The Trinity and the Oneness of God

[blhowes]

As a result of conversations at work (with an orthodox Jew), I've started studying about God's oneness and the trinity. At first, after reading some materials given to me, it appeared that there was a big contrast between the OT and the NT, between the "Jewish God" and the "Christian God", with respect to God's oneness vs the trinity. I was surprised, just by doing a quick search, how often God's oneness is mentioned in the NT (Mar 12:29, Rom 3:30, 1Co 8:4, 1Co 8:6, Gal 3:20, Eph 4:4-6, 1Ti 2:5, Jam 2:19). Its not just an OT teaching.

In reading through and thinking about these verses, one of the verses got me wondering:

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

I'm sure this is probably not the best proof text to use to defend the deity of Christ, but I got to thinking about the last part of the verse, the man Christ Jesus. I thought it was interesting the use of the word man. If Jesus wasn't God, but only a man, is there any reason why Paul would have used the word man? Is there any warrant to the idea that Paul was differentiating between Jesus as God and Jesus as man, or is the point mainly that Jesus had to be a man to be a sacrifice for mankind, regardless of whether he was man or man/God? Does it make sense what I'm trying to ask?

 

[BobVigneault]

Bob, I think that Hebrews 2 gives a good commentary on that verse:

2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

The emphasis of the Timothy verse is on mediation. In mediation, each side needs a representative. Jesus is fully God as expressed in numerous passages but for the purpose of representing man in mediation it must be demonstrated that he is likewise a man. His manhood is also necessary to be our substitute.

 

[blhowes]

Bob, I think that Hebrews 2 gives a good commentary on that verse:

2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

The emphasis of the Timothy verse is on mediation. In mediation, each side needs a representative. Jesus is fully God as expressed in numerous passages but for the purpose of representing man in mediation it must be demonstrated that he is likewise a man. His manhood is also necessary to be our substitute.

Bob,
Thanks.

So, if Jesus was only a man, though a sinless man, but not God, he wouldn't be able to mediate and his sacrifice of himself would not have paid the price - correct?

 

[BlackCalvinist]

God's plurality is also mentioned frequently in the OT. Probably more than the NT as a matter of fact.

 

[blhowes]

God's plurality is also mentioned frequently in the OT. Probably more than the NT as a matter of fact.

In addition to "Let us make man in our image..." which other passages come to mind that speak of God's plurality?

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Answering Islam.org has a chapter from Robert Morey's book on the doctrine of the Trinity where Morey points out that even the hebrew verbs in hundreds of places in the OT are plural.

My favorite passage is Isaiah 48:12-16.

I talk about it here:
[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=n8RXb4kHXCQ"]YouTube - Calvinism on the Couch- Episode 1 - The Holy Trinity[/ame]

if not there, then in the next one I'll be posting up.

 

[blhowes]

I talk about it here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=n8RXb4kHXCQ

if not there, then in the next one I'll be posting up.

I enjoyed that. Good job. I look forward to listening to the next one you do on the trinity.

BTW, I like your subtle humor..."I'm reading from the ESV, the Bible the Apostle Paul used"

 

[larryjf]

One of the ideas that really got me regarding why God has to be a plurality of persons within one Godhead is the following line of thinking...

Is God a personal God? - yes
Does God "need" anything outside of Himself? - no
Therefore God must be a plurality of persons...otherwise He would either not be personal or He would have needed creation to be personal.

 

[blhowes]

One of the ideas that really got me regarding why God has to be a plurality of persons...

Interesting you should write this. I was eating at a restaurant tonight, wondering if there were any arguments that could be given that made more sense if there were a plurality of persons, rather than one God, one person.

...within one Godhead is the following line of thinking...

Is God a personal God? - yes
Does God "need" anything outside of Himself? - no
Therefore God must be a plurality of persons...otherwise He would either not be personal or He would have needed creation to be personal.

I wish I were better at following logic than I am. I may need some help seeing how you come to the conclusion based on the answers to the first two question, but let me go into 'ponder mode' and think about for a bit.

 

[bookslover]

One of the ideas that really got me regarding why God has to be a plurality of persons within one Godhead is the following line of thinking...

Is God a personal God? - yes
Does God "need" anything outside of Himself? - no
Therefore God must be a plurality of persons...otherwise He would either not be personal or He would have needed creation to be personal.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your two correct answers to your questions.

Are you saying that, if God were only one Person, He wouldn't be personal? You're only one person; even so, you have personhood. If God were only one Person, He would still be personal - still have Personhood. It wouldn't detract from His being or any of His attributes at all.

And, to say "He would have needed creation to be personal" is to deny your "no" answer: God "needing" creation is to deny His self-existence. It would make God dependent on His creation, somehow. God "needs" nothing at all. If He were to make all of creation disappear tomorrow (which He could easily do), it wouldn't affect Him at all - He would still be absolutely perfect in every way.

Trying to figure out why God is three divine and glorious Persons is a risky and dangerous business. He is three Persons because He is three Persons. It's just an unexplained given. Deuteronomy 29:29 is good hermeneutical advice here.

 

[larryjf]

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your two correct answers to your questions.

Are you saying that, if God were only one Person, He wouldn't be personal? You're only one person; even so, you have personhood. If God were only one Person, He would still be personal - still have Personhood. It wouldn't detract from His being or any of His attributes at all.

What i was going for was more the idea of being social. I guess i didn't word it quite correctly. By being personal i was referring to personal interaction, not really the essence of being person but more like the activity of being a person with other people.

And, to say "He would have needed creation to be personal" is to deny your "no" answer: God "needing" creation is to deny His self-existence. It would make God dependent on His creation, somehow. God "needs" nothing at all. If He were to make all of creation disappear tomorrow (which He could easily do), it wouldn't affect Him at all - He would still be absolutely perfect in every way.

That was kind of my point. That only as a multiplicity of persons could God be self-existent in that way because He wouldn't need creation because He has personal interaction within His persons.

 

[bookslover]

That was kind of my point. That only as a multiplicity of persons could God be self-existent in that way because He wouldn't need creation because He has personal interaction within His persons.

OK, but still: if God were only one Person (instead of three), even this would not detract from His social-ness - if, indeed, God would even need social-ness as a single Person. God, being God, is absolutely perfect in every way - that's part of the basic definition of God. So, if God were just one Person, He would still be absolutely perfect, and whatever social-ness God would have as one Person would also be perfect. God could be perfectly self-existent even if He were just one Person.

One Person or three - God is always perfect.

And: God is three Persons, and He still doesn't "need" the creation. God has no "needs" of any kind; to have such would make Him less than perfect, which is impossible.

 

[larryjf]

bookslover,

God could not be perfectly God as one person simply because He is not one person but three. God IS perfect, but our inventions of God are not perfect. And having God as one person is an invention of man, not the true God, hence it is not perfect.

To say that theoretically God could be perfect if He were different is like saying that He does not have to be what He truly is as God.

 

[bookslover]

bookslover,

God could not be perfectly God as one person simply because He is not one person but three. God IS perfect, but our inventions of God are not perfect. And having God as one person is an invention of man, not the true God, hence it is not perfect.

To say that theoretically God could be perfect if He were different is like saying that He does not have to be what He truly is as God.

Well, my point was only that, if God were just one Person, He would still be completely perfect by definition, just because He is God. All His perfections attributed to Him in Scripture would still be perfectly true of Him in that case. I know that He can't be/won't be/couldn't be one Person because He is three Persons. Again, my only point is that His glorious perfections would not be affected by how many Persons He is. If He were 12 Persons, He would still be God - and, therefore, still be perfect in every way.

I was responding to the point that God's personhood or perfections were somehow dependent on the creation.

 

[polemic_turtle]

I suppose the arguement from love is what you're sort of referring to.

God is love( agape ).
Love requires a recipient.
Therefore there was both a subject and an object of God's love throughout eternity.

Now, that breaks down if you deny that agape requires another person. I have heard it described as the love which gives, which requires a receiver to receive the love given. Therefore, for God to have been giving love, there was also one receiving His love eternally.

This makes sense to me, if you grant the agape thing, but I hope and pray that this is never made the primary buttress of somebody's argument for the Trinity. John 1:1 is so much more substantial.

 

[KMK]

I suppose the arguement from love is what you're sort of referring to.

God is love( agape ).
Love requires a recipient.
Therefore there was both a subject and an object of God's love throughout eternity.

Now, that breaks down if you deny that agape requires another person. I have heard it described as the love which gives, which requires a receiver to receive the love given. Therefore, for God to have been giving love, there was also one receiving His love eternally.

This makes sense to me, if you grant the agape thing, but I hope and pray that this is never made the primary buttress of somebody's argument for the Trinity. John 1:1 is so much more substantial.

So if a God loves in the forest and no one is there to receive his love...

 

[bookslover]

I suppose the arguement from love is what you're sort of referring to.

God is love( agape ).
Love requires a recipient.
Therefore there was both a subject and an object of God's love throughout eternity.

Now, that breaks down if you deny that agape requires another person. I have heard it described as the love which gives, which requires a receiver to receive the love given. Therefore, for God to have been giving love, there was also one receiving His love eternally.

This makes sense to me, if you grant the agape thing, but I hope and pray that this is never made the primary buttress of somebody's argument for the Trinity. John 1:1 is so much more substantial.

This argument would work even if God were two persons. Fortunately, this is a problem we'll never have, of course. Three Persons, one God.

In the end, it's a mystery...