Because He taught the Trinity. So the Father sent the Son, and the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit. This is not rocket science.
Why I Am a Trinitarian: Part Two
- Thread starter RedFan
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Who says it is "a new teaching"? The Trinity was already revealed in the Old Testament. You -- my friend -- have a lot of studying and learning to do. Especially when you call Bible doctrines "fishy".
The proverbial saying is that a cold heart is a dead heart.
My emendation is that a cold heart is a dead testimony.
*
What the Messiah himself believes and teaches is “my Father and your Father, my God and your God” is the one God.
That is my warm heart testimony to men whose hearts are warm as well as to men whose hearts are cold.
@RedFan is still making his case. Let’s listen.
One of the ways that courts determine whether someone entered into a contract that he later denies making is by looking at his subsequent behavior -- the thinking being that what he later says and does which is inconsistent with there being no contract would be exhibiting irrational behavior. (Example: suppose he had issued a press release declaring the contract that he now denies making.) Subsequent behavior is pretty strong evidence. This is just common sense. Let's apply some of that common sense to Matthew 28:19.
The Book of Acts records that early Christian baptisms were in Jesus’ name (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). Now, why would the apostles and their followers baptize in one name rather than three if the Lord's very last command to them before ascending was to use three?
A similar problem with the verse is its command to reach out to "all the nations." The Greek word ethnē translated as “nations” in Matthew 28:19 is universally interpreted to include Gentiles. Let's leave aside for the moment that this final command of Jesus would be a complete reversal of His earlier instruction to the apostles to reach out only to the Jews (Matthew 10:5-6) and of his prediction that the apostles won’t complete their mission to the Jews before his return (Matthew 10:23). If Christ truly commissioned an outreach to the Gentiles as quoted in Matthew 28:19, how are we to make sense of Acts 10 and 11? In these chapters Peter encounters Cornelius, a Gentile, and through a dream comes to the conclusion that the gospel is not to be restricted to Jews. He reports the dream and the conclusion to his Christian brethren in Jerusalem, who at first are quite critical of Peter, but then come to accept his explanation.
If Christ’s parting words to his disciples before His ascension instructed them to spread the gospel to the Gentiles, wouldn’t you think they’d remember it? Wouldn’t you think that Peter and the brethren in Jerusalem would have embraced rather than questioned the practice of reaching out to the Gentiles? Why, then, their surprise? It’s difficult to make sense out of it if the Great Commission was given precisely as rendered by Matthew 28:19.
It's completely up to you, @Enoch111, but maybe you should read Matthew's gospel with just a little more critical thinking. After all, the author has elsewhere proved himself fallible. Let's not forget that Matthew 27:9 mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah.
Bottom line: Is Matthew 28:19 a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity? Perhaps; that subject deserves its own OP to explore whether baptism in three names logically entails the conclusion that each of the named parties are homoousian. (I may be the only Trinitarian who pushes back on that.) But is it an accurate quote of Jesus' parting words? I have my doubts. (If you're interested, I can give you my view of why the author of Matthew wrote the verse as he did. But my gut tells me you're not interested, and have already dismissed me as an idiot for challenging the accuracy of the quote.)
This proxy theory is actually not a theory at all if we read scripture without introducing any human thought that creates artificial spiritual bridging devises such as a 'god-man' concept or the incarnation and hypostasis and even kenosis - all artificial constructs. This is the artificial and destructive lens that distorts the interpretation not only of critical areas of scripture, also the true essence and study of Christology. Today, because of this entrenched and institutionalized lens, over 95 percent of professing Christians have a distorted view of Christ, his Father, and their close bonded relationship of the one Spirit that the Father provides and binds them together.
No, I say that Yahshua was and still is today the only true proxy and representative and working 'right arm' of God, his Father. As also our mediator to his Father.
This concept of proxy or agent or even as the true prince of his true King, is strongly implied, deduced and inferred in much scripture of the OT and NT. Too extensive here to discuss effectively.
Further, I would not think that scripture would pointedly and explicitly state for example using such words for Yahshua as, 'I'm an agent of my Father.' Besides, this contemporary or modern form or style of communication was never considered or used 2000 years ago. The gospel reporter would have not thought to use these type of words or expressions at all.
The (W)word of God clearly tells me that Yahshua was his Father's proxy or agent in a very unique and now eternal way. As the word of God, sourced by the Father only, it was used for different purposes in the interaction with mankind; as with the prophets and angels before Christ.
The much contentious verse of John 1:14a points to Jesus as the (W)word of God without clearly meaning Yahshua his Son is the source of the word himself. And besides, the 'logos' can never be a person from a grammatical and scriptural view. It is a thing or an 'it.'
The (W)word operated or miraculously became resident inside, indwelt in the Son. The Son carried the word inside of him as the very personal emissary, spokesman and perfect human counterpart of his Father's mind, thoughts and actions, as he throughout still maintained his own identity, integrity, spirit and will as a human being, person and nature.
He obtained this word of his Father immediately after his baptism. His Father delighted with his Son's approval to execute his Father's salvific plan of restoration, then immediately, without any hesitation, brought his own Spirit and it immersed itself with power and fulness and his Word into his Son, completely.
This is the crux of who Yahshua was, is, his purpose, that so many cannot believe in faith. That God for the first time in our human history at least, shared his Word, his intrinsic expression of life, of thoughts and his voice, powered by his Spirit, and entered into, inside of another created human spirit we call Jesus, the anointed one of God. For his expressed purpose (his word) as the key human person component of our salvation. And it was done.
Rather than believe this clear and obvious truth in scripture as the Spirit concurs to me, most have settled to believe in faith the wisdom of men and it's so evident today in most of Christendom.
Last edited:
Do you see how close we are, @APAK? You cast Christ as the Father's proxy. While I disagree with that characterization, something I think we can agree on follows logically from your claim:
There would be no need for a proxy at all if a mere sinless man's death on the cross could be salvific, no need for a "stand in" if the Father's divine shoes need not be stood in by the Son at Calvary. When asking the question "What was the proxy a stand-in for?" your answer is "his Father." And in this case, the proxy became a sacrifice. That God acted through a proxy at Calvary tees up the question of WHY God had to sacrifice anything at all in order to achieve the goal of humanity's salvation. But we can worry about WHY God needed to do so later, and just pause here to agree that He DID need to do so -- because I think you are committed to that proposition, @APAK. There is no other way to look at it if, as you say, Christ was truly acting as the Father's "proxy" here.
Our point of agreement is that God Himself not only had to provide the sacrifice (which sounds a little like what Abraham told young Isaac, doesn't it?) but in some sense had to participate in it, either directly or through proxy, in order for it to be salvific. While I say "directly" and you say "through proxy," perhaps we have enough of a point of agreement that we can build on.
I don't expect you to embrace the thesis that human salvation and redemption would have been impossible if the crucified Christ had been anything less than fully divine himself; that the shedding of blood, without which the Letter to the Hebrews tells us there is no forgiveness of sin, must of necessity have been the divine blood of God incarnate in order to wash away that sin; that no lesser solvent could work. But I do hope you will acknowledge how close your "proxy" claim comes to this.
Well I still recognize a critical impasse. The essence of it being in the divinity and, or the true human person and humanity of the man we call Jesus or Yahshua.
I would not agree with you that a mere sinless man as was Adam for a duration, as the suitable sacrifice on 'the Cross.' And this man Yahshua was never a mere sinless man as I would also consider the view of God, his Father. He was not only created by God, he was also like Adam with no propensity to sin from birth. No human sin nature at all. And further, he was also in God at the start of his mission, for the purposes I touched on in my previous post.
There are other points to now mention as you already opened up the subject, why Yahshua was not just a mere impersonal proxy for his Father. He was a personal proxy and a real son to him. Personal in the sense of possessing the love of God of agape love. Adam I believe never possessed this kind of sacrificial love.
It was necessary for Yahshua to be created and born to be the human person proxy of his Father for our sacrifice. It was inline with his unchanging character of justice, mercy and love.
Yashua personified perfectly the love of God and he reflected it in complete obedience to all his commands, in love. If it were possible, no divine human being as God, could ever display this love. It would be an exercise as a reflection of self love! Where would be the love in this sacrifice, not only with shed blood and death, what about the love exchanged during the moments leading up to the Cross, and during his last moments of life in his human body? It had to be a true human son not God himself, who could and would 'stand in' in place of, and display genuine sacrificial love.
So as a brief summary, there was a critical requirement that necessitated a complete human person, a non-divine man to be sacrificed. As you mentioned, the father Abraham and his son, Isaac, the foreshadowing of God, the Father and his son, Yahshua. The deep inner love in complete obedience to yield oneself for the creator, to sacrifice for God to exchange and reflect back this unique attraction of love of God was paramount. So Yahshua was not an impersonal proxy for his Father to 'save,' he also had attached mutual love to him, his Father, and the Father felt it 'all the way.' From the first time, when tested in the wilderness to the last cries on the Cross when his Father's Spirit momentarily departed.
They shared this deep love even more deeply that the closest twins ever born on earth or of a loving mother for her young born. As if our God desired to confront the sin caused by Adam upon him by feeling the love of his Son in the process of his death for him and also for us. To show all creation that God is truly a loving God that knows and shares in our everyday problems and heartaches in life.
If it were possible, having a divine person being called God, this entity would completely miss who is our God. It would make him the impersonal God he is not. And yet most Christians believe in an impersonal God by making this human we call Jesus or Yahshua also God. Burning the candle from both ends will not bring stability and shed more light on the subject of who is the Son and his Father, God Almighty.
God, the Father was surely in his Son, Yahshua..
(2Co 5:19) That is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses to them; and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. (NEV)
Last edited:
Not what I said. Quite the opposite. A mere sinless man could NEVER be an adequate sacrifice. My point was that your characterization of Christ as a "proxy" for the Father necessarily excludes the adequacy of a "sinless man" sacrifice. I exclude it as well.
If a mere man won't fit the bill, what else could Christ have been short of divine? You place him somewhere along the continuum from "man" to "God," but short of "God." I place him all the way there, as God. It's clear that you agree that God, in some sense, had to be sacrificed to accomplish the task -- else there would have been no need for a proxy. I also say there was no need for the Father to send his proxy -- but because Christ was already God.
Last edited:
Copy. I overlooked it and did not address it. Your point then is mine aswell for this area. I was a little excited to quickly get into speaking about the personal proxy Son of the Father. I just did not want this part to get washed away later in the discussion.
I will pay more attention in the future. Thanks @RedFan
I do still think that the Son could never be divine. And scripture never points to it as fact. He shares even as an immoral being today in his Father's divinity - as we will someday.
Last edited:
You are right that Scripture does not expressly declare it, at least not in so many words. It has long been my thesis that the Trinity is actually a philosophical development within the early church. I happen to buy into it. It's hard for me to wrap my head around how the Son "shares even as an immortal being today in his Father's divinity" (nice way to put it) without seeing that sharing as a full participation in the exact substance/essence/ousia of the Father.
I suppose extracting the divinity of the Son from presumed necessity of God-becoming-man to make our salvation work is likewise a bit of philosophical reasoning, which my posts in this thread have tried to focus on. And it occurs to me that your "as we will someday" observation is the flip side of this -- likewise recognized by the early church fathers, well before Nicaea. (Thus, Clement of Alexandria, in the first chapter of his Exhortation to the Heathen, writes “I say, the Word of God became man, that you may learn from man how man may become God.” Origen, in the third chapter of his Contra Celsus, writes “from Him there began the union of the divine with the human nature, in order that the human, by communion with the divine, might rise to be divine.”)
@RedFan from your perspective, what is the difference - if any - between “a mere man” and “a man”?
I don’t think scripture makes a distinction between the two terms. If there is a distinction then it would appear to come from extra-biblical philosophy.
I don’t think scripture makes a distinction between the two terms. If there is a distinction then it would appear to come from extra-biblical philosophy.
Now I do see your view on this subject more clearly now.
A little personal history.
You know my thinking of this subject and belief in it did not materialize overnight. It was a progression I would say since the mid 80s.
What really set it all off was when I went to a few Protestant church services. The Creeds at the beginning of the services really caught my attention; in a huge way. When I heard the phrases like 'light of true light' 'God of true God,' my heart began to sink and ached in despair. I said this is all wrong. I believed then as I do now the Spirit was telling me to get out of these churches. And so I did, for good.
Now you may not believe this, although at that time I never knew that the RCC actually believed that God was truly the Son. It NEVER occurred to me and I was taught by the priests and nuns until the end of Primary school. When God is said to make the heavens and the earth, I knew it was the Father creator and not a Triune God. Never knew of the latter.
I was so naïve over the years and then suddenly became astonished and really shocked, just like when I took my first college Chemistry course and found out matter and compounds and the elements were all based on models, nothing concrete, only great workable and reasonable theories.
From that time on I never took man's word as 'gospel truth' again. I paid more attention to the Spirit within me and his word.
Now some of the things that are still a little fuzzy to me are the mysteries of the processes (beyond the scriptural verses) of regeneration or rebirth, and of partaking in the divinity of the Father in or via Christ. These types of areas are very difficult to grasp.
Satan’s comeuppance: defeated by the obedience of a man, a mere man.
And that is another very good reason why Yahshua had to be a true human person, and not divine essence and one personality of another alien God.
(Gen 3:15) I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel.(NEV)
God’s mere man (Gk. anthropos) is greater and more impressive than Origen’s God-man (Gk. theanthropos).
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Such apologies reveal a fascination with the number 3. There is no theological reason presented for 3. The apology begins out of the blue by thinking of 3 as the apology unfolds.
We could go with four rather than three, and still express the concept. Would adding a high C to the C-E-G chord help?
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
One reason Jesus is NOT the LORD God almighty is he is not once described this way in Scripture. The term "LORD" is exclusively used for God's personal name YHWH and is NEVER applied to Jesus.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Not in theological support of the trinity can one arbitrarily pick a random number to express the inherently contradictory concept of 3-is-1-ism.
Similar threads
- Locked
