Which View of the Trinity do You Believe?

[skypair]

There are two acceptable views of the Trinity that I am aware of...

1) Immanent/Classical/3 in 1 God or one triune God: In this one, God is one having 3 "subsistences" (not actual persons) all 3 of which share the same attributes. This is the usual and biblical view of Catholics and Reform-based denominations as I understand it. And this is the God of heaven and eternity. Each Person of God is "in" the other 2 Persons there such that together they are one God.

2) Economic/Relational/out of 1 come 3 Persons/God in Trinity: In this one, God becomes 3 actual Persons (separate bodies, wills, and self-awareness) having different attributes. This is how I see the Bible describing God. It is God seen in the context of time and from the earthly perspective. What we see from the earthly perspective is that God sent forth His Holy Ghost (Spirit + Son, the pre-incarnate Son) to created everything that exists. Then, in due time, the Holy Ghost came over Mary and the Spirit of the Father conceived the Son in her womb. In His death for our sins, Jesus returned via His Holy Ghost to the Father in heaven seated at His right hand. And in the New Jerusalem, He will resume is eternal, Immanent existence.

Trick question -- they both are correct views. How can we conceive of this in our minds? Well, we too are Immanent/3 in 1/triune -- soul, spirit, and body. But, in the context of time, we are also Economic/out of 1, 3 persons/trinity consisting of -- 1) who we were (sinner) .. 2) who we are (born again, new man, etc.) .. 3) who we will be (glorified person in eternity with a new name, etc. Rev 3:12)

Bottom line: We need not debate this issue. Both views are true in 2 different contexts.

skypair

 

[Willie T]

I have to admit that I was confused as I began to read that because I kept thinking, "What's the difference… they are the same."

You got me.

 

[skypair]

I have to admit that I was confused as I began to read that because I kept thinking, "What's the difference… they are the same."

They ARE the same God, aren't they! And yet we often use the one view or the other to claim that our opposition is not saved .. or we say you can't be saved if you don't have the same view of God that I do.

There is only one view that I would for sure consider wrong -- that Jesus isn't God, right?

skypair

 

[BreadOfLife]

There are two acceptable views of the Trinity that I am aware of...

1) Immanent/Classical/3 in 1 God or one triune God: In this one, God is one having 3 "subsistences" (not actual persons) all 3 of which share the same attributes. This is the usual and biblical view of Catholics and Reform-based denominations as I understand it. And this is the God of heaven and eternity. Each Person of God is "in" the other 2 Persons there such that together they are one God.

2) Economic/Relational/out of 1 come 3 Persons/God in Trinity: In this one, God becomes 3 actual Persons (separate bodies, wills, and self-awareness) having different attributes. This is how I see the Bible describing God. It is God seen in the context of time and from the earthly perspective. What we see from the earthly perspective is that God sent forth His Holy Ghost (Spirit + Son, the pre-incarnate Son) to created everything that exists. Then, in due time, the Holy Ghost came over Mary and the Spirit of the Father conceived the Son in her womb. In His death for our sins, Jesus returned via His Holy Ghost to the Father in heaven seated at His right hand. And in the New Jerusalem, He will resume is eternal, Immanent existence.

Trick question -- they both are correct views. How can we conceive of this in our minds? Well, we too are Immanent/3 in 1/triune -- soul, spirit, and body. But, in the context of time, we are also Economic/out of 1, 3 persons/trinity consisting of -- 1) who we were (sinner) .. 2) who we are (born again, new man, etc.) .. 3) who we will be (glorified person in eternity with a new name, etc. Rev 3:12)

Bottom line: We need not debate this issue. Both views are true in 2 different contexts.

skypair

Sorry - but NEITHER are the classic Trinitarian view - at least the way YOU articulated them.

The classic definition of the Trinity is that in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - and these three persons are truly and eternally distinct one from another.

There is ONE God and THREE distinct Persons. They don't "become" anything - they already ARE.

 

[Stranger]

There are two acceptable views of the Trinity that I am aware of...

1) Immanent/Classical/3 in 1 God or one triune God: In this one, God is one having 3 "subsistences" (not actual persons) all 3 of which share the same attributes. This is the usual and biblical view of Catholics and Reform-based denominations as I understand it. And this is the God of heaven and eternity. Each Person of God is "in" the other 2 Persons there such that together they are one God.

2) Economic/Relational/out of 1 come 3 Persons/God in Trinity: In this one, God becomes 3 actual Persons (separate bodies, wills, and self-awareness) having different attributes. This is how I see the Bible describing God. It is God seen in the context of time and from the earthly perspective. What we see from the earthly perspective is that God sent forth His Holy Ghost (Spirit + Son, the pre-incarnate Son) to created everything that exists. Then, in due time, the Holy Ghost came over Mary and the Spirit of the Father conceived the Son in her womb. In His death for our sins, Jesus returned via His Holy Ghost to the Father in heaven seated at His right hand. And in the New Jerusalem, He will resume is eternal, Immanent existence.

Trick question -- they both are correct views. How can we conceive of this in our minds? Well, we too are Immanent/3 in 1/triune -- soul, spirit, and body. But, in the context of time, we are also Economic/out of 1, 3 persons/trinity consisting of -- 1) who we were (sinner) .. 2) who we are (born again, new man, etc.) .. 3) who we will be (glorified person in eternity with a new name, etc. Rev 3:12)

Bottom line: We need not debate this issue. Both views are true in 2 different contexts.

skypair

Your post begins and ends with a lie. As BreadOfLife said you did not present the true view of the Trinity. Therefore there are 'not' two acceptable views of the Trinity. And, 'neither' view that you present is true.

Stranger

 

[Willie T]

Trying to dispute this makes about as much sense as wanting The Shack to be heresy because the author depicted the Trinity as a Black matronly woman, a young Jewish carpenter, and a Hippie chick..... When everyone knows just what they all look like because we have all those "pictures" someone painted to look at.

 

[Stranger]

Trying to dispute this makes about as much sense as wanting The Shack to be heresy because the author depicted the Trinity as a Black matronly woman, a young Jewish carpenter, and a Hippie chick..... When everyone knows just what they all look like because we have all those "pictures" someone painted to look at.

Sounds like heresy to me.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Trying to dispute this makes about as much sense as wanting The Shack to be heresy because the author depicted the Trinity as a Black matronly woman, a young Jewish carpenter, and a Hippie chick..... When everyone knows just what they all look like because we have all those "pictures" someone painted to look at.

No - "The Shack" would be a Hollywood metaphor, not based in any sort of Biblical reality.
Skypair's definition, however, were an erroneous attempt at defining the reality of the Triune Godhead.

 

[Willie T]

So glad we have you two to tell us all about "The Trinity." Sadly, the rest of us have never had God sit down with us and explain it all to us.

 

[Stranger]

So glad we have you two to tell us all about "The Trinity." Sadly, the rest of us have never had God sit down with us and explain it all to us.

You have the Scriptures.

Stranger

 

[Willie T]

You have the Scriptures.

Stranger

We're waiting. Feel free to post the Scripture's description of the Trinity. You could start off easy by simply posting the verse that says there is a Trinity.

 

[Stranger]

We're waiting. Feel free to post the Scripture's description of the Trinity. You could start off easy by simply posting the verse that says there is a Trinity.

Foolish statement. Show me a verse that says Willie T is going to heaven. I couldn't find one.

Stranger

 

[brakelite]

The very fact that someone has dared to sit down and attempt to define the indefinable reveals man's pride and arrogance. That he would then proclaim that definition as Truth and persecute others because they don't accept his definition is a state of mind perhaps only equalled by Satan himself.

 

[skypair]

Your post begins and ends with a lie. As BreadOfLife said you did not present the true view of the Trinity. Therefore there are 'not' two acceptable views of the Trinity. And, 'neither' view that you present is true.

Blah, blah, blah. Your opinion. This is from serious study from the book "Two Views of the Divine Trinity." You view is left "naked" of any serious reference except you own opinion. Come back when you have some evidence.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Foolish statement. Show me a verse that says Willie T is going to heaven. I couldn't find one.

Wow, you really are arrogant about your view, aren't you.

skypair

 

[Triumph1300]

All three are one as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Philip James]

So glad we have you two to tell us all about "The Trinity." Sadly, the rest of us have never had God sit down with us and explain it all to us.

Actually you did. At the Council of Nicea

 

[Enoch111]

You could start off easy by simply posting the verse that says there is a Trinity.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mt 28:19)

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7 KJB)

NOTE: There are many who have believed that 1 John 5:7 is not genuine Scripture, but there is ample documentary evidence to confirm that it is indeed the Word of God. If you remove this verse, the passage becomes nonsensical.

 

[Triumph1300]

And there's this one:


Acts 2:38
Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Willie T]

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mt 28:19)

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7 KJB)

NOTE: There are many who have believed that 1 John 5:7 is not genuine Scripture, but there is ample documentary evidence to confirm that it is indeed the Word of God. If you remove this verse, the passage becomes nonsensical.

You seem to be missing the point. I firmly believe in a "Trinity". But, I can no more 'explain' how it exists than can any of the other people on here claiming they understand all about it. Posting a couple of Bible verses that we all have read numerous times does nothing to change that.