The Trinity

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am arguing a position that is the true orthodox view of the Godhead. Trinitarianism where introduced later in conjunction with the excommunication of Arius. My position is that of subordinationism which were the orthodox view at the time and the view of the early church before the church fathers fused Christianity with Hellenism. I might add that this was also before the canonization of the scriptures. We are not arguing sola scriptura here, and I will not argue two major points. There is a point in mentioning this because it is said that the contenders of Arius couldn’t refute Arius scripturally. Arius contended that Jesus Christ was a created being (as in, created at some point of time, before which he did not exist).

Obviously, I object to the ideas that subordinationism was the view of the early church, or that the doctrine of the Trinity emerged through the fusion of Christianity with Hellenism. Firstly, I think it is important to consider that I am arguing here from scriptures which predate the profusion of Christianity throughout the Hellenstic world, and the exchange of ideas that eventually took place between the two worldviews. In using these scriptures, I am appealing to the beliefs of the earliest Christians which long predate Aruis or the Hellenization of Christianity.

I am arguing a Tritherian God united in the attributes of perfection, each having the fullness of truth, knowledge, charity, power, justice, judgement, mercy and faith. They think, act and speak alike in all things but are still separate and distinct entities. The oneness of the Godhead is the same unity that should be found among the saints (John 17:3). There is an ontological division and a division of nature between the members of the godhead and that is what I shall argue here. I am not arguing the Unitarian position, but that of Subordinationism.

I don't think you can speak of a "Tritherian God" - surely you must speak of Gods if you maintain that each of them has an entirely distinct essence/nature?

Also, while you say they are united in certain attributes, would you say that all three are united in the attributes of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience? Indeed, any one of the entities of your Tritherian God can hardly be considered a God in the Abrahamic sense if they lack such attributes. The flipside of that is that if you do grant each of them such attributes, how can such attributes be consistent with a position of subordination in relation to another being? Surely an all-powerful God cannot be subordinate to anybody or anything?

Isaiah 43:10-11 (KJV) is just such a scripture.

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he; before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

At first it looks as if Jehovah declares exactly what the Trinitarians claim. There is only one ontologically God, there is no other and neither will there be one later. Making such arguments is depriving scriptures like this of its context. It says that beside me there is no saviour, which to a Trinitarian plainly says that God is also the saviour. Using this scripture with that argument is overstepping its context. What is Isaiah arguing here?
As with many of his fellow prophets, Isaiah is speaking out against idol worship in and surrounding ancient Israel.
I would contend that all scriptures in the Old Testament that are arguing this, is not depriving the possibility of other true Gods or saviours. They are arguing against specific groups of idol worship and are using a well-known technique in ancient and modern texts, namely that of using negative phrases.
The clue is the word formed. It is speaking about making idols.
This is the context – as the Old Testament will use the phrase god and gods and saviours about entities other than Jehovah in other places in the Bible. Angels are referred to as divinities or gods and Israelites are referred to as saviours using the same word as in Isaiah 43:11.

I think it is a bit of a fanciful interpretation, to say that when God tells us that there are no other Gods, he merely speaks of those particular Gods which the Israelites worshipped; while in fact, there is indeed a whole host of Gods. When God speaks about Gods being formed, I don't agree with you that he means only Gods formed by clay. Indeed, the context in saying first that no other Gods were formed before him, surely shows that he is speaking of some sort of divine creation by a supposed greater God, rather than those merely crafted by human hands. Indeed, this is after all the same God which claimed to have created the very first man - nobody would have been there to create him save another God.

You are right that the scripture speaks of gods, but the term is most properly understood to mean powerful or heavenly beings - not gods in the sense that we would understand the term. Certainly, I don't think you can identify Christ with such beings. We know that these "gods" were created. Consider the following verse:

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him." (Colossians 1:16)

On the contrary, Christ of course claims to the the alpha and omega, the uncreated I AM. Even if I was, hypothetically, to grant that the Bible allows for the existence of many minor gods, it is clear that Christ cannot be identified with them - he is the uncreated creator.

Hebrews 1:1-3 (KJV)

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

What is interesting here is that Paul is making a clear distinction between the Father and the Son ontologically.
God (the Father) who spoke to us by the prophets anciently has spoken to us by the Son in this time (Paul’s time) The Son being appointed heir and by the Son, God made the worlds.

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

This is crucial. The Son is the express image of God, meaning he is a copy of God in all aspects. The greek word used here is charaktēr, which means an exact copy. It is irrefutable.
Paul teaches that Jesus Christ is a god ontologically different from GOD the Father, as a twin is different from his sibling.

If we are to apply your reasoning to these verses of Hebrews, then to be consistent, we must say that the God the Father somehow speaks as though he was ontologically distinct from himself:

"And again, when he [the Father] bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." (Hebrews 1:6)

By taking a hermeneutical approach, a study of the scriptures shows that it is common to distinguish the three persons of the Trinity by their particular 'roles' and titles, while at the same time using such titles interchangeably between them in other places. Ultimately, this depends on which capacity they are being spoken of - either as an individual person of the Triune Godhead, or as that Triune Godhead more generally. To use a verse very similar to the one you give, which highlights my point here a bit more clearly:

"To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 1:7)

In distinguishing the Father and Son as God and Lord respectively, Paul is here speaking of those roles that they play in the work of salvation. Jesus is the "Lord and Saviour" in that he, and not the Father, bore the punishment for our sins upon the cross. The Father is called "God", in that he, and not Jesus, acts as the righteous judge and punisher of sin when Jesus suffered upon the cross. This verse shows that they each undertake different works as different persons, but does nothing to suggest that they do not share the same essence/nature. It refutes Unitarianism, not Trinitarianism.

To say anything else would lead to scriptural contradictions, considering that the titles of Christ and the Father are used so interchangeably throughout scripture. I laid out several of these in argument no.3 in my OP. Sometimes God is called Lord or Saviour. Sometimes Christ is called God.

So while the Son, in his capacity as the Son, is distinguished in some places from the Father as our Lord and Saviour; in others places, in his capacity as part of the Godhead, he is referred to by those titles that in other places are given to the Father. And likewise also the Father, in his capacity as the Father, is called God for the role he plays as the righteous judge and punisher of sin; in his capacity as part of the Godhead, he may also be called our Lord and Saviour.

But, but you might interject. Paul speaks of ‘one God only’ in other places. Yes he does. Particularly in Ephesians 4 and Corinthians 8. Let’s read one of them.

1. Corinthians 8:4-6 (KJV)

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Paul is identifying the one God here, which is the Father. This is biblical monotheism. Paul is telling us that there is one Supreme Being, identified as GOD in the ultimate sense of that word, and that is the Father. To say that this verse testifies that there is only one god and Jesus therefore is only Lord, is misrepresenting this verse. Especially in light of Hebrews. It does not claim that there are no other gods. It states that there is no other being sharing his essence as God. He is distinct from other gods ontologically.

Paul says in that passage that there is only one who Christians call "Lord". And yet there are several other places where Christians call God (which you say is just the Father) "Lord". This leaves two possibilities - either the scripture errs, or the Subordinationist interpretation of the scripture errs.

I mentioned earlier the distinction made between the various 'roles' of the Father and the Son in the salvation plan, and further down this post I will comment on the distinction between the equality of the essence/nature between Son and Father, and the equality of the incarnated Christ in relation to the Father in the Son's particular role as Saviour.

Finally, the one verse Trinitarians like to quote:

John 1:1 (KJV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

The debate around this verse is the question of the Word being God or a god.
If he was GOD then he was the God he was with, which I don’t think Trinitarians believe. Moreover, I don’t think Rhyf makes that claim (modalism). The text says he is either God or a god.
Nevertheless, he is with God.
Therefore, the text is clearly stating that he is a separate god. If he is not a separate god, he is the same God and we are still trying to figure out which god he is with.

You might say he is with the father, but that is not what this text is stating. John is not using distinctions like father/son. He is using the word Theos. But John is using a distinction between them. He is using ton Theon and Theos. There is an article there that is not translated. It should read the Word was with The God and the word was god. You can interpret Theos as either God or a god. Whoever wrote John made the distinction clear and that is significant. He is clearly separating the two as distinct entities.
I therefore conclude that God and Jesus Christ is two separate beings, both entitled to be called a god. One is the original, not formed nor copied from any other gods. He is the original, but Jesus is a replica of the original, embodied with the full power of godhood (Col 2:9), but separate nonetheless.

The only group I know who translate John 1:1 to read that the Word "was with God and was a God" are the Jehovah's Witnesses. From what I can see, scholarly opinion tends to support the more common translation.

Jesus was both with God and was God, as John states. If the best wording would indeed be "was with the God and was God", then that doesn't necessarily support Subordinationism or refute Trinitarianism. Perhaps in making the distinction between "ton Theon" and "Theos", John was highlighting the distinction between the Triune God, and the Son as God.

We have to apply the principle of interpreting scripture with scripture. If you use John 1:1 to argue that Jesus is a created, copy of an original God in the form of the Father, then how does that fit in with Jesus' claims to be the alpha and the omega, the I AM?

He is however subordinate as John further explains:

John 20:17 (KJV)
Jesus to Mary Magdalene: …I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 14:28 (KJV)
…I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

John 10:29 (KJV)
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all.

The problem is we have some verses when Jesus seems subordinate to the Father, and others where he claims to be equal with the Father. Remember, the Pharisees attempted to stone Jesus because he was "making himself equal with God" (John 5:18). I think this is where a very important distinction comes in - between the equality of essence/nature on the one hand, and the equality of 'office' or 'purpose' on the other while Jesus was on earth. Consider the following verse:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death..." (Hebrews 2:9).

In saying Jesus was "made", it speaks of course of the Son taking upon a human form, since we know from John 1:1 that the Son has been around far longer than man. Indeed, to say that he was made lower even than the angels, must speak of his human form and the suffering he would endure in it.

By applying hermeneutics and studying those verses that claim variously equality and subordination with the Father, it becomes clear that the Son is equal in terms of essence/nature, but that he was subjected to the wrath of the Father in his mission to become the Saviour of mankind.

****************************************************************************

Beyond debating particular verses, I have to wonder how the Subordinationist position allows for a just and merciful God, if Jesus and the Father are in fact entirely separate entities each with their own essence/nature.

Within a Trinitarian framework, God comes to earth in human form as Christ to bear the sins of mankind, while punishing these sins as God the Father. In doing this, God both punishes sin and forgives us - he is perfectly just and merciful, and this has always been central to the Judaeo-Christian perception of God.

If, on the other hand, Jesus is a separate demi-god from God the Father, then God is in fact not merciful, loving, or selfless in any way. He doesn't bear our sins upon the cross, he just heaps them onto an entirely different person. We would be left with a sort of just yet merciless over-God, and a loving yet relatively weak demi-God. This doesn't strike me at all as the way God is portrayed in the New Testament.