The Distinction of Persons in The Holy Trinity

[justbyfaith]

God the Father Yahweh + God the Son Yeshua + God the Holy Spirit = 3 Gods...in union...in unity...a Godhead.
But not one in will, not one in mind, not one in presence. Three full fledged Gods sitting on three thrones.

Grailhunter’s Corner

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all one Spirit.

There is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4); the Father (John 4:23-24), the Son (Ephesians 3:17, Colossians 1:27, 1 John 5:12), and the Holy Ghost (John 7:39, 2 Timothy 1:14).

There is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5); the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21), the Son (1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 12:3), and the Holy Ghost (2 Corinthians 3:17).

There is one God (Ephesians 4:6); the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6, Romans 15:6, James 3:9 (kjv)), the Son (Hebrews 1:8-9; Exodus 3:14, John 8:58; John 8:59, John 10:31-33), and the Holy Ghost (Acts of the Apostles 5:3-4, Romans 8:26-27).

There are not nine members in the Trinity.

But in saying all of this, I am being obedient to the following.

Tit 2:1, But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

In understanding these things, you will come to a proper understanding when you read Ephesians 4:4-6 and 1 Corinthians 12:4-6.

 

[Grailhunter]

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all one Spirit.

There is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4); the Father (John 4:23-24), the Son (Ephesians 3:17, Colossians 1:27, 1 John 5:12), and the Holy Ghost (John 7:39, 2 Timothy 1:14).

There is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5); the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21), the Son (1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 12:3), and the Holy Ghost (2 Corinthians 3:17).

There is one God (Ephesians 4:6); the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6, Romans 15:6, James 3:9 (kjv)), the Son (Hebrews 1:8-9), and the Holy Ghost (Acts of the Apostles 5:3-4, Romans 8:26-27).

There are not nine members in the Trinity.

But in saying all of this, I am being obedient to the following.

Tit 2:1, But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

In understanding these things, you will come to a proper understanding when you read Ephesians 4:4-6 and 1 Corinthians 12:4-6.

LOL

 

[Grailhunter]

LOL

God bless ya JBF....

 

[DNB]

God the Father Yahweh + God the Son Yeshua + God the Holy Spirit = 3 Gods...in union...in unity...a Godhead.
But not one in will, not one in mind, not one in presence. Three full fledged Gods sitting on three thrones.

Grailhunter’s Corner

You're a polytheist!

 

[Randy Kluth]

But, it is extremely abstract and incoherent, there is not a single trinitarian apologist or theologian, who has ever claimed to understand it throughout history, not one!

You're confusing make rational explanations for a phenomena with admission that dealing with a transcendent subject must remain impossible to fully grasp. Of course nobody can fully understand Deity! This does not mean that the Trinity is irrational. And obviously, most scholars would claim to have a rational explanation for it--otherwise, they would not believe it.

For, the notion of a god-man is absolutely preposterous: every attribute that defines divinity, is antithetical to those that define humanity. One is immortal, the other mortal, one is immaterial, the other corporeal, one is transcendent, the other secular, one is infallible and holy, the other fallible and corrupt, etc...
I do not hold that the man-made ecumenical councils are either inspired or authoritative, irrespective of the subject matter.

Well then, you've made your choice. I have no further concern to explain anything to you. Understanding Deity requires accepting a proposition He gives you. If you refuse, you will not experience Him in a way sufficient to know Him as one needs to explain the experience.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have one name, Matthew 28:19.

Peter was not being disobedient in Acts of the Apostles 2:38....therein He baptized in the name of the Father even of the Son even of the Holy Ghost.

The Name of Deity is Yahweh, or Jehovah. He is the "I Am." The self-existent Deity. Since all 3 Persons of the Trinity are Yahweh, and share the same Name, their personal distinctions as Father, Son, and Spirit reflect their dissimilarities, as compared with the unifying element of having the one Name.

In other words, the 3 Persons of the Trinity have both distinct names and a common association with the one Name. There is no contradiction in this, since the 3 Persons are all Divine. They have different functions and interrelate with one another. As such, they are distinct Persons within the one God.

As I regularly say, the infinite God is perfectly capable of expressing, by His Word, His own personhood within the finite world. Since finite representations of God fit within the jurisdiction of the infinite God, there is no contradiction. God is simply expressing His personhood in creative ways.

But it is important to recognize that when God revealed Himself as a man within the finite world, that man became a distinct person within the Deity, necessarily distinguishing Himself from other expressions of God.

The Spirit is distinguished by His appearance in local territories, even though God's Spirit is omnipresent. As such, the Spirit must also have a distinct expression of God's personhood, in contrast with other expressions of God's personhood within the finite universe.

 

[DNB]

You're confusing make rational explanations for a phenomena with admission that dealing with a transcendent subject must remain impossible to fully grasp. Of course nobody can fully understand Deity! This does not mean that the Trinity is irrational. And obviously, most scholars would claim to have a rational explanation for it--otherwise, they would not believe it.

Sorry, I know that you closed the conversation, but i just had to ask. Does your above statement not contradict itself?
Can one have a rational explanation for something, without understanding it? That's patently impossible!

I think that you're confusing the fact that man can and does know God, as we are created in His image, and as we are exhorted to be like Him (be Holy, as I am Holy). What we don't understand is simply the magnitude of His perfection, very big difference. It seems that the trinitarians appeal to man being finite, allows yourselves to say anything that you want about God, irrespective of how irrational and contradictory it is.

 

[justbyfaith]

The Name of Deity is Yahweh, or Jehovah. He is the "I Am." The self-existent Deity. Since all 3 Persons of the Trinity are Yahweh, and share the same Name, their personal distinctions as Father, Son, and Spirit reflect their dissimilarities, as compared with the unifying element of having the one Name.

In other words, the 3 Persons of the Trinity have both distinct names and a common association with the one Name. There is no contradiction in this, since the 3 Persons are all Divine. They have different functions and interrelate with one another. As such, they are distinct Persons within the one God.

As I regularly say, the infinite God is perfectly capable of expressing, by His Word, His own personhood within the finite world. Since finite representations of God fit within the jurisdiction of the infinite God, there is no contradiction. God is simply expressing His personhood in creative ways.

But it is important to recognize that when God revealed Himself as a man within the finite world, that man became a distinct person within the Deity, necessarily distinguishing Himself from other expressions of God.

The Spirit is distinguished by His appearance in local territories, even though God's Spirit is omnipresent. As such, the Spirit must also have a distinct expression of God's personhood, in contrast with other expressions of God's personhood within the finite universe.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have one name that we are to baptize in.

The name is singular in Matthew 28:19; and in Acts of the Apostles 2:38 it is shown specifically what that name is; for Peter was not being disobedient to the Great Commission when he baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sorry, I know that you closed the conversation, but i just had to ask. Does your above statement not contradict itself?
Can one have a rational explanation for something, without understanding it? That's patently impossible!

I'm happy to go on talking with you. It's just that my argument is based on the very matter that you mention. Very astute of you!

And throughout history, this has been the main issue with unbelievers. They do not see either Christianity or the Trinity as rational.

In fact, if we want to go back a little farther in history, consider how some of the Greek philosophers looked at the idea of God. He is impassible for precisely this reason, that a transcendent Being cannot be viewed at existing within a temporal realm.

Being "infinite," it is thought He cannot also be "finite." This appears to be a contradiction, on its face. If we only surmise, based on a limited perception of God, we cannot trust that what we have of Him truly represents Him.

But again, we are at an impasse. Christians find *experience* the missing link in this rational approach by unbelievers. Apart from faith they cannot experience God in any rational way. Their very rejection of Christ, the God-Man, prevents them from considering the possibility of God passing through Christ to us. Our experience is viewed as temporal, and not accessible by an infinite Being.

Christians would view the essential reality that God does, in fact, reach within our world for the very reason that we experience Him. We certainly do not experience *all* of Him, but due to the fact we touch Him, we must conclude that it is rational for temporal beings like ourselves to make contact with an infinite Being.

I think that you're confusing the fact that man can and does know God, as we are created in His image, and as we are exhorted to be like Him (be Holy, as I am Holy). What we don't understand is simply the magnitude of His perfection, very big difference. It seems that the trinitarians appeal to man being finite, allows yourselves to say anything that you want about God, irrespective of how irrational and contradictory it is.

Not at all. Not only do we experience God, but we perceive Him rationally. That is part of our experience of the infinite God. His Word enables Him to speak in our language, and to appeal to our conscience, which judges what is from Him and what is not from Him.

 

[DNB]

And throughout history, this has been the main issue with unbelievers. They do not see either Christianity or the Trinity as rational.

Thank you!
But, the pagan's or atheist's lack of understanding of God or Christianity, does not stem from the esoteric or enigmatic nature of its precepts or doctrines, but rather it is due to the lack of depth of their thoughts, and willful blindness to the truth. The 'fool' says in his heart that there is no God. Us Christians, on the other hand, fully understand the meaning of 'turn the other cheek', 'eat my flesh, and drink my blood', 'born again', or the abrogation of the Law, or the wisdom, rationality and necessity of the atonement - Christ's humiliating death on a cross (foolishness to Greeks, offense to Jews). Whereas on the other hand, neither Christian, Jew, Muslim, Scythian, Barbarian, Greek, Theologian, Scholar or Philosopher, understands the trinity.

Again, we are not talking about the magnitude of God's characteristics, but rather the antithetical principle of god-man - a simultaneously finite and infinite being, one who is both transcendent and secular at the same time, one who is both mortal and immortal, one who is redundantly compromised of three all powerful persons, one who is both three and one with two in one natures, etc... This defies all rational, leaving us no guidelines to differentiate truth from heresy, from something that edifies as opposed to something that confounds and bewilders.

But again, we are at an impasse. Christians find *experience* the missing link in this rational approach by unbelievers. Apart from faith they cannot experience God in any rational way. Their very rejection of Christ, the God-Man, prevents them from considering the possibility of God passing through Christ to us. Our experience is viewed as temporal, and not accessible by an infinite Being.

But, i would never make experience as a veritable identifier for truth. The subjectivity that ensues from such a capricious and potentially delusion source, can by no means be the arbitrator of truth. How many Muslims would swear by the experiences that they have had, of visions or words that they've received from Muhammed, or by reading the Koran? The Catholics that have claimed to see Mary or the stigmata, or any of the other mystics who establish heretical doctrines based on what they claim to be ecstatic experiences?

God's Word and Soteriology is wise, rational and comprehensible, allowing His adherents to preach His message with the utmost conviction and certitude that their wisdom will tear down any stronghold that resists them. How can one be asked to preach the Gospel of Christ unto death, when they don't even understand what they are professing themselves, or expect anyone else to assent to such indiscernible logic?

2 Corinthians 10:4-5
10:4. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thank you!
But, the pagan's or atheist's lack of understanding of God or Christianity, does not stem from the esoteric or enigmatic nature of its precepts or doctrines, but rather it is due to the lack of depth of their thoughts, and willful blindness to the truth. The 'fool' says in his heart that there is no God. Us Christians, on the other hand, fully understand the meaning of 'turn the other cheek', 'eat my flesh, and drink my blood', 'born again', or the abrogation of the Law, or the wisdom, rationality and necessity of the atonement - Christ's humiliating death on a cross (foolishness to Greeks, offense to Jews). Whereas on the other hand, neither Christian, Jew, Muslim, Scythian, Barbarian, Greek, Theologian, Scholar or Philosopher, understands the trinity.

It doesn't take Deity for us to comprehend the notion of an infinite line. Neither is the idea of a transcendent, infinite God irrational. The concept is easy to understand. We just can't plumb the depths of it, because we'd have to be divine to do that.

The Trinity is not incomprehensible, nor irrational either. It just takes some thought, to put together the idea of 3 Persons into a cohesive whole. The Church Fathers did this with "3 Persons in 1 Substance." And they did this with "2 natures in one Man." We do not have to plumb the depths of Deity in each of the 3 Persons to know that we're dealing with a different kind of Person, a divine Person who is infinite, and who can express Himself in finite Persons.

For example, if an angel appeared to you, it wouldn't be difficult to know that you're dealing with a being greater than man and yet who appears in a finite form. It is only one step more to recognize this angelic figure expresses the divine personality Himself.

How do we know this? It is not just the claim, and a subjective experience that may or may not be real. Rather, it is a matter of objective evidence that corresponds to our intuitive sense, along with our conscience. All these work together to indicate something transcendent stands before us within the finite world, and yet entering into our world from beyond, in infinity.

The Trinity simply displays the personality of God in 3 different forms within our finite world, and yet has all of these elements, the objective evidence, our intuitive sense (requiring faith), and our conscience. When Jesus came into the world, there was a ton of objective evidence that he expressed the Person of God. And each step along the way, the moral values of his acts and speech spoke to our conscience, and pressed upon the sensibilities of men to recognize that God's own Person had expressed Himself in this man.

The Spirit is no more difficult to recognize, as a spirit displays objective activity in our world. We sense a presence, and we recognize inspiration, and it involves moral values. Since this "spiritual activity" takes place within our world, it is a finite expression of God's personhood, as opposed to the unlimited expression of His personhood throughout the universe at once.

No, the Trinity is for me a rational concept even if I cannot plumb the depths of an infinite God. We can understand an infinite line. We just can't get to the end of it. But we see in a line segment the arrows at both ends, indicating it is infinite. It has its own objective evidence, and we have confidence in our logic, and can properly come up with a reasonable identification of what it is. And it is the right thing to admit that we know it.

 

[DNB]

It doesn't take Deity for us to comprehend the notion of an infinite line. Neither is the idea of a transcendent, infinite God irrational. The concept is easy to understand. We just can't plumb the depths of it, because we'd have to be divine to do that.

The Trinity is not incomprehensible, nor irrational either. It just takes some thought, to put together the idea of 3 Persons into a cohesive whole. The Church Fathers did this with "3 Persons in 1 Substance." And they did this with "2 natures in one Man." We do not have to plumb the depths of Deity in each of the 3 Persons to know that we're dealing with a different kind of Person, a divine Person who is infinite, and who can express Himself in finite Persons.

For example, if an angel appeared to you, it wouldn't be difficult to know that you're dealing with a being greater than man and yet who appears in a finite form. It is only one step more to recognize this angelic figure expresses the divine personality Himself.

How do we know this? It is not just the claim, and a subjective experience that may or may not be real. Rather, it is a matter of objective evidence that corresponds to our intuitive sense, along with our conscience. All these work together to indicate something transcendent stands before us within the finite world, and yet entering into our world from beyond, in infinity.

The Trinity simply displays the personality of God in 3 different forms within our finite world, and yet has all of these elements, the objective evidence, our intuitive sense (requiring faith), and our conscience. When Jesus came into the world, there was a ton of objective evidence that he expressed the Person of God. And each step along the way, the moral values of his acts and speech spoke to our conscience, and pressed upon the sensibilities of men to recognize that God's own Person had expressed Himself in this man.

The Spirit is no more difficult to recognize, as a spirit displays objective activity in our world. We sense a presence, and we recognize inspiration, and it involves moral values. Since this "spiritual activity" takes place within our world, it is a finite expression of God's personhood, as opposed to the unlimited expression of His personhood throughout the universe at once.

No, the Trinity is for me a rational concept even if I cannot plumb the depths of an infinite God. We can understand an infinite line. We just can't get to the end of it. But we see in a line segment the arrows at both ends, indicating it is infinite. It has its own objective evidence, and we have confidence in our logic, and can properly come up with a reasonable identification of what it is. And it is the right thing to admit that we know it.

Sorry Randy, but what you wrote did not, by necessity, justify or explain the rationality or comprehensibility of the trinity. In other words, I, as one who believes that only the Father is God, can, in a broad sense, accept everything that you stated about experiencing God's presence or the indwelling of the Spirit (to me, the Spirit is just a gift from God the Father, in order to empower the elect). Nature itself exudes God's presence and creative power.

I don't believe that you rationalized the significance or plausibility of how 3 all powerful beings can, for one, differentiate one from the other, or two, exist in one being without being charged with redundancy in the Godhead? For, only one is required to create the universe, maintain it, and answer all the prayers of mankind.
Nor did you post above explain how two incompatible, and ultimately, antithetical natures can exist in one creature?
Yes, God exists, wisdom, human nature and creation tells us that. Yes, the Spirit exists, as Jesus promised to have the Father send it to empower those that believe and intend to evangelize. Yes, Christ exists, as God created him to obey His Law, and thus redeem us from our sins. And it was for this reason that God exalted him to a place that clearly wasn't his before - otherwise why does he need to be exalted by anyone else but himself?).
Christ, while on earth, only appealed to God the Father for power and authority, never to the divine Christ who allegedly remained in heaven.

Sorry Randy, you've explained the existence of the Father, Son and Spirit, but only in a manner that even a non-trinitarian can accept.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sorry Randy, but what you wrote did not, by necessity, justify or explain the rationality or comprehensibility of the trinity. In other words, I, as one who believes that only the Father is God, can, in a broad sense, accept everything that you stated about experiencing God's presence or the indwelling of the Spirit (to me, the Spirit is just a gift from God the Father, in order to empower the elect). Nature itself exudes God's presence and creative power.

I don't believe that you rationalized the significance or plausibility of how 3 all powerful beings can, for one, differentiate one from the other, or two, exist in one being without being charged with redundancy in the Godhead? For, only one is required to create the universe, maintain it, and answer all the prayers of mankind.
Nor did you post above explain how two incompatible, and ultimately, antithetical natures can exist in one creature?

The divine and human natures in Christ are *not* antithetical! Otherwise, they would not be viewed as coexisting in a single person. We can experience the divine nature, and yet not *be God.* That is the important element in Christ, the Son. He shows us what men having God's nature should look like. Only he did it *as God* and *without sin.*

By contrast, we can demonstrate human virtues inspired by God's Spirit, and yet with our human flaws. Even more than demonstrating human virtues, inspired by the Holy Spirit, we must demonstrate a whole new character, made new by God's Spirit.

This is what God was after--not just men seeking to reform their lives, but beyond that, entirely new men, born again to live only in dependence upon God's Spirit. It is one thing to be inspired by God's Spirit to do good things, and another thing being made new to live in complete co-dependence upon the Lord.

Yes, even non-Christians and Unitarians can experience God's Spirit. What they cannot do, without knowing the Son as God, is appreciate the regenerate nature of men who have experienced redemption through the Son.

It is not enough to have the Spirit of God in us. It is not enough to do good things, inspired by God. We must put on the nature of the Son, which is a new character created for us by a hybrid union of divine nature and human nature. Nobody can duplicate this apart from Christ himself.

 

[DNB]

The divine and human natures in Christ are *not* antithetical! Otherwise, they would not be viewed as coexisting in a single person.

Sorry Randy, that's just talk, you have yet to demonstrate this without presupposing that it's true.
Of course it is antithetical, this is just elementary reasoning. Divinity is infinite, humanity is finite, God is omnipresent, man is circumscribed in space and time, God is transcendent, man is corporeal and secular, deity is infallible, humanity is fallible, etc...

We can experience the divine nature, and yet not *be God.* That is the important element in Christ, the Son.

Of course, because we were all, including Jesus, created in God's image - be holy, as I am holy.

He shows us what men having God's nature should look like. Only he did it *as God* and *without sin.*

What's the point then, if he needed to be God in order to establish what it is to obey God? He was both tempted, and beaten to a pulp, he did not fulfill God's will as God, he became perfect as a man. And this is only reason under the sun that God was able to abrogate the Law and remove the condemnation from men. A god-man does not qualify, as the Levitical Law was prescribed for men, and incumbent upon them to obey, to the point that death was the consequence either due to the 20 or so Capital Crimes, or defiance to the Law as a whole (those who obey, shall live by them).

There is absolutely no Biblical substantiation, nor any judicial reasonability, that would demand that a god-man fulfill God's Law in order to absolve us from its curse. The requisite humanity of Christ to abide by the demand of God's Atonement, is emphasized in the passages below (and nowhere else throughout the entire Bible does it say otherwise).

Romans 5:14-21
5:14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21. so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sorry Randy, that's just talk, you have yet to demonstrate this without presupposing that it's true.
Of course it is antithetical, this is just elementary reasoning. Divinity is infinite, humanity is finite, God is omnipresent, man is circumscribed in space and time, God is transcendent, man is corporeal and secular, deity is infallible, humanity is fallible, etc...


Of course, because we were all, including Jesus, created in God's image - be holy, as I am holy.


What's the point then, if he needed to be God in order to establish what it is to obey God? He was both tempted, and beaten to a pulp, he did not fulfill God's will as God, he became perfect as a man. And this is only reason under the sun that God was able to abrogate the Law and remove the condemnation from men. A god-man does not qualify, as the Levitical Law was prescribed for men, and incumbent upon them to obey, to the point that death was the consequence either due to the 20 or so Capital Crimes, or defiance to the Law as a whole (those who obey, shall live by them).

There is absolutely no Biblical substantiation, nor any judicial reasonability, that would demand that a god-man fulfill God's Law in order to absolve us from its curse. The requisite humanity of Christ to abide by the demand of God's Atonement, is emphasized in the passages below (and nowhere else throughout the entire Bible does it say otherwise).

Romans 5:14-21
5:14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21. so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sorry Randy, that's just talk, you have yet to demonstrate this without presupposing that it's true.
Of course it is antithetical, this is just elementary reasoning. Divinity is infinite, humanity is finite, God is omnipresent, man is circumscribed in space and time, God is transcendent, man is corporeal and secular, deity is infallible, humanity is fallible, etc...

Yes, we obviously both made it through elementary school. ;) And it's precisely because it's so elementary that the argument holds, regardless of whether it's "presupposing" or not. Much of life is based on reasonable propositions, right?

Of course, because we were all, including Jesus, created in God's image - be holy, as I am holy.

What's the point then, if he needed to be God in order to establish what it is to obey God? He was both tempted, and beaten to a pulp, he did not fulfill God's will as God, he became perfect as a man. And this is only reason under the sun that God was able to abrogate the Law and remove the condemnation from men. A god-man does not qualify, as the Levitical Law was prescribed for men, and incumbent upon them to obey, to the point that death was the consequence either due to the 20 or so Capital Crimes, or defiance to the Law as a whole (those who obey, shall live by them).

Whoa, what are you saying here? One point at a time! It doesn't sound that you really understand the process or the reason for it?

Did I misread, or did you just say that Jesus became perfect as a man, and yet did not fulfill God's will? And how on earth can a God-man fail in anything, let alone under the Law of Moses?

The Law, it is said, spoke prophetically of the need for Messiah, because no man could overcome the guilt of his Sin Nature and be fully exonerated. Only a sinless, God-man could overcome the deficit created by a Law condemning all human sin, making him qualified to forgive the sins of other men. Sinful priests could not adequately atone for the sins of other sinners precisely because their own sins disqualified them!

Furthermore, you compare the curse of the Law against human sin to a sinless Christ, who wasn't actually subject to the Law as a sinner! Christ wasn't killed for sinning--rather, he died by his own will to forgive all men who were guilty of sin, provided they repent and take upon themselves his own spiritual life.

There is absolutely no Biblical substantiation, nor any judicial reasonability, that would demand that a god-man fulfill God's Law in order to absolve us from its curse. The requisite humanity of Christ to abide by the demand of God's Atonement, is emphasized in the passages below (and nowhere else throughout the entire Bible does it say otherwise).

You obviously don't understand how Christ fulfilled the Law! He fulfilled the Law not by living as sinful Israel obliged to obey a Law that mitigated their sin. Rather, he fulfilled the Law by completing the idea that nothing man could do, not even under the Law, could provide an atonement equal to obtaining eternal life. Jesus completed that idea by providing an atonement apart from the Law that could bring final redemption to man by his own act of forgiveness.

 

[DNB]

Yes, we obviously both made it through elementary school. ;) And it's precisely because it's so elementary that the argument holds, regardless of whether it's "presupposing" or not. Much of life is based on reasonable propositions, right?

Sorry, i was saying that it's elementary that a god-man is an antithetical proposition. Similar to a square circle, it cannot exist, because the attributes that define a square, are antithetical to those the define a circle. So, I don't understand your rebuttal, much of life is based on reasonable propositions, yes, but my point is that a god-man is absolutely anything but reasonable. It's the opposite, it is implausible.

Whoa, what are you saying here? One point at a time! It doesn't sound that you really understand the process or the reason for it?

No, I'm saying that there is no point for a god-man to fulfill the Law, because that's a given - a god-man cannot fail. Therefore, why even bother having the god-man go through the temptations and the passion when even a fool can predict the outcome? This does not glorify God's wisdom

Therefore, and sorry to use your own words against you, but you have a deficient and misconstrued understanding of the atonement. Your explanation gave absolutely no significance to Christy's temptations or obedience unto death. You just made it out to be a powerful being came down to forgive sins. Sorry Randy, I have to use your own words against you, you clearly do not understand the significance of Christ's sacrifice, he was the final oblation that the Israelites were obligated to perform daily, and on special occasions (Yom Kippur), to purge them from their sins. And this is exactly what the blood of bulls and goats did, ...up until the next time that they sinned. Christ's death ended this ritual and yoke, because he lived a sinless life and therefore qualified as the perfect sacrifice. But obviously, there is no efficacy in the death of a human to absolve sin, or an animal, but it is rather the significance that God deems to give it. And it is because God found a man who could fulfill the Law perfectly, He agreed to end it - for not one jot or tittle of the Law will not come to pass.

Thus, it was impossible and ludicrous for God to send a god-man, to obey Him unto death. Plus, we are not fallen creatures, every single one of us have been created in God's image and that has never, ever, changed. Man has always had a free will so that no matter what he does, whether right or wrong, will ever change his constitution that God gave him from the beginning.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sorry, i was saying that it's elementary that a god-man is an antithetical proposition. Similar to a square circle, it cannot exist, because the attributes that define a square, are antithetical to those the define a circle. So, I don't understand your rebuttal, much of life is based on reasonable propositions, yes, but my point is that a god-man is absolutely anything but reasonable. It's the opposite, it is implausible.

I thought you were saying that an infinite Being has within Him the capacity of finite expressions, since the finite is contained within the infinite! This isn't a square circle. Rather, this is a segment of a line contained, logically, within an infinite line.

The word, or expression, of an infinite God, takes form within our finite sphere, and our mortal eyes can behold God's glory in finite forms. This seemed elementary to me, which is what I thought you were admitting?

No, I'm saying that there is no point for a god-man to fulfill the Law, because that's a given - a god-man cannot fail. Therefore, why even bother having the god-man go through the temptations and the passion when even a fool can predict the outcome? This does not glorify God's wisdom

Well, it shows that you misunderstand the purpose of an all-capable Being of bearing something He shouldn't have to bear, to forgive those who failed Him. It isn't that He's showing His capacities, which are infinite, but rather, that He's showing His ability to be flexible on behalf of transient creatures.

Therefore, and sorry to use your own words against you, but you have a deficient and misconstrued understanding of the atonement. Your explanation gave absolutely no significance to Christy's temptations or obedience unto death. You just made it out to be a powerful being came down to forgive sins. Sorry Randy, I have to use your own words against you, you clearly do not understand the significance of Christ's sacrifice, he was the final oblation that the Israelites were obligated to perform daily, and on special occasions (Yom Kippur), to purge them from their sins. And this is exactly what the blood of bulls and goats did, ...up until the next time that they sinned. Christ's death ended this ritual and yoke, because he lived a sinless life and therefore qualified as the perfect sacrifice. But obviously, there is no efficacy in the death of a human to absolve sin, or an animal, but it is rather the significance that God deems to give it. And it is because God found a man who could fulfill the Law perfectly, He agreed to end it - for not one jot or tittle of the Law will not come to pass.

You didn't come close to explaining how I don't understand Jesus' atonement! ;) You're just trying to give a Christian explanation with your own Unitarian slant. It seems to me that you were, in fact, trying to say much of what I already said to you.

1) Jesus had to be sinless in order to qualify to accomplish his work as priest. A sinful priest would be disqualified for anything other than a temporary reprieve.

2) Jesus did not live to satisfy the requirements of the Law, which were actually designed only for sinful Israel. It, as such, provided a means of remaining in relationship with God while they remained disqualified from eternal life by their sin. (Jesus did, however, fulfill the Law as a prophecy of Messiah.)

3) Jesus had to be God, not to be deemed an acceptable atonement by God, but only so that God could in Christ express His own forgiveness. Christ's sufferings actually were God's sufferings. Letting Christ suffer on his own, and God only consider him a "stand in" would be the worst kind of justice for Christ! And it certainly wouldn't speak well of God, who let someone else forgive things that He Himself does not suffer!

4) Animal sacrifices were never intended to provide eternal atonement, and thus eternal life. On the other hand, Christ was, in his spiritual life, the means of eternal life, simply by giving it to those willing to live by it. It is not that God deems animals or Christ an acceptable sacrifice, but that these represent, in turn, a temporal means, and an eternal means, of maintaining fellowship with God.

It is the life we live, and our dependence on God's spiritual life, that renders these things significant with each step. Both the Law and Christ showed man the utter futility of trying to obtain eternal life on our own, when we've been stained with sin. We must get help from God's mercy. And Christ is the full display of that mercy in the offer of eternal life.

Thus, it was impossible and ludicrous for God to send a god-man, to obey Him unto death. Plus, we are not fallen creatures, every single one of us have been created in God's image and that has never, ever, changed. Man has always had a free will so that no matter what he does, whether right or wrong, will ever change his constitution that God gave him from the beginning.

Our free will gave us the capacity to turn against God's spiritual life. Doing sin brought about a chain of events we call hereditary sin, a spiritual inheritance. We now have bodies that pull against God's word, though we can still cooperate with God. But we are no longer freely flowing in the will of God. Rather, we work to remain in good standing with God, by struggling to conform to His will.

Being born again we becomes new creatures that flow, to some degree, with God's will. But we still struggle against our flesh, which wars against our spirit.

The idea of following Christ to the death is not a death wish. Rather, it is a determination to follow the ways of Christ, which is opposed by this world.

Neither is it a persecution complex. We merely expect resistance in our life of faith in Christ, as we walk in a way that the sinful world rejects as hypocritical and pretentious.

No, the world is definitely sinful. We're on our way to a 3rd world war, and all of the bad mankind does leads God to give the world over to a cursed existence, replete with illnesses, natural disasters, and all kinds of unfortunate events.

How you can think this isn't produced by man walking astray from God I don't have a clue? Yes, we were and are created in God's image. But that image has been seriously tarnished, historically!

 

[DNB]

Well, it shows that you misunderstand the purpose of an all-capable Being of bearing something He shouldn't have to bear, to forgive those who failed Him. It isn't that He's showing His capacities, which are infinite, but rather, that He's showing His ability to be flexible on behalf of transient creatures.

The offer of Grace and forgiveness was sufficient to show his flexibility/mercy. He did not need to come to earth, nor can the omnipresent and infinite God, in any meaningful or applicable manner, come to earth as a man, be tempted and die. Absolutely ludicrous - there are some things that God cannot do!

2) Jesus did not live to satisfy the requirements of the Law, which were actually designed only for sinful Israel. It, as such, provided a means of remaining in relationship with God while they remained disqualified from eternal life by their sin. (Jesus did, however, fulfill the Law as a prophecy of Messiah.)

Jesus came to show his uncompromised love and obedience to God by abiding by all the precepts of the Law, so that not a jot or tittle will go away unaccomplished, giving God glory. Thus, the Law, which held us all in bondage, could be justifiably and legally abrogated.

3) Jesus had to be God, not to be deemed an acceptable atonement by God, but only so that God could in Christ express His own forgiveness. Christ's sufferings actually were God's sufferings. Letting Christ suffer on his own, and God only consider him a "stand in" would be the worst kind of justice for Christ! And it certainly wouldn't speak well of God, who let someone else forgive things that He Himself does not suffer!

Grace was sufficient enough for God to express His forgiveness. You are speaking in a superfluous manner. Nothing that you are saying is by necessity, you are simply trying to give a profound meaning to something when there are countless other alternative interpretations. God forgave the Israelites several times in the desert, upon the pleas of Moses, when they deserved annihilation. God did not need to come down from heaven in order to either express His mercy, nor to effectuate it. You are desperately trying to give an inherent significance to an act, that just doesn't warrant it.

Our free will gave us the capacity to turn against God's spiritual life. Doing sin brought about a chain of events we call hereditary sin, a spiritual inheritance. We now have bodies that pull against God's word, though we can still cooperate with God. But we are no longer freely flowing in the will of God. Rather, we work to remain in good standing with God, by struggling to conform to His will. Being born again we becomes new creatures that flow, to some degree, with God's will. But we still struggle against our flesh, which wars against our spirit.

Again, you practically refuted yourself by the time that you finished your paragraph? Before the fall: we can do good but are compelled to sin. After the Fall: we can still do good, but are compelled to sin. After becoming Christian: we can still do good, but are compelled to sin????

How you can think this isn't produced by man walking astray from God I don't have a clue? Yes, we were and are created in God's image. But that image has been seriously tarnished, historically!

Man sinned against God, before the fall. Meaning, Adam & Eve freely chose to sin without having, what you call, hereditary sin. And that sums it all up, no need to find other clues where the propensity to sin lies. Having direct contact with God, being in paradise, it can be argued that this particular act was the most egregious sin of them all - Adam & Eve defying God without having, what you call, a sin nature.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The offer of Grace and forgiveness was sufficient to show his flexibility/mercy. He did not need to come to earth, nor can the omnipresent and infinite God, in any meaningful or applicable manner, come to earth as a man, be tempted and die. Absolutely ludicrous - there are some things that God cannot do!

You're arguing not what is, but what you want to believe. God can and did appear as a man. Through Christ He revealed His grace, by suffering in the man, Christ.

Jesus came to show his uncompromised love and obedience to God by abiding by all the precepts of the Law, so that not a jot or tittle will go away unaccomplished, giving God glory. Thus, the Law, which held us all in bondage, could be justifiably and legally abrogated.

That's not accurate. Jesus did not live under the Law as a sinner. The Law was designed for sinners. That's why the Law was filled with atonement and sacrifices. It had to do with purification. Christ had no need for purification. The only thing he fulfilled about the Law was its promise that God would Himself provide mercy, apart from the actions of flawed priests. Christ provided a better priesthood, one not associated with the Law of Moses.

Grace was sufficient enough for God to express His forgiveness. You are speaking in a superfluous manner. Nothing that you are saying is by necessity, you are simply trying to give a profound meaning to something when there are countless other alternative interpretations. God forgave the Israelites several times in the desert, upon the pleas of Moses, when they deserved annihilation. God did not need to come down from heaven in order to either express His mercy, nor to effectuate it. You are desperately trying to give an inherent significance to an act, that just doesn't warrant it.

God always comes down from heaven in one way or another to express His mercy. That's why He established the tabernacle in the midst of Israel, so that His glory would appear there. That showed, in a visible display, His active mercy among the Israelites, accepting them even with a sin nature. He had decided to show mercy to them.

But the Law, as much as it showed God's mercy, did not yet show eternal life. That came only when God came down to earth in the form of Christ. In this way the priesthood did not provide atonement, which was insufficient for that. Instead, Christ provided God's own form of atonement, which does lead to eternal life.

That's why no one can come to God except through Christ, because he is God's exclusive way of personally providing for atonement that leads to eternal life. It had to come from God alone, and not from the flawed works of man. We live for God only in dependence upon Him as our source, because we cannot ourselves be the source of Salvation.

Again, you practically refuted yourself by the time that you finished your paragraph? Before the fall: we can do good but are compelled to sin. After the Fall: we can still do good, but are compelled to sin. After becoming Christian: we can still do good, but are compelled to sin????

I never said Man was compelled to sin before the Fall! But yes, Man could choose to sin even before he had a sin nature. That's exactly what Satan did. And due to Satan's influence, Adam and Eve capitulated to the same choice, although under duress.

Therefore, people can apologize to God for capitulating to evil, and return to a right path. But others will make the same choice Satan did, by willfully choosing to depart from God's lordship in order to establish self-dependence and independent choice.

Man sinned against God, before the fall. Meaning, Adam & Eve freely chose to sin without having, what you call, hereditary sin. And that sums it all up, no need to find other clues where the propensity to sin lies. Having direct contact with God, being in paradise, it can be argued that this particular act was the most egregious sin of them all - Adam & Eve defying God without having, what you call, a sin nature.