Quadrinity?

Recently I have been thinking a lot about the concept of the trinity. Some of this discussion has taken place in this forum. At this point it seems to me that the problem lies with confusing or unclear terminology more than with conflicting concepts. Both camps agree that God is one. But one camp states that there are three persons in one God, while the other states that there are three manifestations of one God. So the big difference seems to be over the terms "persons" vs. "manifestations." This morning I read something that I wanted to throw into the mix. Luke 11:49 "For this reason the wisdom of God said..."THat's all I need to referrence for the sake of this post. The wisdom of God speaks. Is the "spirit of wisdom" the same thing as "the wisdom of God?" Is it found within the Spirit of God? Or is the Spirit of Wisdom it's own "thing." Is it a manifestation or a person?

Is the "spirit of wisdom" the same thing as "the wisdom of God?" Is it found within the Spirit of God? Or is the Spirit of Wisdom it's own "thing." Is it a manifestation or a person? Todd, you may find the following helpful, it's from Adam's Clarke's commentary on this Luke verse;The wisdom of God - These seem to be Luke's words, and to mean that Jesus, the wisdom of God, (as he is called, 1Cor 1:24), added the words which follow here, on that occasion: and this interpretation of the words is agreeable to that of Matthew, who makes Jesus speak in his own person: Wherefore behold, I send you prophets, etc., Mat 23:34.In Christ,Ron

Thanks Ron, so you do you think Clarke is right? Isn't he in essence saying that Luke messed up? Maybe you could clarify for me because the grammer was a little confusing for me.

Isn't he in essence saying that Luke messed up? Maybe you could clarify for me because the grammer was a little confusing for me. Mr. Clarke is not saying that Luke messed up, he's just pointing out a remarkable variation of the words used in Matthew 23:34. Jesus is the wisdom of God and it's as if He was saying I am now going to carry out the warnings of the prophets of old. I think this speaks to His deity and who else but the Lord could carry this out?He is called the wisdom of God because by Him God makes known his wisdom in all things. (see Col 1:13-18 and 1Cor 1:30)In Christ,Ron

Ron,You wrote:"Mr. Clarke is not saying that Luke messed up, he's just pointing out a remarkable variation of the words used in Matthew 23:34. Jesus is the wisdom of God and it's as if He was saying I am now going to carry out the warnings of the prophets of old. I think this speaks to His deity and who else but the Lord could carry this out?He is called the wisdom of God because by Him God makes known his wisdom in all things. (see Col 1:13-18 and 1Cor 1:30)"Thanks for clarifying. But this is still unclear to me. It's a neat clue to Jesus' divinity that He says "I" in Matthew but says "the wisdom of God" in Luke concerning a very similar prophecy. Does this in fact mean that they are the same exact thing? I am not sure. Just as Jesus and the Father are One, and if you see Jesus then you see the Father, and yet somehow they are unique, this could be a similar case. Right?And both of those verses you referenced (Col. and Cor.) don't call Jesus the wisdom of God out right ("wisdom from God" is not the same as "the wisdom of God"). It seems that it is only implied. And I am cautious to draw conclusions from implications. So the "Wisdom of God" spoke it in the past tense, and Jesus speaks something simliar in the present (to them)? This just speaks to me some more about the notion that Jesus is God and that the fulness of God dwells in Him. But couldn't "The Wisdom of God" still be considered a "person"? You may say "Yes, it could be Jesus" and I agree. But I mean if we are going to speak of unique persons as some speak of within the trinity. Using terms like "as well" or "with" Jesus- how some may understand and verbalize the triune relationship. ANd "THe Wisdom of GOd" is with "them" so it's more than three? Maybe God is infinite in "person" as well. In fact (I could really use some help here) isn't the wisdom of God portrayed as a woman in the Old Testament? Also, I once (and I think only once) heard that some Greek term or terms for God, Lord, etc. in the New TEstament are in the femenin (spelling?) form. Know anything about that? Greg:I just listened to Tozer's first sermon in the "Attributes of GOd" series. I hope to listen to much more in the near future. I think this could be a big help. Quote:" I would also encourage you to find some old good teaching on the doctrine of the trinity by a Church Father."Good idea. You got any recommendations?

Hi Todd,Here is one if you can find it:"St. Athanasius On the Incarnation"[font=Georgia]ST VLADIMIR'S SEMINARY PRESS CRESTWOOD, NY 10707[/font] I included the address because I don't know where the person who gave it to me got it from...Struck up a conversation with him in a bookstore and he sent it to me...I think I still have his email and could find out where he got it if you are interested and/or you have troubles locating it...I haven't read it in a while, but I do know that Athanasius was a strong defender of the Trinitarian doctrine and lived around the 3rd century...It also has a forward by C.S.Lewis

Crsschk, THanks for the recommendation. I found it on amazon at this link:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/flex-sign-in/ref=cm_rate_rev_pagepos3/002-3874782-1531215#rated-reviewbut it's not the same version as you have. the reveiwers say it doesn't have the intro by Lewis. I would really like to read that. How long is it? Apparently it is found in Lewis' book "God in the Dock" which I have been wanting to get for awhile now anyway. Maybe now is the time. Thanks brother.

Hey Todd,Here is a couple:www.gty.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm www.scholia.net/c_s.htmAlso, try this one at Amazon, sounds like it does have the Lewis Intro:www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0020832001/qid=1062702304/sr=12-3/102-8274151-6234516?v=glance&s=books#product-detailsIf you have any more problems let me know I can contact him and find out where he got his copy...Tried the SVS press site where it came from, but didn't have any luck there....Let me knowMikeP.S. Here is the SVS site if you wanted to call them directlywww.svots.edu/SVS-Bookstore/index.html

Thanks for the help. I just read that Lewis essay in "God in the Dock" down at the local Christian bookstore. It was enlightening. I am looking forward to reading that book eventually. Thanks again.

In reading some reviews of "On the Incarnation" I saw the comment:"There are also no notes on scriptures cited. We can guess at the biblical references, but the references to Apocryphal books, or the pseudipigraphical "Pastor of Hermas" may be confusing to some."But this was in review of a different edition. Does yours have any notes on Scripture? And what do you think of the "references to Apocryphal books, or the pseudipigraphical 'Pastor of Hermas'"? So Athanasius didn't include Scripture references in this work? I think I will probably still get the book but want to get the best edition. I have emailed the bookstore to find out more.

Hey Todd,Did a search by IBSN # (0-913836-40-0) on the web via Amazon and was returned to SVS Presshttp://www.svots.edu/SVS-Bookstore/by-section/PAT.htmlClick on this link and scroll down to the 9th entry and you will find the copy I have, which is revised and has footnotes for scripture (in Roman Numerals) as well as a letter of St. Anthanasius on the interpretation of the Psalms added as an appendix, which has the refrences in context.For instance "For prayer and supplication, sing Psalms 5, 141 to 143, and 146." And what do you think of the references to Apocryphal books, or thepseudipigraphical 'Pastor of Hermas'?Goodness, I haven't read it in a while and besidesI am just a bonehead trying to grasp at stands from minds far advanced. Considering the time he lived in ....I don't have a clue, I'll stop while I am ahead. Here is something from the Translators preface re: Biblical references....'were given only where the quotations tallied exactly with our English versions; they were omitted where the Septuagint, which alone St. Athanasius knew, differed from the Massoretic Hebrew upon which our versions rest. Very few other notes were given, because annotation can easily become a hindrance rather than a help, and the modern reader should approach the mystery of Christ as St. Athanasius himself did, "not as a theologian, but as a believing soul in need of a Saviour."Their ordering system seems a bit confusing.But the phone number from the book and the one on the site match.SVS Press Ph # 1-800-204-2665Let me know if there is anything else I can do.

The Christian Classic Ethereal Libary has lots of ancient documents online, including lots by AthanasiusLots of the documents are available in pdf which means you can use pdf search functions.

Athanasius obviously did not put in references to the Bible because the chapter and verse divisions of the Bible were not added to the scriptures until much later! References to apocyphal books were not uncommon among early Christian writers. Just like we would quote our favourite devotional and spiritual books today, they did so in their works too.Note also that the first clear acknowledgement of all 27 books within the New Testament actually came from Athanasius. So Athanasius actually contributed to the development of the canons of the New Testament. Therefore, even though I did not study his works extensively, I believe he would have built up his theology primarily based on the New Testament canon as we know it today, and not on extracanonical materials.Back to your original question:Some scholars think that the expression in Luke 11:49, the "Wisdom of God", is a personification of an attribute of God that refers to his wise will.

Thanks Agent001 for the clarifications and Ron for bringing to mind once again an excellent resource. CCEL.

Yes, much thanks to all of you guys. Agent001,Quote:"Athanasius obviously did not put in references to the Bible because the chapter and verse divisions of the Bible were not added to the scriptures until much later!"Seems so obvious, doesn't it? That factor didn't even enter my mind. Quote:"References to apocyphal books were not uncommon among early Christian writers. Just like we would quote our favourite devotional and spiritual books today, they did so in their works too."Once again, great point. So did they consider them historically accurate and refer to them as fact or what? Did they not make the canon because they felt they were more historical accounts but not inspired, or what?Quote:"Some scholars think that the expression in Luke 11:49, the "Wisdom of God", is a personification of an attribute of God that refers to his wise will."Interesting. What other examples are there of attributes of God that are personified? If an attribute can be personified, is it not in some sense a person? So the Wisdom of God speaks and encourages and exhorts it seems (Prov. 8). What if "it" felt sad or happy? What does it take for "it" to be considered a person? What is it about the Holy Spirit that makes Him a person?

Todd:Canonicity is often thought of as the fulfillment of some criteria similar to the following: (1) apostolic origin (apostolicity) (2) universal acceptance (catholicity) (3) consistent message (orthodoxy) (4) liturgical use (liturgy)While historical accuracy is important, I think the canon (which literally means "rule") was developed with the primary concern of establishing the authority of the canonical writings as a rule of faith and life for all believers. While extracanonical writings can be historical accurate and even inspired, they do not carry the authority of the canon.The personification of Wisdom is often a characteristic of the Hebrew literary genre known as the wisdom literature, so I am not surprised that the same usage appears in the NT. I found a good article on "wisdom" in the following website (it's an entry from the Harper's Bible Dictionary). By the way, it also deals with Luke 11:49. http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/wisdom.htmAs for the question of why the Holy Spirit is a person in the trinity and not merely a personification of God's power, I have to study further. Perhaps others could help?

I think the canon (which literally means "rule") was developed with the primary concern of establishing the authority of the canonical writings as a rule of faith and life for all believers.Just a perspective on canonicity. We must be wary of giving the councils more power than they ever had. I think the councils 'endorsed' rather than 'established' the authority of 'canonical' books.In a sense we are only talking about the New Testament as Christ's endorsement of the OT Scriptures is 'authority' enough for Christians.This view was held by FF Bruce and an electronic version of his book is now online: The New Testament Documents: are they reliable? The relevant chapter is called The Canon of the New Testament. This is a very valuable book and well worth reading online.I think the councils' main criteria was that certain books were universally accepted by the churches and the councils added their 'amen' to that. If we give them more authority than that we misundestand the nature of the councils and give support to the Roman Catholic notion that 'the church' has authority over the Bible, rather than the opposite.If you would prefer a pdf version(makes it much easier to read), I have created one for my own use with a simple TOC, just drop me an email.

Philologos:Just a perspective on canonicity. We must be wary of giving the councils more power than they ever had. I think the councils 'endorsed' rather than 'established' the authority of 'canonical' books.I totally agree with you. I think I didn't express myself clearly in my previous post, so let me clarify here.I was not referring to the ecumenical councils in my previous post. What I had in mind all along was rather, the collective testimony of the saints. The canon was naturally developed throughout the first few centuries as the early Christians, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, discern in these early Christian writings the authority as the rule of faith and life among all believers. The ecumenical councils simply affirms what was recognised by this collective testimony.Thanks for the offer -- I already have a copy of F.F. Bruce's work. The four criteria that I have cited should all fall within the scope of this work; they are some of the factors that the early Christians would consider to decide what constitutes the word of God.

Any following the thread on the canon might like to visit The Bible Researcher. There is heaps of information on these pages and all presented in a moderate and fair manner. Whatever your views on the canon or the best translation, a visit to these pages will be beneficial.