The Triunity (my slightly differing view/ understanding)

First, here is what I don't believe. I don't believe that God has 3 different personalities. I don't believe that God has been keeping Himself company throughout all eternity by talking to His 3 personalities so that He doesn't get bored.

Secondly, here is what I do believe. I believe that the Father is called God the most and is therefore the Head in role in analogy. I believe that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God. I believe that Jesus has eternally been the Logos or the Word and Thoughts of God by which He created all things. I believe that Jesus was not always the Son until He was born in human flesh and it was said of Him, "You are my Son [b]today[/b] I have begotten you". So, as we have a head, a word, and a spirit so does God. As we have different parts and functions therefore and yet are one so is God. As my parts are different, have different roles and functions but don't have different personalities so is God.

Longer version:
First I will start with the story of my dealing on this topic. Before I was saved I didn't even know there was a Holy Spirit. And, I hadn't quite figured out Jesus Deity either. There were a lot of things I didn't know at the time. As time progressed as I was saved I learned of these things both doctrinally and experientially. I then went to Bible College and accepted the things taught to me. After a while as my discernment sharpened I began to question things. I also ran into many cults and false religions attacking the Christian view of the Triunity as I evangelized. Some of the stuff they said made some sense and some of what I was being taught at school did not. However I reckoned by faith what I believed to be the normal and right teaching of the Triunity by faith. I started to seek the Lord because I felt an uneasiness with it. I wanted the truth and clarity on the Scriptures. I almost felt as if the Scriptures just didn't elaborate on it because it was so deep, transcendent, and mysterious. However if I could receive revelation on it I would be pleased to have it as I have in other doctrine's sought God to teach me and open the Scripture's to me since I understand that it is not just a scholarly exposition which can reveal these things to you since there is a spiritual war. After time I believe I had a breakthrough and the Scripture's started to fall into place. I now have a solid peace about this and am delighted in the Triunity as it is truly taught in Scripture. It is a bit different from the normal teaching of today but I do not believe by all that much. I might even say the things of which I am about to speak are somewhat incidental however I think it beneficial to communicate both for to be criticized and to instruct toward sound doctrine on such an important doctrine that has escaped many in fullness and perplexed cults like Mormons, Watchtowerites, and Muslims. So here is my view and understanding.

Father:
He is God. The Father is called God the most. He is not more God then the Holy Spirit or Jesus but He is in analogy the Head.

Jesus:
He is God in the flesh. Jesus has eternally been the Logos or the word of God by which God created all things. He was not always the Son until God took on the form of man. One could say relationally He was as dear to the Father as a son but was not the Son in the specific sense that He became when it was said of Him, "You are my Son [b]today[/b] I have begotten you".

Holy Spirit:
He is God. He is the spirit of God. The Lord is the Spirit.

Conclusion:
So, I believe that the Father is the head. Jesus is God's word. And the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit. So just as we have a word or thought or mind, and a spirit, and a head so also does God. As we have different parts and different functions and yet are one so also is God. Now... what I do not believe is that God has 3 personalities and has been relating to Himself throughout all eternity amusing Himself so that He would not be lonely.

Ben,

I see the scripture but I didn't feel right saying that Jesus wasn't always God's son.

Jesus called God his Father rather than Joseph when he was twelve but that was 18 years before "today I have begotten you."

Jesus called God his Father rather than Joseph

I think though that this doctrine is somewhat incidental my main focus is on the fact the the Triunity is portraying God as a God with 3 personalities talking to Himself which is weird and unsound and not only confuses Christians but also turns off those outside the faith and false religions because of it's awkwardness. If this were the case that God were this way and the Bible taught it I would accept it and just say that is the way God has made but I sincerely have not come to that conclusion and have tested it often and have found no one to ever respond to it substantially and I am blessed to have understanding I think it is very helpful because this mainstream portrayal I believe has not produced edification. I think it is because of the difficulty and intricacy of this doctrine that it is so little understood.

Be encouraged davidt. You are not alone in your accessment.

Father has also spoken to my heart on this matter and gave it to me as you explained it.

I smiled when I read it.

:-) ;-)

It is currently late so I will be quick to the point.

Conclusion:
So, I believe that the Father is the head. Jesus is God's word. And the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit. So just as we have a word or thought or mind, and a spirit, and a head so also does God. As we have different parts and different functions and yet are one so also is God. Now... what I do not believe is that God has 3 personalities and has been relating to Himself throughout all eternity amusing Himself so that He would not be lonely.

What you are talking about here is not foundational Christian theology. There is a reason the Trinity, the Godhead Three in One, has withstood the test of over 1700 years with the harshest criticisms of the greatest philosophers and theologians throughout church history.

While I am not going to get into too much detail about this, I will leave you with this criticism on the concept you have presented.

God, first and foremost, loves Himself. Yet, if God was One God with three different parts then His love would not be perfect. You need someone else for love to be perfected -- example, "love does not seek its own." Eternal Love requires an Eternal Object besides oneself to love. The Trinity fulfills this requirement with Three Persons in One. This importance has at least three points: 1) imperfect love is not God 2) without at least Two Eternal Persons in One, God ceases to be Self-Sufficient. That is, the nature of God's love requires a second object to love. If that object is anything other than God Himself then God ceases to be Self-Sufficient (He becomes dependant upon something not God for His perfection). 3) Obviously God cannot love Himself as a Second Object, or Third Object, if He is One Person with varied parts.

Also, as you have explained your understanding of the triunity: if the Father is a "part" of God, the Son is a "part" of God, and the Holy Spirit is a "part" of God, then each part in and of itself is not God. To be God requires the wholeness and completeness of the infinite attributes that God is. That is, if the Father is a piece of God then He is not infinite, if the Son is a piece of God then He is not infinite, if the Spirit is a piece of God then He is not infinite. And if these three are not infinite then it is impossible to add three finites together to sum infinite.

finite + finite + finite does not equal infinite. It is impossible.

There is a name for this view of triunity, though I don't presently recall what it is.

As BoG said, the truth of the Trinity is foundational to Christianity. We need to realize up front the seriousness with which we approach it. All cults have at their foundation a [u]false[/u] view of the nature of God. This subject has been handled in these forums extensively. I would suggest doing a search and reading through the wealth of materials that have been presented. It is simply too labor intensive to go back line upon line and reestablish all of the essential points.

I would offer this resource to consider. It is Ravi Zacharias explaining how the law of non-contradiction is not violated by the doctrine of the Trinity. You will find it [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdejhQeAPUk]HERE.[/url]

As my parts are different, have different roles and functions but don't have different personalities so is God.

This is impossible because it makes nonsense of all of the conversations that take place between the Father and the Son as well as the references to the Holy Spirit as being God Himself with the capacity to be grieved and blasphemed.

I believe that Jesus was not always the Son until He was born in human flesh and it was said of Him, "You are my Son today I have begotten you".

Jesus Christ cannot be said to have been an impersonal idea that eternally existed in the mind of God and was manifest in the earth to 'become' God's Son. The incarnation of Christ brought about the [i]hypostatic union[/i] in which God became flesh and dwelled among us.

[color=000066] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (John 17) [/color]

Notice the personal pronoun 'I'- it denotes personality. He did [u]not[/u] say glorify me with the glory before 'I' was, but before the [i]world[/i] was. Clearly the 'I' here clearly existed and shared in the glory of the Father. Paul deals with how Christ 'emptied Himself' of this glory for the purpose of being made in the likeness of men:

[color=000066] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:5-8) [/color]

Key in on the portion [i]made himself of no reputation and took upom Him...[/i]; again, these a personal pronouns and not impersonal ideas eternally existing in the mind of God. This was the true fulfillment Isaiah 6:

[color=000066]Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for [u]us[/u]? Then said I, Here am I; send me. (Isaiah 6)

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; (Isaiah 61:1)

And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. (Luke 4:20, 21)
[/color]

See also this SI archived thread called
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=7893&forum=36&start=0&viewmode=flat&order=0]Godhead[/url] and this article on the Hebrew concept of plural unity called [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1993]'One Yachid or one Echad?"[/url]

There is a name for this view of trinity, though I don't presently recall what it is.

Is it called "Oneness" theology?

Sounds to me like some people like to complicate the most simple things!

God said let us make man in our own image so in the image of God created he him, male and female. Two persons: me and you. So, if God made two why not have three persons in the Godhead all working together as a unit with different functions?

Not scholarly, I'll admit ...

ginnyrose

I see the scripture but I didn't feel right saying that Jesus wasn't always God's son.

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory [u]which I had with thee before the world was.[/u]

Joh 7:29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven:

I wanted the truth and clarity on the Scriptures. I almost felt as if the Scriptures just didn't elaborate on it because it was so deep, transcendent, and mysterious.

[i]And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.[/i] 1Ti 3:16

[b]Manifest

G5319[/b]
φανερόω
phaneroō
[i]fan-er-o'-o[/i]

From G5318; [i]to render apparent[/i] (literally or figuratively): - appear, manifestly declare, (make) manifest (forth), shew (self).

Brother, I could wish for more of that halt that you mentioned above, just at that point, right at that point you had it ...

[i]"I almost felt as if the Scriptures just didn't elaborate on it ...[/i]"

Precisely. But why is that not enough for us? Now you go on to say, with the many of us ... [i]Now[/i], I believe, my view, I think, have come to this conclusion ...". Not having convictions, that is not what I am appealing to but the elaborating.

I am finding this again and again may be our very trouble in so many things. If the Lord is a mystery and is mysterious, has chosen to hide those things past our understanding, revealed that much that He has in scripture, where do we get the idea that it can be had or that we need to have this ... hidden knowledge? Sound familiar? Back in that first book ...

But moreover even the ever raging 2 man system of extrapolation, one with a C and the other with an A - Where is it that the scriptures, faith ever was to amount to some sort of trigonometry, every more and more complicated, far beyond the 'hard to understand' aspects of Paul's writing it has become [i]systems[/i] of elaborations, explanations. What was [i]meant[/i] or what this [i]means[/i] seems to be where we go all to pieces trying to unravel things far beyond our contemplation.

I wonder if it is not truly a form of pride in us that [i]must[/i] have an explanation or feels a sort of shamed facedness if we cannot give an explanation to that which is taken, simply on faith. Too embarrassing? That we might be seen as simpletons, ignorant, believing old wives tales ...

This [i]need to know[/i] business, how far reaching it is, our modern day 'prophets' full of all kinds of imaginations and future telling when it is largely and greatly keep from their sight and their minds. So it is ... [i]extrapolate[/i], parse the scriptures, comb and combine and make a great stew of it all, are they a recipe or ... a mystery? A great showing forth of the distance between us and God, who ironically is so very often ... silent on all these matters.

I am a great proponent of the word; "Perhaps". And of holding two seemingly opposing, 'contradicting' aspects in tension - I find nothing wrong and even that it is far more true and healthy, scriptural to hold things in abeyance, happy that the Lord has done precisely what He has done, keeping things to Himself.

Adam and Eve. The devil himself, how many have gone for this very thing to satisfy their craving for [i]that particular knowledge[/i] ...

Food for thought brother.

God took on the form of man called Himself His own Son since He begot Himself and then spoke and acted toward Himself He was the only one who could do it and so had to act not only for others but toward Himself as well though it seems odd I think it makes very good sense. He was the only one who could act toward Himself and fulfill His justice and so He did in this somewhat complex way.

Greenlea,

Be encouraged davidt. You are not alone in your accessment. Father has also spoken to my heart on this matter and gave it to me as you explained it. I smiled when I read it.

Bog,

I will first let it be known that in my answering I am not taking this lightly as some fun thing to be debated. I am neither speaking in any argumentative way so please do not take me as having that kind of attitude throughout this discussion and this goes out generally to all. I may be straight to the point on doctrine but that is just because there is much to answer to. I am also not being close minded.

There is a reason the Trinity, the Godhead Three in One, has withstood the test of over 1700 years with the harshest criticisms of the greatest philosophers and theologians throughout church history.

You need someone else for love to be perfected

if the Father is a "part" of God, the Son is a "part" of God, and the Holy Spirit is a "part" of God, then each part in and of itself is not God.

Robert,

the Trinity is foundational to Christianity. We need to realize up front the seriousness

All cults have at their foundation a false view of the nature of God.

I would suggest doing a search and reading through the wealth of materials that have been presented... too labor intensive to go back line upon line and reestablish all of the essential points.

explaining how the law of non-contradiction is not violated by the doctrine of the Trinity.

God does not have to have multiple personality disorder in order to keep him self company. God is God let us not forget He is very different then us. Sure He can keep Himself company but He does not need to have multiple personalities to talk to Himself.

Thingsabove,

Davidt, I agree with most of what you have written concerning the Godhead/Triunity. However for more sharpening I would like to make a few statements for us to meditate on and fine tune what you/we are saying.

1. I don't think it has to be weird for God to talk with His Word/self and His Holy Spirit.

While you may have been taught that he did it so he wouldn't "get bored" I have not heard that in my short twenty years of study.

The cults depart by saying Jesus is not eternaly God/Divine and the Holy Spirit is not eternaly God/Divine. They view this as a three Gods teaching.

While a sound understanding of the Godhead can be difficult for some it still is something that can be "apprehended" though not fully comprehended.

3. I may have misunderstood you on this point. I think you indicated that God the Father himself left His throne and descended down to earth in the form of Jesus. Help me here if I am wrong on what you said.

David Bercot's "Dictionary of Early christian beliefs"

but may not agree fully on the persons aspect?

Robert,

Quote: As my parts are different, have different roles and functions but don't have different personalities so is God.

This is impossible because it makes nonsense of all of the conversations that take place between the Father and the Son as well as the references to the Holy Spirit as being God Himself with the capacity to be grieved and blasphemed.

Jesus Christ cannot be said to have been an impersonal idea that eternally existed in the mind of God

plural unity called 'One Yachid or one Echad?"

Ginny,

Sounds to me like some people like to complicate the most simple things!

God said let us make man in our own image so in the image of God created he him, male and female. Two persons: me and you. So, if God made two why not have three persons in the Godhead all working together as a unit with different functions?