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.

[Sigurd]

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.

You are allowed to object, but nonetheless it is well documented that Trinitarianism originated with the council at Nicea with Athanasius as the leader.
The Trinitarians as they were later called, was a minority at that council. Just read any scholarly book about the event and it will say the same.
I’ll even throw in an author: J.N.D Kelly, who states that the great conservative middle party at the council were subordinationists. One can’t be a subordinationist and have three in one God. You need three divided in nature.
Besides, Athanasius was a modalist and would object to the 4th point in your opening statement.
I am tempted to go further into detail pointing out the different groups within this very old debate, but I will not here, but if this point is still being refuted, I might.
It would seem that Trinitariansim could originate with the Gnostics, as it was during the fallout of the Nicean council that the Niceans (later Trinitarians) used the word homo-ousios (same essence) about Christ, a word formerly used by the gnostic community.

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?

It is a constructed word and should be understood as Three gods divided in nature but one in purpose, power etc.

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?

I can only repeat the scripture which says that Christ is the charaktēr of the Father, which means he should be an exact copy, and having the same attributes as the father including all powers. He is still subordinate as a prince is to a king.

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.

It isn’t fanciful.
I wish more fundamental Christians would actually read scholarly work on the Bible… these things are not self-evident. And this goes to Vincents comment about interpreting scripture with scripture. Nonsense. You need to understand the ancient Hebrew culture to understand the Old Testament, especially Isaiah. Without the understanding of the Ancient Israelite New Year Festival you will miss most of Isaiahs message in chapters 40-63. And you can’t learn about this festival from the Bible itself.
Scholars (Christian) since the birth of the church in Jesus’ time have commented on the sciptures and its meaning. They are the church Fathers and have coined many of your current beliefs including Trinitarianism.

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)

I can’t see the contradiction in Hebrews here.

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.

This is a phrase Paul used… It doesn’t have to imply that he is talking about roles. He could as likely be speaking about two distinct ontologically beings. "Hermenautical approach…" I am not sure if I follow your meaning. Are you talking about interpreting based on presuppositions?

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.

You need to bring the text or I will just dismiss it as (baseless) opinion

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.

Ah… but as I am not a JW – you now know two groups. And there are others – trust me.
Moreover, this goes back into the sola scriptura discussion… and we might need to touch on it in this debate. Did the Bible translators have a Trinitarian presupposition? If they did – they would translate Theos as “God” and not “a god” – do you dispute that either translation is equally correct, technically?

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.

“Perhaps”. Seems like you are making an uninformed opinion?

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?

bring the text in and we can discuss the particulars.

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.

Heh.. you are refuting Trinitarianism here. How can the great God be made less when inhabiting the persona of Jesus? Where is the rest of Gods power stored while he fulfils his 33-year mission?

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.

Easy… as described in John 3:16
He upholds his great justice by condemning all sin indiscriminately while with great mercy sends his Son to atone for all sin. Thereby he inhabits both attributes – perfect justice and perfect mercy.

I guess I can bring in the verse from John 10:31-37 now since you touched upon something similar.

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So the Trintiarians will claim that Jesus is accused of ‘claiming to be God’ (Father). Lets entertain that idea for a bit. Why would Christ quote Psalm 82 as a rebuttal for their claim? It wouldn’t help a bit. He could have quoted other scripture referring to God Almighty, which was fulfilled in himself. No, he quotes a text referring to lesser gods. He puts himself in that category of gods. He is saying that he is not God (the Father) but an ontologically different being separate from The Father.

I am aware of the Elohim reference in Genesis, it is referring to the three parts all being present at creation, at least, that is how I understand it, and it does not conflict with the teachings of the trinity as found in the Bible. Principle rule, interpret Scripture with Scripture.

Really? ... that seems to me as an uninformed opinion.

I have seen 1. John 5:7 used in this debate (though not by Ryf) which shows that you are not familiar with the controversy around this particular scripture.
I suggest you do a little digging around this to understand why Erasmus and Martin Luther with others omitted that part of this verse (which is quoted twice in this thread) from their translations .

[Rhyfelwyr]

You are allowed to object, but nonetheless it is well documented that Trinitarianism originated with the council at Nicea with Athanasius as the leader.
The Trinitarians as they were later called, was a minority at that council. Just read any scholarly book about the event and it will say the same.
I’ll even throw in an author: J.N.D Kelly, who states that the great conservative middle party at the council were subordinationists. One can’t be a subordinationist and have three in one God. You need three divided in nature.
Besides, Athanasius was a modalist and would object to the 4th point in your opening statement.
I am tempted to go further into detail pointing out the different groups within this very old debate, but I will not here, but if this point is still being refuted, I might.
It would seem that Trinitariansim could originate with the Gnostics, as it was during the fallout of the Nicean council that the Niceans (later Trinitarians) used the word homo-ousios (same essence) about Christ, a word formerly used by the gnostic community.

I never claimed that Trinitarianism was the dominant position within Christendom at the time of Nicaea or Athanasius. From what I have read, I would be agreement that Trinitarianism was a minority position at that time. What I was trying to say was that I believe that the scriptures show Trinitarianism to be the position of the earliest church - the church in the time of Christ and the apostles. I am well aware that although modern Christians tend to revere the ancient church, it was rife with error even in relatively early days, as is shown by the many doctrinal disputes documented in the scripture itself (the Judaizers of Galatians, the churches of Asia scolded in Revelation, etc).

For this reason, I think it is important to appeal to the scripture as effectively the best source we have on what exactly the very earliest Christians believed - not those hundreds of years later at Nicaea.

It is a constructed word and should be understood as Three gods divided in nature but one in purpose, power etc.

Fair enough.

I can only repeat the scripture which says that Christ is the charaktēr of the Father, which means he should be an exact copy, and having the same attributes as the father including all powers. He is still subordinate as a prince is to a king.

I thought a key belief of Subordinationism which distinguished it from Trinitarianism was the idea that Christ and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father both in nature and their 'office' or 'function'? Isn't that why, after all, you appeal to those verses of scripture which speak of minor created gods, and identify Christ with them? The wikipedia article on Subordinationism opens with:

"Subordinationism is a doctrine in Christian theology which holds that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being."

I know its not the best source but I did initially refer to that to try to understand where you are coming from. Would you disagree that Subordinationism says Christ is subordinate in nature to the Father?

It isn’t fanciful.
I wish more fundamental Christians would actually read scholarly work on the Bible… these things are not self-evident. And this goes to Vincents comment about interpreting scripture with scripture. Nonsense. You need to understand the ancient Hebrew culture to understand the Old Testament, especially Isaiah. Without the understanding of the Ancient Israelite New Year Festival you will miss most of Isaiahs message in chapters 40-63. And you can’t learn about this festival from the Bible itself.
Scholars (Christian) since the birth of the church in Jesus’ time have commented on the sciptures and its meaning. They are the church Fathers and have coined many of your current beliefs including Trinitarianism.

The idea of interpreting scripture with scripture doesn't mean excluding all other sources for understanding the scripture. It just means that when you come across a verse which is unclear to you, you should attempt to understand it in a way that is consistent with other verses of scripture which speak more clearly on the matter. Naturally, you also have to look to scholarly extra-scriptural sources to understand the historical and cultural contexts.

I don't think there is anything in the context of Isaiah 43:10-11, to suggest that when God speaks of gods being formed, he means only gods being formed by clay. You are making a positive assertion that goes beyond the plain meaning of the text. You were of course right when you observed earlier that Isaiah and many prophets protested strongly against idol worship, but they were equally clear in preaching against the worship of any god besides God. If Christ is one such lesser god, does that mean that Christians are transgressing the commandments given in the Old Testament when they worship Christ?:

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God." (Exodus 20:3)

You might say again that he is speaking there of idols, but it seems to me to be a pretty untenable position to say that God would allow for us to worship other gods, so long as we don't make physical representations of them.

Also, I would say it is unfair for you to simply state that my belief in Trinitarianism comes from the Church Fathers and not from scripture. Have I ever appealed to their authority to justify Trinitarianism? I have never appealed to their arguments, the only authority I have appealed to so far is scripture which was written hundreds of years before they were born.

I can’t see the contradiction in Hebrews here.

"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)

Not a contradiction, but the Father does speak of God as though God is somehow distinguished from himself [the Father]. In the same way that Paul distinguished between God the Father and Christ the Son.

So, both the Son and the Father are distinguished as being distinct from God.

This is a phrase Paul used… It doesn’t have to imply that he is talking about roles. He could as likely be speaking about two distinct ontologically beings. "Hermenautical approach…" I am not sure if I follow your meaning. Are you talking about interpreting based on presuppositions?

You are right in that he isn't necessarily talking about them having different roles or being ontologically distinct beings. That was my point - you offered this verse as an argument for them being ontologically distinct, but there are other reasonable interpretations of this verse.

The Biblical hermeneutics I mentioned is the idea that you don't consider verses of scripture in isolation - you have to interpret them in a way that is consistent with the rest of the scripture. When there are more than one ways to interpret a verse (as there are for the one in question here) then you have to look to other verses to try to shed some light on what they really mean.

You need to bring the text or I will just dismiss it as (baseless) opinion.

"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." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Paul here says there is one Lord, Jesus Christ. Elsewhere, God is called Lord:

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

A similar example:

"Neither is there salvation in any other [than Christ]: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

Jesus is here called our only Saviour. Elsewhere, God is called our Saviour:

"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." (Jude 1:25)

Ah… but as I am not a JW – you now know two groups. And there are others – trust me.
Moreover, this goes back into the sola scriptura discussion… and we might need to touch on it in this debate. Did the Bible translators have a Trinitarian presupposition? If they did – they would translate Theos as “God” and not “a god” – do you dispute that either translation is equally correct, technically?

I am not learned enough to say which translation is correct. But certainly, from what I can see, scholarly opinion is almost universal throughout Christendom in agreeing that it is "God" and not "a god". You could say this is just because of their presuppositions, but of course ultimately non-Trinitarians will have their presuppositions as well.

“Perhaps”. Seems like you are making an uninformed opinion?

This is just another one of those cases where I am offering an alternative interpretation of a verse that you have offered as proof of your argument (I did initially raise this verse, but only to say that Christ was co-eternal with the Father, not to say that it proves that Christ is part of the Triune God). My opinion regarding this verse is not uninformed since it was based on a wider study of scripture. You formed your opinion on this verse in the same way. That is all either of us can do, since it is one of those things that is not clear in and of itself regarding what we are disputing.

All we can say for certain is that a distinction is made between God and Christ - a distinction that is compatibly with both Trinitarianism and Subordinationism.

bring the text in and we can discuss the particulars.

From my OP:

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58)
"I [Jesus] am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8)

These statements are not compatible with the idea of Christ being a subordinate, created god. These are claims of being the God, as the parallel verses (which Christ was deliberately referencing) regarding God make clear:

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)
"And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:14)

Heh.. you are refuting Trinitarianism here. How can the great God be made less when inhabiting the persona of Jesus? Where is the rest of Gods power stored while he fulfils his 33-year mission?

I think you have too narrow a view of Trinitarianism. Trinitarianism demands equality in essence/nature, but there are varying opinions within Trinitarian thought about whether the Son endures a sort of temporal subordination in regards to his role as Saviour. Not in the sense that his nature is ever anything less that perfect, divine and all-powerful - but purely in the sense that he voluntarily submits to the wrath of the Father upon the cross. The Eastern Orthodox would say yes, Catholics would say no, Protestants are split on the matter. All however are Trinitarian because the essential idea of Trinitarianism is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each have fully the same nature, and are co-equal and co-eternal in regards to this nature.

As a Subordinationist, you have to address those examples I gave where Christ claims to be equal with God. But you have brought them up a bit further down, so I'll address them then.

Easy… as described in John 3:16
He upholds his great justice by condemning all sin indiscriminately while with great mercy sends his Son to atone for all sin. Thereby he inhabits both attributes – perfect justice and perfect mercy.

Didn't you say that the unity that Christ and the Father share is the same unity shared amongst the saints? In what special sense is Christ then the Father's Son? In what way is it merciful to send one of your brethren to be punished for the sins of a third party? It would only be merciful and selfless to bear that punishment yourself.

I guess I can bring in the verse from John 10:31-37 now since you touched upon something similar.

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So the Trintiarians will claim that Jesus is accused of ‘claiming to be God’ (Father). Lets entertain that idea for a bit. Why would Christ quote Psalm 82 as a rebuttal for their claim? It wouldn’t help a bit. He could have quoted other scripture referring to God Almighty, which was fulfilled in himself. No, he quotes a text referring to lesser gods. He puts himself in that category of gods. He is saying that he is not God (the Father) but an ontologically different being separate from The Father.

Christ doesn't put himself in the category of the lesser gods. He quotes Psalm 82 to say that if those who hear the word are called gods, how great then is the blasphemy to deny someone so much greater - the Son of God who has been sanctified and sent into the world by the Father?

[Vincent Butler]

First of all, dealing the the "ye are gods" phrase. Actually, a good idea is to look at a dictionary closer to the times to help determine meaning. Wine nowadays is strictly alcoholic, back in 1611 it simply meant "the fruit of the vine". Gods can refer to deity, but it can also refer to people in high power, such as princes and kings. That is a possible explanation.
Sigurd, I am familiar with the controversy surrounding 1 John 5:7, I will respond to that later when I have studied what I have learned about it, I don't remember enough to respond to that right now.
Christ came to earth in human form in order to redeem mankind. Since sin was a result of man, redemption had to be by man (1 Corinthians 15:21). But it had to be by sinless man, and no man is sinless. That is why God had to take human form, because only a God-man can achieve both requirements.

Christ talks about the glory he left when he came down (John 17:5). He did not surrender his deity, as shown that he had power to raise himself from the dead. Yet other places say that God raised him from the dead. Only a God could raise himself from the dead. Yet this shows there has to be more than one aspect of God, the one who raises the dead part.
The Son, when quoting seeming inferiority to the Father, is speaking from his man state. Other passages clearly show he still retained his God state.
Sigurd, there is a doctrine of preservation, which states that God has perfectly preserved his Word. We accept that by faith, and I believe it to be the Authorized Version, otherwise known as the King James Version. That is why we interpret Scripture with Scripture, because it is God's (written) Word, so we can't treat it like a normal book.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Sigurd, there is a doctrine of preservation, which states that God has perfectly preserved his Word. We accept that by faith, and I believe it to be the Authorized Version, otherwise known as the King James Version. That is why we interpret Scripture with Scripture, because it is God's (written) Word, so we can't treat it like a normal book.

You lot are missing a few books in that version, but Catholics also believe the Bible to be divinely inspired scripture, and not a regular text.

[Vincent Butler]

I thought we were starting with the premise that the Bible is divinely inspired.

You lot are missing a few books in that version, but Catholics also believe the Bible to be divinely inspired scripture, and not a regular text.

Well, I guess according to the doctrine of preservation, those weren't scripture. If you are referring to the Apocrypha, the translators of the KJV did not deem them to be divinely inspired, though they believed they were good reading and could be used for teaching. That is why original 1611 editions had the Apocrypha in them.
There were other books too that have been lost to history, such as the book of Jasher and the Book of the Wars of the Lord. Obviously, if those were lost, then they would not be considered Scripture, because they were not copied by the scribes.

[Sigurd]

Sorry about the late reply... the flu and other stuff interfered.

I never claimed that Trinitarianism was the dominant position within Christendom at the time of Nicaea or Athanasius. From what I have read, I would be agreement that Trinitarianism was a minority position at that time. What I was trying to say was that I believe that the scriptures show Trinitarianism to be the position of the earliest church - the church in the time of Christ and the apostles..

Well… it is my claim that Trinitarianism was doctored by the Church-fathers (not the Apostles – the Church-fathers are those responsible for the church which emerged after the downfall of the early church which the New Testament predicted.

For this reason, I think it is important to appeal to the scripture as effectively the best source we have on what exactly the very earliest Christians believed - not those hundreds of years later at Nicaea.

Ah.. But you see… It was after Nicæa that the scriptures were canonized.

I thought a key belief of Subordinationism which distinguished it from Trinitarianism was the idea that Christ and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father both in nature and their 'office' or 'function'? Isn't that why, after all, you appeal to those verses of scripture which speak of minor created gods, and identify Christ with them? The wikipedia article on Subordinationism opens with:

"Subordinationism is a doctrine in Christian theology which holds that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being."

I know its not the best source but I did initially refer to that to try to understand where you are coming from. Would you disagree that Subordinationism says Christ is subordinate in nature to the Father?

I think the author is being sloppy in the definition. Subordinationism doesn't agree with Arius that Christ was simply a man created at birth and bestowed with Godliness. Yes Jesus Christ is different in nature and being – but the point is ontologically separate from God. As two full grown elephants are different, they are the same species and would have roughly the same strength and attributes, one is however dominant and the other subordinate because that is their way.

The idea of interpreting scripture with scripture doesn't mean excluding all other sources for understanding the scripture. It just means that when you come across a verse which is unclear to you, you should attempt to understand it in a way that is consistent with other verses of scripture which speak more clearly on the matter. Naturally, you also have to look to scholarly extra-scriptural sources to understand the historical and cultural contexts.

Then we agree. There are scholars out there that have a greater understanding of the scriptures and its context, and we would be wise to read their books.

I don't think there is anything in the context of Isaiah 43:10-11, to suggest that when God speaks of gods being formed, he means only gods being formed by clay.

Sure .. include gold and other substances. Do you suggest other ways of forming a god?

Also, I would say it is unfair for you to simply state that my belief in Trinitarianism comes from the Church Fathers and not from scripture. Have I ever appealed to their authority to justify Trinitarianism?

Ah but you do… This idea originated by them. Do you suggest that if Athanasius and his minority supporters had not convinced the church to adapt to their view, you would still believe in Trinitarianism today as you say: found in the scriptures?

"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)

Not a contradiction, but the Father does speak of God as though God is somehow distinguished from himself [the Father]. In the same way that Paul distinguished between God the Father and Christ the Son.

So, both the Son and the Father are distinguished as being distinct from God.

That is not how I read it. Angels of God is a title and it should be qualified like that as the word in Hebrew means messenger.

You are right in that he isn't necessarily talking about them having different roles or being ontologically distinct beings. That was my point - you offered this verse as an argument for them being ontologically distinct, but there are other reasonable interpretations of this verse.

This is a verse used by Trinitarians to show how God and Jesus is the same. I used it to show that it could be interpreted differently.

"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." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Paul here says there is one Lord, Jesus Christ. Elsewhere, God is called Lord:

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

Quoting the gospels can be tricky as you should find 4 versions of the same event and hence if they all say the same, it should be a truth established by several witnesses. But in this case it is only Mark that has the prefix to the great commandment of loving God and neighbors. Is this then the insertion of a misguided translator at one point?

A similar example:

"Neither is there salvation in any other [than Christ]: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

Jesus is here called our only Saviour. Elsewhere, God is called our Saviour:

"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." (Jude 1:25)

You are quoting a doxology. Saviour is not mentioned in your first quote, you are inferring it. But still, it is through Christ’s atonement whereby men can be saved, but it was God who sent the Messiah – and hence he can easily be called a Saviour as the Assyrian King Cyrus who was named Saviour of Israel.

From my OP:

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58)
"I [Jesus] am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8)

These statements are not compatible with the idea of Christ being a subordinate, created god. These are claims of being the God, as the parallel verses (which Christ was deliberately referencing) regarding God make clear:

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)
"And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:14)

I think you have heard of divine agents, it is a common argument used by the Unitarians against Trinitarians. There are many instances in the Bible and especially in the Old Testament that an angel speaks as he was God the Father. I am the great I AM could be uttered by an angel as a divine agent of God. The best example of this is Moses and the burning bush as the Angel says: I AM WHO I AM and “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”.
It is the view of many Christians that Jesus was this angel and especially with Unitarians.

Other examples would be Exodus 13:21
And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night
Exodus 14:19
And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them

I think you have too narrow a view of Trinitarianism.

Could be as I basically think of Trinitarians as modalists.

Didn't you say that the unity that Christ and the Father share is the same unity shared amongst the saints? In what special sense is Christ then the Father's Son? In what way is it merciful to send one of your brethren to be punished for the sins of a third party? It would only be merciful and selfless to bear that punishment yourself.

Really?? God and Jesus can’t be two separate entities because he shouldn’t send anyone but himself as a ransom against justice.

This begs the question… why use phrased such as Father and Son? Why not state the apparent full truth then? The Father condescended to make himself subject to the full law and brought justice to heel by paying for all sin himself. He himself being the embodiment of Justice and executioner at the same time as being the one executed.

Christ doesn't put himself in the category of the lesser gods. He quotes Psalm 82 to say that if those who hear the word are called gods, how great then is the blasphemy to deny someone so much greater - the Son of God who has been sanctified and sent into the world by the Father?

I don’t think so… he would have further supported his claim as The God IF that was his claim in the first place. Not basically say that they were as much God as he was in the sense of sons and daughters of God whom they call Father.

First of all, dealing the the "ye are gods" phrase. Actually, a good idea is to look at a dictionary closer to the times to help determine meaning. Wine nowadays is strictly alcoholic, back in 1611 it simply meant "the fruit of the vine". Gods can refer to deity, but it can also refer to people in high power, such as princes and kings. That is a possible explanation.

It doesn't answer why this would be his argument against his accusers.

Sigurd, I am familiar with the controversy surrounding 1 John 5:7, I will respond to that later when I have studied what I have learned about it

I eagerly await your comments.

Christ talks about the glory he left when he came down (John 17:5). He did not surrender his deity, as shown that he had power to raise himself from the dead. Yet other places say that God raised him from the dead. Only a God could raise himself from the dead. Yet this shows there has to be more than one aspect of God, the one who raises the dead part.
The Son, when quoting seeming inferiority to the Father, is speaking from his man state. Other passages clearly show he still retained his God state.

I am not arguing against his status as God (a god).

Sigurd, there is a doctrine of preservation, which states that God has perfectly preserved his Word. We accept that by faith, and I believe it to be the Authorized Version, otherwise known as the King James Version. That is why we interpret Scripture with Scripture, because it is God's (written) Word, so we can't treat it like a normal book.

So you are a KJV onlyist. This begs the question. Take my bible which is a Norwegian translation of Luther’s bible, Am I not able to discern the word of God from this? Is the word of God as preserved by Him only available to the English speaking Christians?