he originates in the Father, and has as long as there has been a Father, and will as long as there will be a Father.
The Creed is about ontology, not about works/mission.

For example God the Son does this for all of creation -
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist

so you would not argue that God the Son or God the Holy Spirit causes God the Father to currently exist --- but you appear to say that God the Father causes God the Son and God the Holy Spirit to currently exist --- like God the Son causes creation to currently exist??

The Son and the Holy Spirit originate in the Father, have existed as long as the Father, and will continue to exist as long as the Father exists.
They originate in the Father, they are not created by the Father.

That does not make them ontologically the same. If I create a many-generations-advanced hologram of a human ... it is still not ontologically the same as a human and it ceases to exist once I shut off the projection.

It makes them the one being, God the Trinity.

The Son and Holy Spirit have existed as long as the Father has existed, and will cease to exist when the Father ceases to exist.

 

[Clare73]

that is the second time you deflected. I know why.

Scripture is the word of God. . .that means it is God's truth. . .that means whatever disagrees with it disagrees with God. . .not getting what your point is.

 

[concretecamper]

Scripture is the word of God. .

no argument from me.

.that means it is God's truth

no argument here

that means whatever disagrees with it disagrees with God.

no argument here

.not getting what your point is

ugh

I am glad you revised your thinking to reflect the truth.

 

[Clare73]

Anything not in agreement with the Bible is, by definition, not true

that ain't the point either.

Are you sure about that?

 

[BobRyan]

The point in the Creed is that he proceeds from within the Father, that he originates in the Father, and has as long as there has been a Father, and will as long as there will be a Father.
The Creed is about ontology, not about works/mission.

The Son and the Holy Spirit originate in the Father, have existed as long as the Father, and will continue to exist as long as the Father exists.
They originate in the Father, they are not created by the Father.
It makes them the one being, God the Trinity.

The Son and Holy Spirit have existed as long as the Father has existed, and will cease to exist when the Father ceases to exist.

One God... but not one person.. rather three persons. Is that compatible with your view?

God - is a higher more complex term than "person".

 

[disciple Clint]

2 Tim 3:16 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is to be used for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Acts 17:11 -- Even Apostolic teaching was tested "sola scriptura"

That is not what either of those scriptures mean and "Sola Scriptura" is no where in the bible nor does the bible at anytime say that it is to be the only source of theology. DO you want to try again?

 

[disciple Clint]

Being God-breathed, the Bible is the one and only judge of all Christian theology (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
What is not in agreement with NT apostolic teaching is in error.

That is not what that passage says or means. At no point does it say scripture is the only source of theology. It says what is there is accurate, not that it is the only accurate source.

 

[honey badger]

I am curious about this phrase:
"... the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,"

Specifically the phrase "proceeds from the Father and the Son."
Not questioning, only seeking. I believe our faith comes from the Word of God and only the word of God. Without the Word, there is no faith. To believe this and have it as an element of faith, I need Word. Do we have "line upon line" or "jot or tittle" that says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? Not picking at words mind you, only looking for rational conclusions based on scriptural evidence.
Thanks!

we are the word/son of God ...

For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He gave to the Son to have life in Himself.

 

[Skye1300]

Thanks that is exactly the kind of response I am looking for.

Do you consider it to be basically the same as "One God in three persons" that we see in the OP?

Yes, to me that means 1 God in 3 persons.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

the same Church that declared the Book of Matthew inspired text is the same Church that says "proceeds from the Father and the Son"

Um...no. Rome was PART of that same church until it left in 1054 AD. That was one of the reasons for the split. It was seen as a violation of Canon VII (431 AD). Rome added "and the son" (filioque) to its liturgical practice in 1014 AD without a Church Council. So it was added over 630 years after the original was written. This is historical fact, anyone can look it up.

 

[The Liturgist]

Acts 13: 33 "God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:

Ps 2:
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.’
​

In Micah 5:2 "“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”

Ps 90:1
LORD (YHWH) , You have been our dwelling place in all generations.
2 Before the mountains were brought forth,
Or ever You had formed the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

we have the same "from everlasting" origin for both the Father and the Son

One of the attributes of God is that He is "eternal" having no beginning.

Heb 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

The Genesis account gives no account of the birth of the king of Salem - so in that sense he can be viewed "as a type" of God the Son - having no beginning.

Indeed, you are correct. As @Clare73 said, the procession of the Holy Ghost is eternal, and the Only Begotten Son and Word of God is eternal, “before all ages” as the Nicene Creed put it. The essential Nicene doctrines in opposition to Arius, summarized by St. Athanasius in On The Incarnation, are that
the Only Begotten Son and Word of God, Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, that He is of One Essence (homoousios) with the Father, and that there never was a time when He was not.

For the contentions of Arius were that Jesus Christ was the first creation of God, that he was God only according to honor but not of one essence with the Father (later, the Arians would fragment into two movements, the moderate, or homoiousios party, which argued He was of like essence to the Father, and the heteroousios party, which argued His essence was different from that of the Father), and that there was a time when He was not, having been created.

Likewise the Macedonianists also known as Pnuematomacchians believed about the Holy Spirit the same errors as the Arians believed about Christ, and consequently at the Council of Constantinople in 381 the Nicene Creed was revised to its current form including many additional details about the Holy Spirit, calling Him the Lord, the Giver of Life, in order to exclude those heresies.

So in calling the Father unoriginate, we are not, God forbid, denying the eternal existence of His Only Begotten Son, the Word of God, or of His Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver Of Life, Who Spoke by the Prophets and together with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified.

Rather, we say the Father is unoriginate because in eternity, outside of time, which by the Word, Jesus Christ, all things were made (John 1:2) including time, which is part of creation and which God being uncreated is not subject to, the Word is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from Him, neither of them being created and neither existing in time or having a beginning and an end, but rather being one God, the Beginning and End. Because they share the divine nature of the Father, all three persons of the Trinity are Alpha and Omega, and are one God, YHWH, which translated means, I am that I am. And Jesus Christ identifies Himself as the one God when He says “Before Abraham was, I am.” The eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit mean they originate eternally from the Father but are all one God, the Beginning and End, Alpha and Omega, and exist in eternity.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have updated my OP to be a bit more explicit..


My main question is about that two step definition
1. ONE God
2. In THREE Persons.

does your definition of "Trinity" - your denomination's definition of the term - include both of those aspects???

Yes. We sing or recite liturgically the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, Quincunque Vult, sometimes called the Athanasian Creed, but this is a misattribution as it postdates St. Athanasius, and also Te Deum Laudamus, Ho Monogenes, the Trisagion Hymn, and Haw Nurone. We do not accept the filioque clause and in reciting the Trisagion we sometimes include the Theopaschite Clause that the Oriental Orthodox always include, as we accept Theopaschitism and believe the Trisagion has both Trinitarian and Christological meaning. We also reject Nestorianism and profess the Blessed Virgin Mary is Theotokos.

 

[The Liturgist]

.

 

[The Liturgist]

The point in the Creed is that he proceeds from within the Father, that he originates in the Father, and has as long as there has been a Father, and will as long as there will be a Father.
The Creed is about ontology, not about works/mission.

The Son and the Holy Spirit originate in the Father, have existed as long as the Father, and will continue to exist as long as the Father exists.
They originate in the Father, they are not created by the Father.
It makes them the one being, God the Trinity.

The Son and Holy Spirit have existed as long as the Father has existed, and will cease to exist when the Father ceases to exist.

Of course, surely you agree that God being the Only God, eternal and the sole Creator of all things including spacetime has always existed and will always exist, now and ever and unto the ages of all ages. For without God, nothing could exist or have ever existed or would ever exist in any reality, for there would be no reality without God to create it.

 

[Andrewn]

The Nicene Creed was modified and approved in the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 831 AD. According to the Creed:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father.

For the purpose of this discussion, I will ignore the later Catholic addition.

In post #62, @SavedByGrace3 made the prudent observation that it could either mean 'proceeds from the presence of the Father' or 'proceeds out of the being of the Father.'

I responded in post #64 by explaining that John 15:26 is talking about ontological procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Indeed, the term 'ekporeuomai (G1607)' means goes out from or flows from.

In post #73, @The Liturgist further explained that "The son is said to be begotten of the Father before all worlds, and the Spirit proceeds from the father."

In post #70, however, @Clare73 introduced confusion by comparing the term 'exerchomai (G1831)' which indicated procession from the presence, rather than the being, of the Father.

And in post #72, @BobRyan introduced further confusion by comparing the term 'exapostellō (G1821)' which means sent as a messenger.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Nicene Creed was modified and approved in the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 831 AD. According to the Creed:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father.

For the purpose of this discussion, I will ignore the later Catholic addition.

In post #62, @SavedByGrace3 made the prudent observation that it could either mean 'proceeds from the presence of the Father' or 'proceeds out of the being of the Father.'

I responded in post #64 by explaining that John 15:26 is talking about ontological procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Indeed, the term 'ekporeuomai (G1607)' means goes out from or flows from.

In post #73, @The Liturgist further explained that "The son is said to be begotten of the Father before all worlds, and the Spirit proceeds from the father."

In post #70, however, @Clare73 introduced confusion by comparing the term 'exerchomai (G1831)' which indicated procession from the presence, rather than the being, of the Father.

And in post #77, @BobRyan introduced further confusion by comparing the term 'exapostellō (G1821)' which means sent as a messenger.

Indeed, we should perhaps disambiguate on those points.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

That is really reassuring to have confirmation from you on that and it establishes Ellen White as a great Trinitarian.

Now, while I support free speech and the member in question - it is of course axiomatic they can post as they wish, but they did make your church look bad, so if I find that thread I can PM a link to you so you can post a clarification, for their edification in SDA doctrine, and for the benefit of the SDA church.

By the way back in late 2018 I bought an amazing recording from the Ukrainian SDA Choir, well before the current horrible war, which is of exquisite quality, and its the only recording in my vast library of Church Slavonic hymns that features 18th century Ukrainian composer Dimitri Bortniansky’s 5th and 6th setting of the Cherubic hymns as well as the 7th. Every other recording I have only has setting no. 7, which is the most popular. That is the hymn that goes “We who mystically represent the cherubim now set aside our worldly cares” and is used in the Byzantine Rite divine liturgies, except for that of St. James, which uses the hymn “Let all mortal flesh keep silent”, and also the Vesperal Divine Liturgy on Holy Saturday, and is commonly used by Protestant churches, set to the chorale tune “Picardy.” I think I have seen it in an older SDA hymnal in that version but am not sure.

Yes, it would be good to produce the post you are referring to instead of saying some SDA said this or that. . . Like BobRyan stated we have some posters on this site that don’t believe in the church beliefs but identify themselves as SDA’s and while it is often confusing to others, no one can control what others do and I am sure this happens in many if not all churches. That’s why one should always go to the statement of beliefs on the church’s official website, if wanting to know what a denomination believes in.

 

[concretecamper]

Um...no. Rome was PART of that same church until it left in 1054 AD. That was one of the reasons for the split. It was seen as a violation of Canon VII (431 AD). Rome added "and the son" (filioque) to its liturgical practice in 1014 AD without a Church Council. So it was added over 630 years after the original was written. This is historical fact, anyone can look it up.

so? Doesn't negate my post that you responded to.

 

[Clare73]

It means that every truth must be in agreement with the Bible, or it is not divine truth.

you make a claim that the Bible never claims, funny isn't it.

You disagreed with mine above. . .

Scripture is the word of God. . .
that means it is God's truth. . .
that means whatever disagrees with it disagrees with God. . .

no argument from me.
no argument here
no argument here

But you agree with mine above. . .

not getting what your point is.

ugh

I am glad you revised your thinking to reflect the truth.

Not cool. . .

Or is it you that has revised their thinking?