POST 1
Dee wrote 01/10/08 2:16 PM
Dear Brethren
In a post once Brother Jay wrote, “1 John 5:7 may be the single verse the devil most hates in all of Scripture – after all, he has worked intensely to either confuse it’s message or to get it eliminated from Scripture.” To support his statement he encouraged us to look at some of the more modern versions of Scripture.
I did look at some other versions and here is what I found:
(ASV) 1Jo 5:7 “And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.”
(CEV)(GW)(ISV) 1Jo 5:7 “In fact, there are three who tell about it. They are the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and they all agree.”
(GNB) 1Jo 5:7 “There are three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and all three give the same testimony. the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and all three give the same testimony.”
(MSG) 1Jo 5:7 “A triple testimony: the Spirit, the Baptism, the Crucifixion. And the three in perfect agreement.”
Surely it is evidence that the devil would like to see this whole verse eliminated from Scripture.
I wholeheartedly believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, that is that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead and that these three are one. Elder S… in his Systematic Theology wrote, “One essence with three Persons, that is to say, One God with three Personal Distinctions.” That’s what I believe, not because he wrote it but because the Bible clearly teaches it.
Having said that, I am interested in knowing how some of you would explain to the child of God who has just begun a study of the Bible and has now come to 1 John 5:7 - how would you explain “and that these three are one” in a way that they can comprehend? How do you explain the doctrine of the Trinity in terms that are relatively easy understood? (if there is such a thing)
I came across a couple examples; in an attempt to give some “human” illustrations for the Trinity this person gave the following three; one was H2O - water, ice & steam, another was the egg - shell, yoke and egg white and thirdly, a piece of fruit - skin, meat and the core.
Do you see any relevance in any of these illustrations? Would you use either of them? How would you give illustration to explain the doctrine of the Trinity or would you even attempt the use of a human illustration?
Curious
Dee
========
POST 2
On Jan 11, 2008, at 3:41 AM, Chus wrote:
Dear Brother Dee,
As ardently as I believe and defend the Trinity, to the same degree I am in constant amazement at the mystery it is. It is one Bible doctrine that I have great trouble grasping in an intellectual or logical sense, yet my mind agrees with the testimony of my heart that it is true.
In all ways that God is God, the Three are One. The Father, Son and Spirit are One in holiness, righteousness, justice, truth, mercy, will, purpose, power. They are One in grace, kindness, judgment, defense of the poor and afflicted, offensive to the wicked and vile. They are One in Their determination of the deliverance of the people of God; first in election, then in predestination to adoption, then in redemption and atonement, then in regeneration, preservation and finally glorification. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4). Truly the unity of the Godhead is indivisible, yet we're blessed to see a distinction, that while One, They are Three. On several occasions we're able to see Them in Their distinction, namely the baptism of the Lord Jesus. We see Them as One in verses such as Acts 20:28 "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." We know it was Christ who shed His blood, but Paul insists that it was God who bought the church with His blood. Was Paul confused? No, He believed Christ is God, and our God is one Lord!
One of the most simple illustrations I've heard that has helped me more than any is one given to me several years ago by Elder Soon… Logically it seems impossible that three can be one and one can be three. However, in mathematics this is a possibility. When we add 1+1+1 we have 3 components that = 3. Yet in multiplication we can take 3 components that still = 1. 1x1x1=1. There are 3, but they are still one. Such it is with the Lord our God, there are 3, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but They are One.
I hope my thoughts don't hinder your own. This is a mysterious subject, and I'm thankful it is. The Trinity continually reminds me that I am not God, nor am I nearly as smart as He is, He is infinitely wiser and exceedingly more knowledgeable than me. And that's OK because He's God and I can rely on His wisdom and knowledge. The Trinity reminds me He is the Lord, He is the Almighty, He has it all figured out and there is no mystery to Him! Thanks be unto His name!
By His Grace,
Chus
------------------
POST 3
On Jan 11, 2008, at 6:00 AM, Vino wrote:
Brother Dee,
I realize that it is helpful to find good ways to explain difficult concepts. However, I do not know that one will ever find a perfect example to help explain the Trinity.
I guess the best example I have heard is that which was shared by Brother Chus, of 1x1x1 equaling one.
Nevertheless, when using examples, I think we should be careful not to use examples that would teach an incorrect concept. When I do use such examples, I attempt to point out the inconsistencies of the example with that of the truth so as not to mislead my hearers into believing wrong concepts.
The example of (body, soul, and spirit), of (egg - shell, yoke and egg white), of ( piece of fruit - skin, meat and the core) all could be used but might incorrectly lead one to believe that the Godhead is made of three separate parts, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost while the truth is that each is fully and completely God in and of Himself. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). Christ is not a part of God, the Father is not a part of God, and the Holy Spirit is not a part of God. Rather, the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God (as Brother Chus pointed out, it was God that died on the cross and purchased His flock with His own blood; Acts 20:28) and the Holy Spirit is fully God (when Ananias lied to the Holy Ghost, he lied unto God; Acts 5:3-5).
The example of (H2O - water, ice & steam) does not have the same problem as described above as the water, ice and steam are the same substance and not parts of a whole. However, as this example sets forth three different forms or manifestations of the same substance which do not simultaneously exist, it might lead to the incorrect belief that the three persons in the Godhead do not simultaneously exist, although we find from Scripture that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost all simultaneously exist (Mat. 3:16-17).
I have not have much time over the last couple of months to engage in discussion, but these are my quick thoughts. If anybody thinks of a better example than 1x1x1, I hope they will share it.
Blessings to all,
Vino
---------------
POST 4
On Jan 11, 2008, at 9:00 AM, sing wrote:
Dear brethren
There is one example that I am comfortable using to illustrate the wonderful and profound truth of the PLURALITY/UNITY in the Godhead (I would be in big trouble if someone ask me to define this 'jargon'!).
26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
God created man in his own image. I believe part of that image is the wonderful and profound mystery of plurality in unity.
God is One but there are THREE distinct Persons - God, Word and, Holy Spirit, each fully and completely divine.
Man is One but there are TWO distinct persons - male and female, each fully and completely human. Though there are only two distinct persons in Man, yet the truth of plurality in unity is amply illustrated.
Concerning 1 John 5:17
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" - please permit to ask a silly question.
Is there any significance why the Holy Spirit inspired John to use the term 'the Word' to describe the second Person of the Godhead? With the term 'the Father' it would be natural to expect 'the Son' to follow, but why 'the Word'?
Does verse 9 has anything to do with it - "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son"?
I understand 'the Word' to refer to that one-natured divine Person with no beginning whereas 'the Son' is that dual-natured divine-human being that has a definite beginning. The Word is eternal, never begotten, but the Son is begotten, the only begotten as described in Luke 1.
Is the witness of 'the Word' greater than the witness of 'the Son' in light of the statement 'the witness of God is greater'?
Please give your thoughts.
Thanks.
sing feeding on sand of the south seas
---
POST 5
On Jan 11, 2008, at 1:35 PM, sing wrote:
Brother Chus,
You said: “One of the most simple illustrations I've heard that has helped me more than any is one given to me several years ago by Elder Soon…. Logically it seems impossible that three can be one and one can be three. However, in mathematics this is a possibility. When we add 1+1+1 we have 3 components that = 3. Yet in multiplication we can take 3 components that still = 1. 1x1x1=1. There are 3, but they are still one. Such it is with the Lord our God, there are 3, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but They are One.”
I am just thinking about the simple illustration you shared above.
Now, I am no mathematician, but the 1x1x1=1 illustration stirs these thoughts.
Here are some random thoughts...
The illustration is mathematically true ONLY when the numbers deal with numerical units.
I am not sure if it still true, theologically, when used to illustrate the issue at hand.
In the 1 x 1 x 1 = 1, what do the 4 '1's stand for?
Is it 'One God x One Word x One Spirit' = 'One God'?
Does this illustrate the theological truth, 'There are 3, but they are still 1.'
Does this illustrate the theological truth , 'In all ways that God is God, the Three are One.'
I thought the 3 and the 1 refers to something quite different, i.e. '3' refers to the distinct divine Persons, and '1' refers to divine Essense. The 3 are three distinct Persons of the 1, the 1 is one divine Essence - the Three are "of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided."
Mathematically, 3 Persons = 3 Persons make sense.
Mathematically, is there such a thing as One person A x One person B x One person C = One person?
I have learned that 3 apples at 3 cents each cost 9 cents.
I have never come across a case like one apple x one orange x one banana = one fruit
Also the same illustration would work well for the polytheists:
1 Ali god x 1 buddha monkey x 1 new age red wood tree x 1 Injun lad x 1 polar bear x 1 hippy = 1 Cosmic Pantheon.
I am in hearty agreement with you, "This is a mysterious subject, and I'm thankful it is."
sandy thoughts from the stuffy south seas.
----
POST 6
On Jan 11, 2008, at 1:56 PM, sing wrote:
Brethren,
I was taking a peep in the 1689 CoF while reading the posts on 1Jn 5:7.
In read in 2.3 these words:
3. In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, (27) of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided,(28) the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son eternally begotten of the Father;(29) the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son;(30) all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence upon Him."
Then I remembered the words in Psalm 2:
7 ¶ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Here is my question: How do we reconcile the Scriptures' 'THIS DAY' and the 1689 CoF's 'ETERNALLY'?
If the Father is NOT begotten, and the Son is begotten (however, and whether eternally or in time) then are They still of one divine essence eternally? I hope they are reasonable questions. If not, just ignore.
Off to bring back the buffaloes. Dark cloud gathering.
sing
----
POST 7
On Jan 11, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Edie wrote:
Dear Brother Sing,
I think that Chus was only offering "illustrations" of the Trinity, NOT mathematical or theological copies of it!
Sing, I liked your "male/ female" illustration but it doesn't meet the mathematical & theological test either.
Should we avoid using illustrations to teach bible lessons?
Brotherly,
Edie
-----------
POST 8
On Jan 11, 2008, at 9:11 PM, sing wrote:
Dear Brother Edie,
I do understand that Brother Chus was offering 'illustrations.'
I made my comments in light of what others said the liabilities of using certain illustrations.
I am of the opinion that mathematical illustrations also have inherent difficulties.
No one is going to stop any one preacher to use the kind of illustrations that suits him to illustrate what he wishes to.
studently,
sing
-----------
POST 9
On Jan 11, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Edie wrote:
Dear brother Sing,
I believe that it is reasonable to ask the questions you have asked.
You wrote in part:
Then I remembered the words in Psalm 2: 7 ¶ "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."
Here is my question: How do we reconcile the Scriptures' 'THIS DAY' and the 1689 CoF's 'ETERNALLY'?
Brother Sing, according to Paul's interpretation of the Psalm 2 passage, the word *begotten* refers to the resurrection of Christ from the dead (Acts 13: 33,34). In other words, the Psalms 2 passage should be understood as saying, "...this day have I begotten thee from the dead/ or from the grave". In the LCOF article you cited they are discussing the relationship within the Trinity; they are Not discussing the resurrection. Both subjects are good, interesting, and true, but they are different subjects. Accordingly, it is an error to impose the Psalm 2 passage upon the Trinity discussion you refer to. IMO, this creates unnecessary difficulties and questions which would not otherwise arise.
What do you think?
Brotherly,
Edie
-------------
POST 10
On Jan 11, 2008, at 9:13 PM, sing wrote:
Dear Brother Edie,
What do I think?
I think thou art great brother - thou save me from falling into a black pit.
Thank you for the light of Acts 14:33-34.
Is 'begotten' to be understood as reference to resurrection in other places, say John 3:16 - in what sense is Jesus the only begotten Son? Is he the only begotten in that he is the only resurrected Son? This is a sincere inquiry.
sing
---
POST 11
On Jan 11, 2008, at 9:27 PM, sing wrote:
Brother Edie,
Thank you for the helpful observation from Acts 14:33-34.
The same passage from Ps 2 is quoted in Heb 1.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
What does the author have in mind when he speak of the 'begetting' here in this passage?
I have always understood the begetting in light of the event described in Luke 1.
You have shown me another aspect of the 'begetting' that I have overlooked. You have made me richer! Now, I need to rightly divide the word of truth whenever I see begetting... to know which is which, whether the begetting refers to the event in Luke 1 or Luke 24.
I have some serious study to do on the 'begotten'.
Thanks.
sing
--------------
POST 12
On Jan 11, 2008, at 3:55 PM, Edie wrote:
Dear Brother Sing,
You asked:
Concerning 1 John 5:17
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" - please permit to ask a silly question. Is there any significance why the Holy Spirit inspired John to use the term 'the Word' to describe the second Person of the Godhead? With the term 'the Father' it would be natural to expect 'the Son' to follow, but why 'the Word'?
Great question brother Sing!
Here is the answer, or at least part of the answer; the "Word" and the "Son" are one and the same divine person, even from eternity to eternity, ect. Hence, it is natural for the Holy Spirit to use either & to use them interchangeably.
Now, let me pose a question.
If the "Son of God" did NOT exist until the incarnation, ie, the human birth of Jesus, Then why does 1 John 5: 7 refer to the 1st person of the Trinity as "the Father"? In other words, if the 2nd person of the Trinity did Not exist as *the Son of God* until 2000 years ago, Then it follows that the 1st person of the Trinity did Not exist as "the Father" until 2000 years ago either. This greatly weakens the historic view of the Trinitarian doctrine and suggests that the Trinity is evolving or is little more than a temporal phenomenon which emerged 2000 years ago.
What do you think?
Brotherly,
Edie
--------------
POST 13
On Jan 11, 2008, at 9:42 PM, sing wrote:
Dear brother Edie,
You said: “Here is the answer, or at least part of the answer; the "Word" and the "Son" are one and the same divine person, even from eternity to eternity, ect. Hence, it is natural for the Holy Spirit to use either & to use them interchangeably.”
I just don't believe that the "Word" and the "Son" are one and the same divine person, even from eternity to eternity, ect. If there was no incarnation, then your statement would be nearer the truth.
The Scriptures does say: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
I am quite certain that the 'begetting" in this passage cannot possibly be understood as resurrection.
The Scriptures also say, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
I believe here is the description of how "and the Word was made flesh."
When the Word was made flesh, He did not ceased to be what he was, and he became what he was not. A single-natured divine Being was made and became a dual-natured divine-human Being.
To claim that "it is natural for the Holy Spirit to use either & to use them interchangeably" goes contrary to the testimony of the whole Scriptures. In the OT, before the incarnation, the second Person of the Trinity is consistently referred to as 'Jehovah', and not 'Son.'
just my sandy opinion.
I will dream over your interesting observation below. If I have a dream, I will let you know my comment, if any is worth your time.
sing
----
POST 14
On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Chus wrote:
Dear Brother Sing:
If I remember correctly (my main study helps are at home and I am at the office), the term "begotten," or "only begotten" as referring to the Lord Jesus means "only one," "only son," "only beloved," or "darling." Simply meaning the only of his kind. In respect to the Son of God, begotten is irrespective of time, since being fully God, He is eternal as the Father is eternal. However, we do know He is the only of His kind, He is God's only Son. We are God's by adoption and then spiritual birth, but our sonship is distinct.
You might check some good word study aids to check me out. I'm only giving you this from memory, so may be remembering incorrectly, but I don't think so.
God Bless!
Chus
----------------------
POST 15
On Jan 11, 2008, at 10:32 PM, sing wrote:
Dear brother Chus,
I do believe the incarnated Son of God is unique enough, the only of its kind, like you say.
I have not read or known of another God/man. He is begotten of God, i.e. there is not another begotten of God. God did not beget another, did He??? The Son of God is the ONE and ONLY God/man, being the only begotten of God.
The event and the product of Luke 1:35 is uniquely unique.
There wasn't another event like that, and there wasn't another product like that.
I believe that's what you are saying. And I do agree with you.
Lu 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
The Word was never begotten. The Word is eternal. The Son is.
So your memory works fine.
sing
-----
POST 16
On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:37 PM, Chus wrote:
Dear Brother Sing,
You ask some good questions. I agree with you that the illustration has its limits. However, some have argued that it is naturally impossible for the Trinity to be a reality. Yet those some scoffers believe in the mathematical possibility of multiplication. So I quote Elder S… only to show there is a possibility for something to have three components and still = 1.
And thankfully the multiplication tables were taught me at a very young age, it is something I still grasp. So, its simplicity is nice and refreshing when explaining a theological point. My mind turns slow, so I need simple illustrations to help me see big doctrines!
Hope you're doing well!
Chus
------------
POST 17
On Jan 11, 2008, at 8:57 PM, Chus wrote:
Dear Brother Sing:
I suspect I am writing too much, especially after my long sabbatical from the FGF. However, being at my office I am able to monitor the FGF much more regularly and see each email as it comes across. Thus I read more and am more likely to respond. This is a blessing. The curse is that all my study materials are at home!
Recently (in the last 6 months) I preached on the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ and remember the following: John is writing to prove that the Son of God is an equal in the Trinity, and His existence was from eternity. He uses the term the Word to show that He was God before His incarnation. By using that name for Him John is not diminishing the truth that He is also eternally the Son, but is emphasizing His eternal existence as the Son. He later shows that in Revelation when He says, "...his name is called The Word of God" (Rev. 19:13). So he is using His name "The Word of God" to describe Him as the eternal Son. There are three that bare record in heaven...this does not mean that Christ is only the Word in heaven, Christ is the Son in heaven whose NAME is The Word of God.
Brother Jay, I know you know ancient history, can you remember the significance of John's (Holy Ghost's) choice of using that name of Christ to describe the trinity? It seems there was a heresy prevalent that prompted that choice, but at the moment I cannot remember! Help me out!
By His Grace,
Chus
-------------
POST 18
On Jan 11, 2008, at 11:04 PM, Jay wrote:
Brother Chus,
It appears fairly clear that John was refuting docetic gnosticism in First John, perhaps to some significant degree in all of his writings. This ancient error rejected the idea of God becoming Incarnate, so it asserted that what appeared to be a human body was merely a "phantom" body. There are numbers of variations in this error. Gnostics were at no loss in their imaginative permutations of their errors.
I offer a much simpler observation to the question.
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:" (Romans 8:3, KJV)
Paul did not write that God sent the Word which became the Son at His birth or Incarnation. He wrote that God sent "...his own Son." Simply stated, the Son had to be the Son prior to His being sent, or the verse is not a true statement of the facts. Further John 1:14 does not say that the Word became the Son, but that the Word became flesh.
It has been my observation that most of the rankle regarding eternal sonship builds on a Western concept of sequential generations, not on the Old (and New for that matter) Testament concept of sonship as sharing equality, the same position or equality. The "sons of the prophets" were not the prophets' natural children, but men who agreed with and supported the teachings of the prophets. Timothy and Titus were Paul's "sons" in the common faith, not his biological children. When I refer to Jesus as being the eternal Son of God, something that I feel quite comfortable doing in light of Scripture, I have no intention of implying that He is any less eternal than the Father or the Holy Spirit. Such a notion abandons the fundamental concept of God's unchangeable eternality. I specifically mean that He possesses--and has done so eternally--all the same attributes of deity as the Father. I believe this idea is wholly Biblical. I find no passage that indicates that the Word became the Son, but rather that the two terms indicate different aspects of God relative to the Second Person in the Trinity. "Word" refers to His being the divine "Communicator" of the Person of God to His children, something that He did through the Incarnation.
"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" (Proverbs 30:4, KJV)
This verse, written some eight hundred years prior to the Incarnation, asks in the present tense, "...and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" The passage clearly refers to God and the question refers to "...his son..." in the present tense. How could the inspired author refer to a "son" who was not a son at that time?
I think the simplest point goes right back to the verse in Romans. God cannot send "his Son" unless He was the Son at the time He was sent, not after He was sent.
Just a few thoughts,
Jay
---------------
POST 19
On Jan 11, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Jayee wrote:
Brother Sing
In John 1:14, I believe the key word is the word made. The meaning is, to cause to be, or to become. In my weak understanding this says to me the Word became flesh. That is the Word took upon himself flesh and became a man.
If I am wrong please show me because I am .
Always willing to learn
Jayee
---------------------
POST 20
On Jan 14, 2008, at 11:46 PM, sing wrote:
Brother Jayee,
I don't know whether you are right or wrong.
I am not so much interested in being right or wrong.
I am only interest in how best the Scriptures can be understood consistently.
If a thing is 'MADE' or 'CAUSED' TO BE SOMETHING, then that ALREADY EXISTING thing is acted upon by something other then itself. This is my common sense understanding.
Luke 1: 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
It certainly looks obvious that the 1st [the Highest] and the 3rd Person [the Holy Ghost] acted powerfully when the 2nd Person [the eternal Word] was made flesh. I think to say that the Word took upon himself flesh would not be stating the whole truth.
I read in Hebrews these words: "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me." 10:5. A body was prepared for the eternal Word when the Word was made flesh.
That's my present understanding, still wet cement... don't step on it...
sing
----------------
