The Trinity: Relating to humanity in different ways

Amsterdam: Google+

In Touch Ministries: September 22 2016

The Truth About The Trinity by Charles F. Stanley

Cited

'The word "Trinity" cannot be found in the Bible, but the truth of it can. While there's only one God, the Godhead consists of three distinct persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All are equally omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, and unchanging, but each one has unique functions. 

Scripture shows how each member of the Trinity fulfills His specific role, and it also reveals how those three roles interrelate. Let me express this idea in simple terms: The Father creates a plan, Jesus Christ implements the plan, and the Holy Spirit administers the plan.'

I listened to two of Dr. Stanley's sermons on the Holy Spirit today. I have heard and read similar, but he provides biblical and reasonable descriptions of the distinctions within the Trinity.

God the Father: Plan and planner
Jesus Christ: Implementer of that plan
The Holy Spirit: Administers the plan

Again from Dr. Stanley:

'The Father, Son, and Spirit are equal in their divine attributes. Yet each relates to mankind in a different way because He has a specific role. It's very important to understand this distinction: We do not have three gods; we have one God in three persons functioning uniquely and perfectly.'

End citations from Dr. Stanley

Colossians 2:9-10 (Him is Jesus Christ)

'New American Standard Bible (NASB) 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made [a]complete, and He is the head [b]over all rule and authority; 

Footnotes: Colossians 2:10

Lit full Colossians 2:10 Lit of '

N.T. Wright explains in regard to Colossians 2: 9-10, it is an continuation of 1:19 (109), 'for all the fulness to dwell in him.' (NASB).

'He is uniquely God's presence and his very self'. (109). Wright reasons that Paul is teaching monotheistic doctrine here and not that Jesus Christ is a second deity. (109). Christ is the embodiment of full deity. (109).

Based on this section of Scripture, a proper interpretation is that although the Father can be reasonably defined as the planner, all of God in nature is involved in the planning process in a sense; in infinite knowledge and agreement. The infinite nature of God in the three distinctions is fully aware of plans. The Godhead is involved in the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, even though it was Jesus Christ that died on the cross and was resurrected. Jesus Christ, the Word (John 1) remains infinite, eternal God, and became God incarnate. Acts 2: 24 states that God raised Him (Jesus Christ) from the dead and in the process defeated death.

As I noted in a previous article from Hebrews 1; Greek scholar Walter Bauer defines 'Hupostasis' the original ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡit from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. (page 847). Erickson further explains that each member of the Trinity is quantitatively equal. Erickson (1994: 337).

Matthew 28: 19-20 and Acts 5 are two examples from the New Testament demonstrating the Holy Spirit as God.

Matthew 28:19-20

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

19 [a]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.”

Footnotes:

Matthew 28:19 Or Having gone; Gr aorist part.

Matthew 28:20 Lit all the days

Acts 5: 2-6

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

It is stated that one can lie to the Holy Spirit (verse 3) and therefore lie to God. 'You have not lied to men, but to God.' (verse 4).

All three distinctions within the trinity are infinite, of one ontological (existence and being) essence and nature, and yet with distinctions.

In speculation, a philosophical critique might be that the infinite nature of God requires no distinctions or differently that God being infinite, should exist as infinite distinctions.

Finite, sinful and imperfect humanity needs God's enlightenment from revelation to reasonably know God and to have significant intellectual understanding. God is Scriptually revealed in three distinctions and three persons, properly biblically defined. This is not completely understandable for the finite mind, but it is reasonable to the finite mind.

To suggest that God as infinite must have infinite distinctions is not necessarily true, theologically, is not necessary philosophically, and is highly speculative philosophy of religion.

The incarnation of Jesus Christ has the infinite, eternal Word of God (John 1) take upon a finite human nature without the infinite divine nature and finite human nature, mixing. Therefore, Jesus Christ remains infinite, eternal God, but with two natures as both deity and incarnated man.

God as trinity is relational in nature and therefore humanity is made in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). Humanity is therefore specifically relational in the context of being made in the image and likeness of God. God could create finite creatures capable of relationship and communication, because that is also an aspect of God's nature.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

WRIGHT, N.T., Colossians and Philemon, (1986)(1989), IVP, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Fellowship of the...

Edinburgh, 2016:trekearth.com

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

My apologies as this article has nothing to do with The Lord of the Rings. Yes I saw the very well-done films in the theatre, but I am not a fanatic. This may be a form of 'sacrilege' but it seemed like I viewed virtually the same very good film, done six times. To make matters worse, the wizards reminded me of the Harry Potter films, which I also viewed in the theatre. No, I do not read any related large fictional texts to learn the 'whole story' as certain friends suggest.
---

In the previous section within the Langer text, the propositions presented a system of elements within a universe of discourse. This presents a formal context. (82).

In other words, the logical and proper use of symbolic logic allows for reasonably understood communication between two parties, within that system and universe of discourse, (82).

The symbol fm2  is introduced. (82). The symbol int is = (equals) by interpretation.or identified with. (82).

K=int 'persons' (82).

fm2='fellowship of' (82).

K=int with persons A, B, and C

The Arabic number two is dropped for Langer's examples. but it has been established that fellowship and fellowman would present two persons in context from my understanding.

A fm B (Person A has fellowship with person B)
B fm C (Person B has fellowship with person C)

Or is A the fellowman of B (82).

A person cannot be a fellowman of self. Therefore A is not the fellowman of A (82-83).

~(A fm A)

R=Russell Norman Murray

J=Jesus Christ

R fm J (Russell Norman Murray has fellowship with Jesus Christ, incarnate God, in a spiritual, biblical context. In a biblical sense we are fellowman/fellowmen (1 John as example)).

~=false

S=Satanic beings

~(R fm S) (Russell Norman Murray does not have fellowship with Satanic beings, in a spiritual, biblical context. Russell Norman Murray is not a fellowman with Satanic beings).

When a proposition is not true 'it is customary to enclose the proposition in parentheses and prefix to this whole prepossession the sign  ~.' (72). The tilde sign or symbol.

I admit this has been a little confusing reviewing this philosophy text as some non-false propositions are at least partly in parenthesis, but I work on. Learning these symbols will assist within the academic disciplines of philosophy and mathematics.

Contradictory premises: Pull the carpet...

Contradictory premises: Pull the carpet...

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Contradictory premises

'The problem with contradictory premises is that they cannot both be true. If one is true, the other must be false, and vice versa. In other words, we can be certain that at least one of them must be false, and cannot generate a sound argument.' (69).

Dr. Russ is an atheist
Dr. Russ is a biblical Christian

We do not need to see the conclusion here, we already reasonably know, that at least the premises are contradictory. One premise might be true, but not both. A valid argument can have a false premise. (69). As long as the premise (s) are not true and the conclusion false, it is logically possible to have a valid argument.

Premise-Conclusion

TT, FF, FT, TF

A true premise (s) and false conclusion (TF) from these combinations, cannot possibly be logically valid.

However, as Pire recognizes, a sound (true) argument has all true premises. (69). It has a true conclusion.

The classic 'the moon is made of green cheese' (69), is documented as a valid premise, but not a premise in a sound (true) argument. It is not reasonable from empirical, scientific evidence that the moon is made of green cheese, but it is not an illogical premise as such.

I have coached my friends that in arguments, when one disagrees with the conclusion, deny a premise first, if that can be reasonably, truthfully done. This pulls the carpet. It prohibits one from being dragged into accepting a questionable conclusion after hastily accepting premises and then having to philosophically backtrack...

Premise

You want to get married right?

Here many would state, yes.

My answer, if I am clued in to a likely philosophically lazy conclusion:

No. I am not interested in (just) getting married. I would like to marry with mutual spiritual, intellectual and physical attraction in Christ.

Conclusion

Therefore, you have to play the game the way society and the church states and marry within the rules.

Yes, I have had this attempted on me more than once...

Logic is concerned entirely with concepts, not conceptions

Naples: trekearth: I have tentative plans for an England-Denmark trip next year, which may have a ministry angle, but one does not know how employment will change and develop. I would have liked to visit Italy, but my travel companion favours Denmark, which is also on my list of places to see.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Quote

'Every discourse, no matter how fragmentary or casual, moves in a certain context of inter-related ideas. In ordinary thinking this context is indefinite and shifting.' (79).

'The psychological context of our thoughts is largely private and personal.' (79). It is noted in the cases when two people are discussing the same event...

'They have, then, different conceptions.' (80). But even with some limited significant understanding of each other's conceptions they 'may embody the same concept.' (79).

In light of this fallen, sinful, corrupted human realm from a Biblical (Genesis, Romans, Revelation as examples) perspective and a secular perspective that human beings, are ontologically (existence and being) imperfect; historically and presently, different human conceptions between various groups and persons has led to the fueling of problems of evil and suffering.

Reasonable, clear and concise communication so that persons 'may embody the same concept' is a good and profitable. Romans 12: 18, without proof texting outside of context, is relevant here: New American Standard Bible;  'If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.'

Being at peace with others is often dependent on having clear and concise dialogue to understand concepts in the same way, or at least similar way. This objective approach, I attempt, at least, in all my academic research, reading and writing.

'Logic is concerned entirely with concepts, not conceptions'. (79). Bold my add.

One of my philosophical views I live by is that although both concepts and conceptions are important, in the pursuit of reason and truth, concepts are more important.

Langer titles this, as noted previously, on this site 'the universe of discourse' which is free from 'private and accidental aspects.' (79).

'The relations which obtain among such elements are called the constituent relations of the formal context.' (79). This leads to 'elementary propositions of the discourse.' (79), which have a value of truth or falsity. (80).

'The relations which hold among elementary propositions are not, the constituent relations in the formal context, but are logical relations. (80).

By logical relations, Langer is referring the symbols within symbolic logic.

page 80

cited

Logical relation symbols

Conjunction (.) Conjunctions within the universe of discourse are what 'makes sense' between constituent relations. (80). In other words, what makes sense between the concepts and terms documented.

Disjunction (V)

'The assertion of one proposition or the other.' (75). This means one, the other or both is true, at least one of the two propositions is true. (75).

V is an accepted symbols for either way.  (75).

~=false

In other words ~ equals false. This is the tilde symbol.

 ~ (A nt B) V ~ (B nt A) (75)

It is either false that A is north of B or that B is north of A...

The V means that either way one of the propositions is false. Or they both could be false. Equally north (in latitude, my add) (75).

⊃ is the symbol for implies (75) and implication (80).

(A nt B) ⊃ ~ (B nt A)

A is north of B, implies it is false that B is north of A.

Again, A and B could both be equally north.

I am trying to simplify this is much as possible. But I am learning as I read, and frankly academic philosophy and theology texts take some intense thinking. There is just no reasonable way around it.

Therefore, I present this in small segments and I am alternating article content with different text reviews and my own more original articles.

I understood problem of evil concepts better in my PhD thesis than my MPhil thesis and the concept of academic progression should be accepted in working through symbolic logic.

I have admitted that I would write my online articles if I had zero readers, but then again I prefer not to write that online diary.