# Why three persons in Godhead?



## J. Williams (Feb 22, 2020)

Why is it necessary that there be Three Persons in the Godhead? Why would two be insufficient, or four excessive?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Feb 22, 2020)

Why? I wouldn't even want to think about that question let alone come up with some sort of an answer. That's my prima facie answer to your question. I Am that I Am is God's proclamation of who He is and He can be no other.

Everyone should be careful trying to answer this question.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 7


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 22, 2020)

Those are speculative inquiries. Someone could come up with a reasonable proposal to answer it; but the basic problem is the conjecture. There's simply no way to prove the truth of the proposal one way or another.

We are Trinitarian--and not polytheist, and not unitarian, and not whatever else you can imagine--because this, and nothing else, is what is _revealed _in the Bible about the nature of God, about the composition of the Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity is just about the first piece of systematized theology that was ever thoroughly worked out in Christian history. It was a major intellectual undertaking, in answer to false choices being offered, of how the "puzzle" ought to go together.

That's how we got the doctrine of the Trinity: getting the whole Bible, OT & NT, to render up its truly, positively coherent representation (non-pictorial, I might add) of God. It's not that: some one or group thought up a sweet little idea that "something we'll call Trinitarianism will answer to our favorite philosophical curiosity." The Trinity isn't a via-media between monotheism and polytheism. The Triune deity isn't a theory in search of a justification.

The Trinity is the true "picture" of God that emerges when the puzzle of the Biblical data is sorted and laid out and fitted together.

Reactions: Like 11 | Amen 3


----------



## deleteduser99 (Feb 22, 2020)

The secret things belong to the Lord. Best thing to do is glorify and enjoy this Triune God.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 22, 2020)

WGT Shedd:


God’s Personality


Personality is marked by two characteristics


Self-consciousness


Regarding the Trinity, “the media to self-consciousness are all within the divine essence” (173).


God distinguishes himself from himself, thus two acts. There is now a reciprocal object-ego, which then requires a third term, percipient between the two (174).


Self-determination 


“The three distinctions in the one essence personalize it: God is personal because he is three persons” (171).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.EdwardNewhill (Feb 22, 2020)

Our God is the One "who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen." (1 Tim 6:16)

It is enough to know that God is Trinity, that in itself is a revelation bright enough to light our hearts and minds for a lifetime. I agree with the others who caution against any more being said along these lines.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Feb 22, 2020)

@J. Williams 

If you want to _know _the Trinity, Communion with God by John Owen. In a few words, Angel's Food. Read. Digest. Apply. Worship. You will know the Triune God in a deeply satisfying fashion.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## J.EdwardNewhill (Feb 22, 2020)

RPEphesian said:


> @J. Williams
> 
> If you want to _know _the Trinity, Communion with God by John Owen. In a few words, Angel's Food. Read. Digest. Apply. Worship. You will know the Triune God in a deeply satisfying fashion.



I am going through that book right now. It's so good!


----------



## deleteduser99 (Feb 22, 2020)

J.EdwardNewhill said:


> I am going through that book right now. It's so good!



Oh, to live according to all the light in that book. I hope to read through a few more times.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 22, 2020)

Is it necessary?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Feb 22, 2020)

J. Williams said:


> Why is it necessary that there be Three Persons in the Godhead? Why would two be insufficient, or four excessive?



Mr. Williams,

I genuinely hope our answers have not discouraged you in any way. I often wonder about "curious" topics. Eg., Why is there a God. How could He be eternal? Why is He good. What if He isn't good. What if heaven is not as good as we hope. And on and on and on. Once I realize that I am heading down a dead-end road, I usually (I hope) catch myself as I call to mind both the answer from the Westminster Larger Catechism cited below and its proof-text Deuteronomy 29:29. I have voiced some dumb questions and made some foolish answers here on the Puritan Board.

Too all, I exhort you to remember Deut. 29:29. God has even providentially arranged for the chapter and verse to be easily remembered. How often could this, coupled with verses like Romans 8:28, help us in troubled times and to stand on the evil day. (Ephesians 6:13)

God bless you and keep asking questions.

Ed

Q. 113. What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is required;d and the abuse of it in an ignorant,e vain,f irreverent, profane,g superstitious,h or wicked mentioning or otherwise using his titles, attributes,i ordinances,k or works,l by blasphemy,m perjury;n all sinful cursings,o oaths,p vows,q and lots;r violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful;s and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful;t murmuring and quarrelling at, curious prying into,w and misapplying of God’s decrees and providences;y misinterpreting,z misapplying,a or any way perverting the word, or any part of it,b to profane jests,c curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines;d abusing it, the creatures, or any thing contained under the name of God, to charms,e or sinful lusts and practices;f the maligning,g scorning,h reviling,i or any wise opposing of God’s truth, grace, and ways;k making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends;l being ashamed of it,m or a shame to it, by unconformable,n unwise,o unfruitful,p and offensive walking,q or backsliding from it.r
––––––––––––––
w Deut. 29:29. The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Westminster Assembly. (1851). The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (pp. 264–270). Philadelphia: William S. Young.​


----------



## Wretched Man (Feb 22, 2020)

I believe there are three persons (revealed in Scripture) in God. I don’t recognize any other persons described in Scripture. I don’t question why.

But is it possible there are more persons in God, not mentioned in Scripture? Is it correct to categorically say there are only three persons in God?


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Feb 22, 2020)

4 or more would create an impersonal context between one or more of the persons. Read Bosserman’s book _The Trinity and Christian Paradox: An Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius Van _


----------



## User20004000 (Feb 22, 2020)

J. Williams said:


> Why is it necessary that there be Three Persons in the Godhead? Why would two be insufficient, or four excessive?



It’s sounds as though you’re conflating contingent and necessary truths. It‘s a bit like asking why is it necessary that 1 + 1 = 2.


----------



## User20004000 (Feb 22, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Is it necessary?



Yes

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 22, 2020)

I think Shedd makes a nice point. I'm confident Bosserman also makes for an interesting read.

But I would argue: that in each and every case, these good men take what is _given, _i.e. that God is the Trinitarian God of Scripture; and then supply philosophical adjuncts to show how good and reasonable and helpful the Trinity is.

Van Til said that the Trinue God is the best "answer" ever posed to the problem of the one-and-the-many. We can delight in that answer, but the Trinity doesn't have meaning because there's a problem to solve.

Nor is the Trinity, because a fourth would (might!) cause an imbalance or other deficiency in an otherwise perfect Personal relationship. We don't have to wonder IF a fifth member of the Godhead is, or is not, the _quintessence _of deity.

If we had a *different *revelation than the one we have, we'd be doing similar work showing how what we have is the solution to something or other, explains X like nothing else could, and the like.

It's not wrong to explore the benefits of the Trinity which we have, or come up with reasons why any other imagination would be unprofitable. But the specificity which the NT imposes on the data of the OT, means that any ambiguity latent in the OT monotheist conception is developed in one, and only one way.

Like watching a vertebrate zygote develop: mere observation without detailed knowledge of the genetic code leaves one wondering a while what of many _apparent _possibilities will show forth. But eventually just the one possibility is present with minimal variation.

Since God is sui generis, its impossible to say anything about him other that what he IS; which, moreover, is what he _chooses to be _in some sense, since his will is just as ultimate as his being.

If God's Personality was not fixed at 3, would that predicate an insoluble problem of Being or of rationality? Would it inevitably falter into a polytheism or pseudo-polythesim, or collapse into a black-hole of monism? Those questions qualify as "thought experiments," but they don't really teach us anything more about God, as he is, as taught us in his revelation.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## User20004000 (Feb 22, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Those are speculative inquiries. Someone could come up with a reasonable proposal to answer it; but the basic problem is the conjecture. There's simply no way to prove the truth of the proposal one way or another.
> 
> We are Trinitarian--and not polytheist, and not unitarian, and not whatever else you can imagine--because this, and nothing else, is what is _revealed _in the Bible about the nature of God, about the composition of the Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity is just about the first piece of systematized theology that was ever thoroughly worked out in Christian history. It was a major intellectual undertaking, in answer to false choices being offered, of how the "puzzle" ought to go together.
> 
> ...



The original post is: “Why is it necessary that there be Three Persons in the Godhead? Why would two be insufficient, or four excessive?”

Bruce,

As I understand your post, I can’t agree with your: “There's simply no way to prove the truth of the proposal one way or another.”

If the OP is merely asking whether we’ve interpreted revelation aright, you’d say yes, we can prove that God has revealed himself as triune.

The OP doesn’t just ask whether God could be four persons. It also asks whether God could be two persons, which is one person less than God has positively revealed. Accordingly, the OP doesn’t concern itself with whether we’ve (a) interpreted revelation incorrectly by inferring three persons in Scripture when Scripture reveals only two, or (b) whether God might have held back revealing a fourth person.
In other words, the proposal doesn’t imply that God might not actually be triune. The proposal as stated, whether intentional or not, merely raises the question of whether the proposition _God is triune_ is a _necessary_ truth. I must insist that _that_ can be proven (but not so easily apart from distinguishing types of truth).

That Bruce is an OPC pastor is a contingent truth. Although it’s true, it could be false (and is false in many possible worlds). That Bruce is male is an essential truth. Whenever Bruce exists, he exists as male. However, if God is triune, then God is _necessarily_ triune. Who God is cannot be otherwise, unlike his works of creation, providence and grace. The necessity of God must be true lest God could be something other than I Am.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 22, 2020)

RWD said:


> The original post is: “Why is it necessary that there be Three Persons in the Godhead? Why would two be insufficient, or four excessive?”
> 
> Bruce,
> 
> ...


This below could all (or mostly) be redundant, and repetitive of what you wrote.

I'm taking the questions posed as a single inquiry. If answered in a philosophical way, rather than by recourse to divine special revelation, then whatever _that proposal _is is not worthy of full persuasion. It cannot be proven, but is a mere probability. It rests _at most _on axioms of thought that may be widely agreed upon, yet about which various schools of thought differ.

On the other hand, I wrote that Scripture being the source of our knowledge of God's being and mind, God IS revealed as the Trinity or Triune God. I don't accept the legitimacy of alternate reconfiguration of that "picture," or its enhancement by other sources of revelation that should give a "sharper image," a better or fuller representation.

So, I think _Scripture _excludes the possibility of God being four Persons, or his being two. And so, in that sense it was my intent to convey that Scripture (exclusive of philosophical rationale) _necessitates _the Trinitarian Godhead.

You could be correct about the OP's inquiry, or you could be correct about what the OP asks when the question itself is rigorously interrogated. I think my answer was adequate, given my interpretation of the inquiry.

I also agree with you that God is most necessary, and therefore he is necessary in the _kind _(i.e. Trinitarian) of Being that he's revealed himself. That revelation is _sufficient _to tell us enough so that we can know him aright, and turn from false representations.

That revelation has also increased over time, especially OT to NT; and the sufficiency with respect to time has promoted proper discrimination always, whether in old time when the Trinitarian divine nature was out of focus, or in the current age when it is clearly set forth.

In the eschatological age to come, there could be a qualitative improvement of our knowledge of God, which makes the quantum leap in clarity from OT to NT look trivial. The increased sophistication by which we speak of the One God, now inclusive of the Three Persons, could then look even more like the "baby talk" it is (the language of Calvin in describing God's communication to us).

And all of it will be as necessary as the God who reveals himself. But, I no more think we will abandon Three Persons, than we ever abandoned One God.


----------



## User20004000 (Feb 22, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> This below could all (or mostly) be redundant, and repetitive of what you wrote.
> 
> I'm taking the questions posed as a single inquiry. If answered in a philosophical way, rather than by recourse to divine special revelation, then whatever _that proposal _is is not worthy of full persuasion. It cannot be proven, but is a mere probability. It rests _at most _on axioms of thought that may be widely agreed upon, yet about which various schools of thought differ.
> 
> ...



I appreciate the post, especially about the potential of our understanding in the world to come.

I definitely think we are likely in full agreement. I can’t imagine otherwise! 

“If answered in a philosophical way, rather than by recourse to divine special revelation, then whatever _that proposal _is is not worthy of full persuasion. It cannot be proven, but is a mere probability.”

My quibble(?) is that I would not want to suggest that it is even a mere probability. I’d prefer to say that the proposal _cannot_ be true. That’s because (as we agree): if God is a necessary being, then there’s no possible world in which he is other than what he is. Therefore, if God is triune, then necessarily God is triune. 

You stated earlier...

“There's simply no way to prove the truth of the proposal one way or another.”

If by one “one way or another” you meant that there’s no way to prove the proposal true _or false_, then _that _would be obviously false. So, I won’t take you that way. Yet if you meant that there is no way _whatsoever_ (“one way or another”) of proving the proposal true, well then of course that is true, but that’s precisely because a necessary being _cannot_ _possibly_ be ontologically contingent. So, my preference would be that it not merely be noted that the proposal is not provable (or that the proposal is a mere probability). After all, some things can possibly be true that cannot be proven true. Yet this proposal is no such thing. Rather, the proposal is patently false.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 22, 2020)

J. Williams said:


> Why is it necessary that there be Three Persons in the Godhead? Why would two be insufficient, or four excessive?



A classic book on this subject is Richard of St. Victor, _On the Trinity_, now available in multiple translations. Starting from what is revealed, what he believed and sung every day in the creed, Richard undertakes a logical investigation. Most of the book is quite clear and forceful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 23, 2020)

J. Williams said:


> Why is it necessary that there be Three Persons in the Godhead? Why would two be insufficient, or four excessive?


Is it that it is necessary? Or is it just that it is? I don't think this is a question to ask. We just know that is how God is because of what He has revealed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## User20004000 (Feb 23, 2020)

David Taylor said:


> Is it that it is necessary? Or is it just that it is? I don't think this is a question to ask. We just know that is how God is because of what He has revealed.



If God is x, then _necessarily,_ God is x_. _
(See posts above regarding contingent vs necessary truths and essential properties etc.)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JonC (Feb 23, 2020)

J. Williams said:


> Why is it necessary that there be Three Persons in the Godhead? Why would two be insufficient, or four excessive?


Had God revealed Himself as Father and Son, or God and Spirit, then I suppose two would be sufficient. Had God revealed Himself as Father, Son, Spirit, and something else then I suppose four would be sufficient. 

But God revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Spirit so anything more or less is insufficient.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## User20004000 (Feb 23, 2020)

JonC said:


> Had God revealed Himself as Father and Son, or God and Spirit, then I suppose two would be sufficient. Had God revealed Himself as Father, Son, Spirit, and something else then I suppose four would be sufficient.
> 
> But God revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Spirit so anything more or less is insufficient.



Sufficient and insufficient for what? Our salvation? His ontological existence? Our knowledge of God? These terms of sufficient and insufficient mustn’t be batted around this way.

Folks, it is necessary that God is triune because God is eternally triune. 

“Had God revealed Himself as Father, Son, Spirit, and something else then I suppose *four* would be sufficient.“

Sufficient for what if God _is_ triune? It’s not as though God is contingent upon who he reveals himself as being. Rather, his revelation of himself is constrained by what God is. God revealed himself as one essence for most of redemptive history (with hints of plurality). In these last days God has revealed himself as one God eternally existing in three distinct persons. God also revealed his self existence in terms of paternity, filiation and spiration.


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 23, 2020)

RWD said:


> If God is x, then _necessarily,_ God is x_. _
> (See posts above regarding contingent vs necessary truths and essential properties etc.)


I agree, but that wasn't really the point I was making but I understand, and agree, with what you are saying.


----------



## TheInquirer (Feb 23, 2020)

OP, can you provide a bit more context for your question? As stated, it is a bit hard to understand your core issue or maybe what prompted it (apologetics, evangelism, personal inquiry, etc.)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JonC (Feb 23, 2020)

RWD said:


> Sufficient and insufficient for what? Our salvation? His ontological existence? Our knowledge of God? These terms of sufficient and insufficient mustn’t be batted around this way.
> 
> Folks, it is necessary that God is triune because God is eternally triune.
> 
> ...


Sufficient or insufficient for doctrine. Jesus, not our doctrine, saves.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 23, 2020)

J. Williams said:


> Why is it necessary that there be Three Persons in the Godhead? Why would two be insufficient, or four excessive?


The other responders have done well in their posts. It is a fact that the trinity comes from special revelation. I think, as others have pointed out, it seems you are asking (and if I'm wrong please correct me) for some logical "proof" of the trinity. I agree with everyone here that that's not possible. But as, has pointed out, the concept of a trinity does solve the ancient problem of the one and the many (or the problem of unity and diversity in our experience). So transcendentaly it does solve that problem. But as Bruce pointed out we don't need the trinity to simply solve problems, it's true regardless. 
One point though, since philosophy (and logic, science, etc) only investigates this world (creation) we can't assume that creational features (philosophy, logic, science, etc) can ever on there own investigate the Creator.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 23, 2020)

A better question would be how could we through logic, philosophy, science, etc discover (apart from the bible) that God is triune?


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 23, 2020)

J. Williams said:


> Why is it necessary that there be Three Persons in the Godhead? Why would two be insufficient, or four excessive?


Also Frame and Poythress have done a lot in this are, triperspectiveal P.O.V.


----------



## User20004000 (Feb 24, 2020)

JonC said:


> Sufficient or insufficient for doctrine. Jesus, not our doctrine, saves.



Aside from the sufficient-insufficient difficulties, the idea that “Jesus, not out doctrine, saves” is a common notion but it’s a bit misleading. Wouldn’t we have to answer, which Jesus saves? The Mormon Jesus? The Jesus of Judaism? The Jesus of liberal Protestant sects? Or is it the Jesus of orthodox _doctrine_ who saves? Jesus saves because of who he is and what he has done. Those considerations of the person and work of Christ are of significant doctrinal import.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## chuckd (Feb 24, 2020)

J. Williams said:


> Why is it necessary that there be Three Persons in the Godhead? Why would two be insufficient, or four excessive?


I've come across some sociological arguments in the past (can't remember the source) that indicated to truly judge a social action (such as love), a minimum of three social agents are needed. This gives us Trinitarians a leg up on strict monotheists such as Muslims. I haven't thought why God was not communicated to more persons than begetting the son and the Spirit proceeding.


----------



## JonC (Feb 24, 2020)

RWD said:


> Aside from the sufficient-insufficient difficulties, the idea that “Jesus, not out doctrine, saves” is a common notion but it’s a bit misleading. Wouldn’t we have to answer, which Jesus saves? The Mormon Jesus? The Jesus of Judaism? The Jesus of liberal Protestant sects? Or is it the Jesus of orthodox _doctrine_ who saves? Jesus saves because of who he is and what he has done. Those considerations of the person and work of Christ are of significant doctrinal import.


I would still say the same. Jesus (the Person and not doctrine about God) saves. Doctrine is of course vital but possessing correct doctrine is not the crux of salvation.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 24, 2020)

JonC said:


> I would still say the same. Jesus (the Person and not doctrine about God) saves. Doctrine is of course vital but possessing correct doctrine is not the crux of salvation.


What do you (or anyone) know of Jesus that isn't _doctrine?_ It isn't as if Jesus is knowable in a way that is not doctrinal. If a person in the 1C knew Jesus _in the flesh, _he wouldn't put his eternal hope in him simply because he had a nice face. They believed he was the Christ, and owed him their being and allegiance, because he taught (indoctrinated) them. He showed he was the fulfillment of prophecy, which is pure doctrine. His signs were teaching tools.

What I'm saying is: there's no Jesus to know, apart from the doctrine of who he is.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## User20004000 (Feb 24, 2020)

JonC said:


> I would still say the same. Jesus (the Person and not doctrine about God) saves. Doctrine is of course vital but possessing correct doctrine is not the crux of salvation.



Brother,

At first it was “Jesus, not our doctrine, saves.” Now, to your credit, you’re saying doctrine is “vital” to salvation, which of course is true since doctrine will define the Jesus who saves.

Notwithstanding, it’s still troubling that you’d suggest that “correct doctrine is not the crux of salvation.” I find the Reformation contradicts such a notion. Please consider that both Rome and Reformed Protestants agree over_ Jesus the Person_. What divides Rome from Reformed thought is not the doctrine of the Second Person but rather the doctrine of the Second Person’s _work_ upon the cross, which too is doctrinal. The gospel of Christ saves and that gospel is intensely doctrinal.

I’m sure we agree over the gospel, but that would be because we agree over the doctrine of Christ and his finished work for miserable sinners like me!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JonC (Feb 26, 2020)

RWD said:


> Brother,
> 
> At first it was “Jesus, not our doctrine, saves.” Now, to your credit, you’re saying doctrine is “vital” to salvation, which of course is true since doctrine will define the Jesus who saves.
> 
> ...


The simplest way to put it is two people may comprehend the same doctrine. One may be saved the other not. The difference is not the doctrine itself but the Spirit in the person. Doctrine is necessary but not the saving factor.


----------



## JonC (Feb 26, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> What do you (or anyone) know of Jesus that isn't _doctrine?_ It isn't as if Jesus is knowable in a way that is not doctrinal. If a person in the 1C knew Jesus _in the flesh, _he wouldn't put his eternal hope in him simply because he had a nice face. They believed he was the Christ, and owed him their being and allegiance, because he taught (indoctrinated) them. He showed he was the fulfillment of prophecy, which is pure doctrine. His signs were teaching tools.
> 
> What I'm saying is: there's no Jesus to know, apart from the doctrine of who he is.


My experience is you are wrong. What I am saying is salvation is not knowing about Jesus (it is not doctrine that saves).

I grew up in church. I knew the gospel message. I understood the doctrine. When I was saved it was not because I gained additional doctrine. It was because the Spirit of God drew me to Himself and developed in me a reliance on the doctrine I already held.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2020)

JonC said:


> The simplest way to put it is two people may comprehend the same doctrine. One may be saved the other not. The difference is not the doctrine itself but the Spirit in the person. Doctrine is necessary but not the saving factor.



Agreed there is more to salvation than merely having an intellectual understanding of the doctrine. I don't think anyone here is arguing that mere intellectual understanding of the teachings of Scripture = salvation. I would also want to say that there is certainly a _personal union_ with Christ which is part of salvation: the believer is united to Him by faith; His Spirit dwells in the soul of the believer. There is definitely a knowing of Christ which is personal, spiritual and vital.

However before one can enter into that union one must know who Christ is and believe certain things about Him. That is doctrine and if one does not have right doctrine one does not know the true Christ with whom to enter into that saving union.


----------



## JonC (Feb 26, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Agreed there is more to salvation than merely having an intellectual understanding of the doctrine. I don't think anyone here is arguing that mere intellectual understanding of the teachings of Scripture = salvation. I would also want to say that there is certainly a _personal union_ with Christ which is part of salvation: the believer is united to Him by faith; His Spirit dwells in the soul of the believer. There is definitely a knowing of Christ which is personal, spiritual and vital.
> 
> However before one can enter into that union one must know who Christ is and believe certain things about Him. That is doctrine and if one does not have right doctrine one does not know the true Christ with whom to enter into that saving union.


Of course. How will they know without a preacher?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 26, 2020)

JonC said:


> My experience is you are wrong. What I am saying is salvation is not knowing about Jesus (it is not doctrine that saves).
> 
> I grew up in church. I knew the gospel message. I understood the doctrine. When I was saved it was not because I gained additional doctrine. It was because the Spirit of God drew me to Himself and developed in me a reliance on the doctrine I already held.


You're describing the difference between _knowing about Jesus, and knowing Jesus. _But that's not the exactly difference between doctrine and Person when it comes to Christ.

There are people who claim to know the Person, because they walked an aisle, or because they prayed to Jesus once (or numerous times) and had prayer answered, or because they celebrate Christmas etc. (or even go to church regularly) and along with the event comes a spiritual experience. It's very possible for scarcely any of these folks to know Jesus truly.

It's possible that others learning facts and conclusions about the historical Jesus and some of his teachings, while holding on such things as if true, also fail to _make proper use of these things._ If these articles of faith do not produce true devotion to the Person, of whom these exist primarily to reveal, then indeed they are a _partial _and largely useless possession.

However, it is not the case that one can have true devotion to the Person _apart from _a proper possession and use of facts and conclusions about the historical Jesus and his teaching. It may not take much of this to begin well. The faith of little children is a grand example of this. New faith is always like this, no matter what age a person starts off, but in particular the trust (faith) of a little child in a true object of security (like a loving mother) is low on facts/intellectual reasoning, yet high in reward because the object is so true. The sensory inputs (sound, smell) are associated with the comfort provided long before the higher cognitive abilities are engaged. Loss or abuse of this trust is what makes for betrayal.

But still that little one acts on information. He has no relationship with his mother if there is no contact. Him learning years later he has a birth certificate and a woman's name on it can tell him where he came from, but unless it leads him to a relationship with her, there is no truth to the relationship; just imagination. And he cannot even begin that journey to a relationship apart from an origin in possession and use of facts and conclusions tied to a piece of paper.

Suppose there are lies mixed with the birth certificate. Suppose even that paper is a lie. How is a true relationship ever to be found on such a basis? It can't; and neither can there be a true relationship with Jesus made that is cumbered with falsehoods. It is the Truth that sets us free (Jn.8:32; 14:6), and nothing else. And we can't know the truth as it is in Jesus (Eph.4:21) without the Word.

There is no Jesus without doctrine. Doctrine gets us to Jesus, and once there the means he supplied cannot be discarded, dispensed with. Yes, it's possible to have (some, partial) doctrine without Jesus, just like it's possible to have all the lumber for a house in a big pile that gets rearranged and counted and never gets built. But the house will never be anything but imaginary, without use of the materials. And if you throw the pieces together any old way, it will be just as worthless, and will fall down (Mt.7:27). Doctrine matters.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 9, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> You're describing the difference between _knowing about Jesus, and knowing Jesus. _But that's not the exactly difference between doctrine and Person when it comes to Christ.
> 
> There are people who claim to know the Person, because they walked an aisle, or because they prayed to Jesus once (or numerous times) and had prayer answered, or because they celebrate Christmas etc. (or even go to church regularly) and along with the event comes a spiritual experience. It's very possible for scarcely any of these folks to know Jesus truly.
> 
> ...


I think his point, as you alluded to, the difference between knowing and "knowing" Jesus. I think some unhelpful philosophical categories are being thrown around here without realizing it. Different senses of "knowing" for instance or "doctrine" without qualification can be unhelpful. How much "doctrine" is necessary, without definition, to save is vuage to say the least. Can a person with a rudimentary understanding of the gospel be saved, or "know" Christ in a saving sense?


----------

