Hey, can we not jump on Style for saying:

The Trinitarian Godhead can not be explained through the Bible alone. A perfect example of this is the Hypostatic Union (Christ is one person with two natures: human and divine). Jesus certainly aludes to His natures and His person, but He isn’t explicit in these facts from reading the Bible alone.

Rather than reading this as a rejection of Scripture, I read this as an endorsement of God-honoring, Bible-inspired theology.

Certainly one can get by (and many do) not caring at all to figure out theological truths about the Trinity. They may say “the Bible is all I need!” Yet surely God encourages us to try, even given our limits, to understand His nature. This is not trying to reject all mystery (as some Christians may claim). This is devoting all that we have to following the Lord, as He wants — as C.S. Lewis says, “brains and all.”

One could say this involves material “outside of Scripture.” But as with any teaching or discussion material — including these very posts — there is nothing wrong with that if we do our best to be Biblically based.

Hmmm. You might as well say that it’s perfectly fine how the JW’s and LDS view God then.

Everyone’s a critic. I thought I’d put in enough disclaimers about how the fact that the Trinity was ultimately a mystery did not mean we’re content to be ignorant about that which we can try to figure out with theology and God-honoring inference from Scripture. Ah well! This is the risk of writing from one side of the balance, as I did yesterday mostly from the it’s-a-mystery side rather than the let’s-try-to-figure-it-out-as-best-we-can-anyway side. We need both sides.

For example, we can know from verses clearly describing Christ as just as much God as God the Father that the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are wrong. With slight differences, both, er, Christianity spinoff groups believe Jesus is a very high but nonetheless created being.

I think it’s best to be careful with the H-word, but in this case it’s much easier to call it for what it is: heresy. If Jesus is not God, then we sin by worshiping Him and trusting Him as our only Mediator. A created being has “died for” (whatever that means) created beings. The value of His sacrifice on the Cross is cheapened, and redemption horribly redefined.

At the same time, there’s nothing wrong with trying to understand something, even with our finite minds. God gave us a brain and expects us to use it. The problem is using a finite mind to comprehend an infinite concept. In the end, it’s not going to happen. But I liked some of DiGs’ examples, even though they eventually don’t do justice to the Trinity. None of our examples will.

On this I am in full agreement with 220, and this is the best kind of Biblical balance — that we should try to understand the truth of the Trinity, but know that we cannot understand all of it.

Again, I doubt seriously we’ll ever be able to understand it, because even on the New Earth, humans, even with new bodies, will still have finite minds! The Apostle Paul balanced perfectly explanations of divine mysteries with knowledge of God’s transcendence. With him we can say:

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

“For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?”
“Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?”

Romans 11: 33-35

The biologist in me just won't let this jump away

Malaria in all three cases results in similar genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs (Jewish), Thalassaemia (Greek, Italian or Maltese) or Sickle-cell (African). All centred around the Mediterranean

Sickle cell is not another name for malaria. Sickle cell is a genetic disorder which prevents red blood cells from carrying as much oxygen as they can, and causes the blood cells to look like long noodles instead of round plump donuts (maybe I should go eat breakfast as I seem to have food on the brain).

It is a mendellian gene, which requires a homozygous recessive gene in order to activate. The malaria tie in come into play when an individual is heterozygous (a carrier for Sickle Cell), as these people are almost immune to the stuff.

To me, this illustrates just how gracious God really is to us. This world was really screwed up when sin entered into it, but even with the disease brought along with that sin, God provided protection, which, to me, is just incredible.

*Goes back to sticking his nose in a book

But in the end, at the Council of Nicea, one school of thought prevailed, and at that point the others became "official" heresies.

Perhaps they officially became heresy at that time, but in reality the other lines of thinking were always heretical.

Peace on Earth and Goodwill to All .

And a Merry Christmas to you my friend in case I do not have an opportunity to wish you one before then.

Then why read the Bible? If we can't find God there, where can we find Him? The Bible is the complete revelation of the Trinitarian Godhead. Period.

We read the Bible to learn about God. We can find Him there. I never implied we couldn't. But God is not limited to the pages of the Bible. God is bigger than that.

Hey, can we not jump on Style for saying:...

Of course you can, I do it to you enough.

Everyone’s a critic.

It's my job to attempt to keep you on your toes my good doctor.

For example, we can know from verses clearly describing Christ as just as much God as God the Father that the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are wrong. With slight differences, both, er, Christianity spinoff groups believe Jesus is a very high but nonetheless created being.

The JW's have a more difficult time defending their position due in part to their mistranslation of John 1:1. The Mormons on the other hand have at least a little more ground to stand on because they do not reject Jesus as God per se whether they claim Jesus was a created being or not. They reconcile the apparent inconsistency by saying we can all (well males anyway) become a god ourselves. One can see the logic in that if you consider God (the Father as they see it) can do anything - even make us literally divine. This isn't so different for Traditional Trinitarian Christians who reconcile apparent inconsistencies by saying Jesus has two natures, is one of three divine persons of the single Godhead, etc. etc.

Digs, my brother, I'm not calling you a heretic, just pointing out that all analogies lead to heresy. I have an argument for the trinity that rests on the use of a triangle, but there it's not an analogy, but an explanation of why God must be a trinity, no more, no less. We can define the trinity and we can argue for it, but we cannot analogize it, not only because of the inaccuracy, but because we also come dangerously close to envisioning God--which violates the second commandment.

Please understand me--I know you have the best of intentions. But I cringe every time someone uses an analogy to explain the trinity just as I cringe every time someone tries to solve the problem of evil by playing the free will card. These approaches are fatally flawed.

My tone does come off as a bit abrasive, so I apologize--I've been hanging around with too many darn Calvinists lately .

TBG

Thank you, DiGoRyKiRkE, for your much better explanation of how descendants' genetics could be affected by resistance to malaria. Unlike you, I never formally studied Biology, having done Physics and Chemistry instead.

Wagga's Shamrock Metaphor is nice and it works, but it reduces the "three [distinct] manifestations" to One Being wearing three different metaphorical hats.

Strictly speaking the Shamrock Metaphor is not my metaphor. I did go on in my original post to say how I've explained the Trinity to myself, though I'm sure there are better ones. For example, Government where I live, is split up into the Legislative, the Judiciary and the Executive. This isn't talking about personages, personalities, identities or polytheism, but of three different Governmental functions which have to be kept separate, much as the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost have clear and separate functions, as listed in the Nicene Creed.

1. God the Father almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen.....

2. One Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God....God from God, Light from Light, True God from true God.... Of one Being with the Father...He will come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead.

3. Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.... He has spoken through the prophets.

I like what 220ChrisTian said about Energy and how it is a driving force of Evolution:

Herbert Spencer, who “postulated the basic idea of force or energy, which is, in his view, the true source of evolutionary process and development. Energy, for Spencer, is the ultimate principle in the cosmic design, and out of this inexhaustible energy springs the endless progress of humanity”

This does make a good deal of sense to me: Light from Light does explain so much to me about Evolution's role in Creation. But I don't entirely agree with what you said later:

The Bible has the answer for everything! Church leaders are calling on the church to "Embrace Christianity as Total World and Life View." How? Through complete reliance on the Bible, God's Word!

The Bible is a compendium of the Torah, which consists of not only God's Laws, but also how Man fell from grace, Abraham got acquainted with God, the story of his family, how the Israelites went into Egypt and came back out again, and their eventual entry into Canaan. The Old Testament not only includes wise sayings, songs of praise and the writings or reports of prophets, whether major or minor, but also it contains two straight historic accounts, relating the establishment of Israel, Israel and Judah, their eventual destruction and the Israelite return to what would later on be called Judea, much of which has been confirmed by other sources from the time. The Bible has the stories of various individuals such as Ruth, Job or Esther, and also the Song of Solomon. The New Testament consists of the Four Gospels, Acts, the lengthy correspondence of St Paul and writings of other Apostles, finishing off with Revelations.

Now the Bible does tell us what we need to know about God, providing much comfort, solace and inspiration. I've had my own experiences of how the Bible has helped me. But I've also seen where information from the Bible has been misused, misinterpreted and misunderstood. You can't just pick out a random verse from the Bible and then 'Go out and do likewise'. Clearly other things matter too, such as prayer and counselling from competent, adequately trained and reliable church leaders, such as the clergy. And clearly context and appropriate application when reading the Bible also matter.

There is also a debate about what should be in the Bible. Biblical canon at present does not include any of the Apocryphal books formerly in the Septuagint. I've already noted that the Pharaohs of Genesis and Exodus are not named, in sharp contrast to Shishak (from Rehoboam's time) or Necho (the Pharaoh who killed Josiah). Although St Paul's letters to various groups are still available to us, it would be very instructive to find out what was in St Paul's incoming mail for him to write the things he did. As it is, we have to rely on contemporary or later writers, such as Tacitus, Eusebius and Origen to get the context of the times he was writing in.

Wagga, I've been using something along the lines of the Shamrock concept for several years now. It is a good system and streamlines the concept a bit to make it more digestable for pea-wits like me.

The Shamrock Metaphor is something I learned in primary school, to explain this national and beloved emblem of Ireland, and how St Patrick used it to convert the heathen Irish to Christianity. And I agree with you that all life is a miracle.

The Trinity? For me, St. Patrick's shamrock comes closest to the most respectful example, particularly as if you pull the petals off a shamrock, the petals don't become separate shamrock plants. It takes all the petals, staying on the stem, to be one shamrock.

But I am reminded of Augustine's answer:

St. Augustine was walking on a beach thinking about the Trinity, this difficult part of our faith. He noticed a small child running from the ocean back up the beach. He had a bucket and was taking water from the ocean and pouring it into a hole in the sand. St. Augustine stood there for a moment and asked the boy what he was doing. The boy responded that he was trying to pour all the water in the ocean into this hole. St. Augustine responded that it was impossible. The small boy changed his composure and became the young Christ Child and said, “It would be easier for me to get all the water of the world’s oceans into this small hole than for you to explain the reality of the Blessed Trinity.” The child Jesus disappeared and St. Augustine gave up his quest.

If I don't see all of you earlier, Merry Christmas.

Interestingly, all the way into the Middle Ages there was a dispute over the divisions of the Trinity. Peter Abelard, who made himself odious to the Church by appealing to pagan philosophers in reasoning out the nature of the Trinity, maintained that the Trinity is of one substance, but all three persons are required to make a perfect whole and a perfect God. This was against the propositions of other theologians such as Roscelin, who held that the persons of the Trinity were distinct to the point of nearly working independent of one another. Then came Aquinas who suggested that the differences were based on the self-awareness of God and the relationships existant within himself - there were distinct persons, but not distinct individuals.

If I may venture an analogy based on my understanding, all are "organs" of God, performing their vital function within the relationship of God to God. This is reflected, a little, in the analogy used of Christ as head of the church, and we all members of one body. Of course, I haven't studied this subject intensely, so feel free to correct me if you see error.

I won't say that Calvin, and the rest of them don't know one end of a stick from the other. But I see way too much reliance on the words of men, and too little quoting of scripture to back up anything said.

I just go back to Genesis 1. We are made in His image. So why not see our Mind/Body/Soul for what they are, the created equivalent of the trinity?

I won't say that Calvin, and the rest of them don't know one end of a stick from the other. But I see way too much reliance on the words of men, and too little quoting of scripture to back up anything said.

I just go back to Genesis 1. We are made in His image. So why not see our Mind/Body/Soul for what they are, the created equivalent of the trinity?

a) Because such depends on a threefold division of man that I don't see warranted in Scripture. I see body and soul--spirit being the connection between the two.

b) Because such promotes an unbiblical view of the trinity--Jesus was human just as we are--even if we have a mind/body/soul, then obviously Jesus did. Wouldn't this undermine the trinity if the two are analogous?

I believe in Sola Scriptura, meaning that Scripture is the only final authority, not Solo Scriptura where Scripture is the only authority.

TBG

[
a) Because such depends on a threefold division of man that I don't see warranted in Scripture. I see body and soul--spirit being the connection between the two.

b) Because such promotes an unbiblical view of the trinity--Jesus was human just as we are--even if we have a mind/body/soul, then obviously Jesus did. Wouldn't this undermine the trinity if the two are analogous?

I believe in Sola Scriptura, meaning that Scripture is the only final authority, not Solo Scriptura where Scripture is the only authority.

TBG

I understand that what I said raises questions with other verses. Such as how the Lord could give up His spirit it John 19:30. Before anyone asks, no I don't think that it means the Holy Spirit. But It is the closest I can come too in explaining what is obviously beyond our ability to fully grasp.

Not that I exclude any teaching, except the person is more interested in self then edifying the church, I just see a lot of reliance strictly in the writings of men, with little, or no scripture to back what is said.

Interestingly, all the way into the Middle Ages there was a dispute over the divisions of the Trinity. Peter Abelard, who made himself odious to the Church by appealing to pagan philosophers in reasoning out the nature of the Trinity, maintained that the Trinity is of one substance, but all three persons are required to make a perfect whole and a perfect God. This was against the propositions of other theologians such as Roscelin, who held that the persons of the Trinity were distinct to the point of nearly working independent of one another. Then came Aquinas who suggested that the differences were based on the self-awareness of God and the relationships existant within himself - there were distinct persons, but not distinct individuals.

I'm not saying you are right or wrong, since it is above my competence, and knowledge. But wouldn't that particular Peter Abelard be the same Peter Abélard who had an affair with the wonderful Héloïse, thereby making himself odious to her guardian Fulbert?

And did I hear mentioned the Venerable Bede, to whom we owe the dating of Easter, among other things decided at the very famous Council of Jarrow? The Venerable Bede wrote "A history of the English Church and people" which is still available as a Penguin Classic, and which is still required reading for an understanding of the post Roman Empire situation in Northumbria in particular.

The Ark is in a crate somewhere in a US Government storage unit

I've just been reading a book about the Lost Ark of the Covenant, written by Tudor Parfitt, who claims to have found it. If you can, please check it out, and tell us what you think?

And meanwhile, if I can't get back, I'd like to wish you all a very Merry Christmas.

I understand that what I said raises questions with other verses. Such as how the Lord could give up His spirit it John 19:30. Before anyone asks, no I don't think that it means the Holy Spirit. But It is the closest I can come too in explaining what is obviously beyond our ability to fully grasp.

I think the best formulation of the trinity comes in the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

Q. 6. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A. There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory

One can clarify this statement, but it can't be explained otherwise. These are not three manifestations nor three functions--they are persons (though not individuals).

Not that I exclude any teaching, except the person is more interested in self then edifying the church, I just see a lot of reliance strictly in the writings of men, with little, or no scripture to back what is said.

I don't particularly like proof-texting because it so often leads to error. When I quote scripture, it's very often long passages or a reference to a passage. The trouble too is that there is a lot of disagreement over hermaneutics here.

TBG

I'm not saying you are right or wrong, since it is above my competence, and knowledge. But wouldn't that particular Peter Abelard be the same Peter Abélard who had an affair with the wonderful Héloïse, thereby making himself odious to her guardian Fulbert?

And did I hear mentioned the Venerable Bede, to whom we owe the dating of Easter, among other things decided at the very famous Council of Jarrow? The Venerable Bede wrote "A history of the English Church and people" which is still available as a Penguin Classic, and which is still required reading for an understanding of the post Roman Empire situation in Northumbria in particular.

That is indeed the same Peter. As with most figures in history, he is a round rather than flat character, about whom much can be said. The way history is taught these days. . . wrong thread, I guess.

I don't recall anyone mentioning Bede, but that is another fascinating person in church history. Notker of Saint Gall apparently wrote of him, "God, the orderer of natures, who raised the Sun from the East on the fourth day of Creation, in the sixth day of the world has made Bede rise from the West as a new Sun to illuminate the whole Earth." I believe it is Bede who records the fascinating story of the reign of Saint Edwin, among many others.

In a medieval history class I took this last semester, we discussed how Emperor Theodosius diluted the Christian faith by making it the state religion, as everyone, whatever they thought of Christ, was now a convert. Any thoughts on that?

I just go back to Genesis 1. We are made in His image. So why not see our Mind/Body/Soul for what they are, the created equivalent of the trinity?

Man's tripartite nature is body, soul, and spirit. See 1 Thessalonians 5:23.

But I see way too much reliance on the words of men, and too little quoting of scripture to back up anything said. ... Not that I exclude any teaching, except the person is more interested in self then edifying the church, I just see a lot of reliance strictly in the writings of men, with little, or no scripture to back what is said.

Agreed.

I believe in Sola Scriptura, meaning that Scripture is the only final authority, not Solo Scriptura where Scripture is the only authority.

Yes, Scripture is, or should be, the only final authority. And it may not be the only authority, but where does authority begin? With God. We're nothing without Him. It dawned on me yesterday what trusting and following God really means: hearing and obeying the voice of the Shepherd, Jesus Christ, the living "Word of God" [John 1].

Richard Baxter (1615-1691): "Let all writers have their due esteem, but compare none of them with the Word of God. We will not refuse their service, but we must abhor them as rivals or competitors. It is the sign of a distempered heart that loseth the relish of Scripture excellency."

Now the Bible does tell us what we need to know about God, providing much comfort, solace and inspiration. I've had my own experiences of how the Bible has helped me. But I've also seen where information from the Bible has been misused, misinterpreted and misunderstood. You can't just pick out a random verse from the Bible and then 'Go out and do likewise'. Clearly other things matter too, such as prayer and counselling from competent, adequately trained and reliable church leaders, such as the clergy. And clearly context and appropriate application when reading the Bible also matter.

When I said "The Bible has the answer for everything! Church leaders are calling on the church to 'Embrace Christianity as Total World and Life View.' How? Through complete reliance on the Bible, God's Word!" ... I never implied "You can't just pick out a random verse from the Bible and then 'Go out and do likewise'." How/why did you misread me? Yes, "other things matter too, such as prayer and counselling from competent, adequately trained and reliable church leaders, such as the clergy." At the same time, our final authority should be God's Word. Is it yours? Man is fallible. God is infallible. Which do you choose?

You can't just pick out a random verse from the Bible and then 'Go out and do likewise.'

Hmm. I just thought of the parable of the good Samaritan [Luke 10:25-37]! A scribe tells Jesus the most important commandments are to love God and one's neighbor. Jesus tells him, "This DO and thou shalt live." But he wants to justify himself: "Who is my neighbor?" Then Jesus tells him a parable about the good Samaritan. Then He asks him, "Which now of these three ... was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves?" The scribe says, "He that showed mercy on him." Jesus' response? "Go and DO thou likewise." Are you doing likewise? Are you loving your neighbor? God commands it!

Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

Do you see a pattern here? Hearing and obeying the voice of God is a refrain in the Bible, a command! Are you obeying God's voice in His Word, or are you just hearing Him, not obeying, and therefore deceiving yourself?

wagga, I highly recommend Francis Chan's Crazy Love (2008). It's about loving God first and most and loving others: obeying the voice of His Word.

Half an hour ago a Facebook friend said this: "You either read what the Bible says and follow it or you aren't part of the church..."

STUFF TO THINK ABOUT...
Fencer, you mentioned laminin many pages ago in this thread. It's the building block of life [?] in the shape of a cross = wow! So what are the spiritual implications? “And He [Jesus Christ] is before all things and by [in] Him all things consist” [Colossians 1]. Christ “uphold all things by the word of His power” [Hebrews 1]. He is the center of the universe, the “wheel in the middle of a wheel” [Ezekiel 1]. Christ holds it all together. He sustains life. What’s the glue? The cross! The blood! So, is your world geocentric [man-centered] or heliocentric [Son-centered]? What holds you together? What sustains you? Who or what do you turn to in crises? This is your real identity, the source of your power or weakness, essentially your God. Does the cross define you? Is it your before and after? Is the blood of the cross the bond between you and God? The song “God of the Ages” is based partly on Colossians 1:15-17. Here are the lyrics.