The Trinity made easy

[Johann]

You can’t answer a question with a question. The topic of conversation is how angels are God’s creation - including the definite article creatures.

You can’t answer a question with a question. The topic of conversation is how angels are God’s creation - including the definite article creatures.

That's why I ask a question WITH a question-

Who is THE malack of YHVH?
Gen_16:7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.

Gen_16:9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.

Gen_16:10 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

Gen_16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.

Gen_22:11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
Gen_22:15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,--

The Angel of the Lord (lit. Jehovah) oftentimes in the OT is equated with and yet distinct from Jehovah. The passage which may best describe their relation is Isaiah 63:8-9, wherein God is called Israel's Savior, but it is the Angel of His presence that saves Israel.

This Angel of God was generally regarded by the early church Fathers as the Logos or Word of God (John 1:1), the one who declared God and whose glory we have beheld (John 1:14,18; cf John 12:45; 14:9; II Corinthians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:15; 2:9; Hebrews 1:3). See E. W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, pp. 80-91, 1279-1312 for a thorough discussion of this issue. Below is a list of verses where this Angel/Logos appears:

Genesis 16:7-14; 21:17-19; 22:1-2,11-18; 31:11-13 with 28:13 & 35:1,3,7,15; 48:15-16
Exodus 3:1-6; 13:21-22 w/ 14:19 & Numbers 20:16; 23:20-23. Cf Acts 7:30-38
Numbers 22:21-35. Cf 22:9,20; 23:3-5,15-16; 24:2,4,16
Judges 2:1-5; 6:11-24; 13:2-23
Isaiah 63:8-9
Hosea 12:3-5. Cf Genesis 32:24-30
Zechariah 1:7-12: 2:3-5,8-11; 3:1-10; 12:8
Malachi 3:1 (messenger of the Covenant = angel of the covenant).

This Angel/Logos is primarily called the Angel of Jehovah (Malak Yahweh), but is also referred to as the Angel of God (Elohim), the Angel, my Angel and an Angel. Sometimes, however, these expressions are used of other figures (Exodus 32:34-33:4; Ecclesiastes 5:6; Malachi 2:7; 3:1 ‘my messenger’), and sometimes it is uncertain whether the Logos or a normal angel is intended (Genesis 24:7,40; Judges 5:23; II Samuel 24:16-17; I Kings 19:5-7; II Kings 1:3,15; 19:35; I Chronicles 21:11-30; II Chronicles 32:21; Psalm 34:7; 35:5-6; Isaiah 37:36; Daniel 6:22).


II

The logos also appeared in the Old Testament in various human forms (Genesis 18:1-19:22; 21:1 with 18:10; 32:24-30; Joshua 5:13-6:2; Ezekiel 1:25-2:4; 8:1-4; Daniel 3:25,28; 8:15-16; 10:5-9,16-11:1; 12:6-9; Zechariah 11:4-17; 13:7). The man who wrestled with Jacob (Genesis 32:24-30) is specifically called "the Angel ... even Jehovah" in Hosea 12:3-5, the commander of the Lord's army (Joshua 5:14) is almost certainly the angel of Exodus 23:20-23 & Numbers 22:21-35, and probably all of the other figures are likewise to be equated with the Angel of the Lord.


III

There are also other theophanies, or manifestations of God, in the Old Testament. These are not associated with any particular angelic or human forms. See, for example:

Genesis 12:7; 17:1-22; 26:2,24; 28:13-17; 35:1,9
Exodus 19:3,8-25; 20:18-22; 24:1-2,9-18; 29:42-46; 31:18; 32:30-34:11; 34:29-35; 40:34-35
Numbers 1:1; 9:15-23; 11:16-17,24-25; 12:4-10; 14:10-14; 16:42; 20:6-7
Deuteronomy 1:30-33; 4:10-15,32-37; 5:4-5,22-27; 33:2; 34:10
Job 38:1; 42:5
Isaiah 6:1 with Jn 12:39-41
Ezekiel 1:1; 3:23-24; 9:3-4; 10:1-4,18-20; 11:22-23; 43:1-7; 44:4; 48:35
Amos 9:1

Again it would seem that in many, if not all, of these cases that God appeared in the form of His Angel. This is certainly the case in the theophany to Jacob at Bethel, for in Genesis 31:11-13 the Angel of God says that He is the God of Bethel to whom Jacob had made a vow in Genesis 28:18-22. It would also seem that the presence (lit. ‘face’) of Jehovah in Exodus 33:14-15 is another title for the Angel of Exodus 23:20-23, as both perform the same work of leading Israel into the promised land (cf Deuteronomy 4:37). Further evidence for this equation comes from the expression "Angel of His presence" (lit. ‘face’) in Isaiah 63:9. It seems to have been formed by conjoining the two names, and suggests that the inspired prophet equated "the face of Jehovah" with "the Angel in whom is the name of the Lord" (Exodus 23:21).

Just to elaborate and clarify @Wrangler

 

[Wrangler]

You can’t answer a question with a question. The topic of conversation is how angels are God’s creation - including the definite article creatures.

And to expand on the significance of the definite article as it applies to the Creator compared to his Creation, his Agents ...

a police officer of the State of Ohio said hello.​

the police officer of the State of Ohio said hello.​

an angel of the LORD said hello.​

the angel of the LORD said hello.​

Propositional phrases beginning with "OF" always seem to trip up trinitarian dogma. The Being who did the action of an agent of either the State or the LORD. There is the importance of the definite article.

The question of using a definite article or indefinite article to refer to the Being, is irrelevant as it is understand that Being is the subject of the sentence doing the acting. Of course, you have to read more into it because there is no trinity verse in Scripture, so you are forced to desperately reach for such nonsense.

 

[Wrangler]

That's why I ask a question WITH a question-

Thereby attempting to side step the scrutiny your claims cannot withstand.

You obviously seek to baffle with quantity in a vain attempt to compenstate for the utter lack of quality of what you are writing. Only you get to ask questions, eh? What humility?!

The truth is not so scary that you have to resort to all manner of mental gymnastics in a vain attempt to "support" the unsupportable. This thread is "the trinity made easy" and you again proof yourself wrong with so many posts of numerous paragraphs.

 

[Cyrus]

God is a Trinity of persons, a Tri-Unity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are the one God. Each Person has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are qualities or characteristics of personhood. The Trinity is in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance, essence, nature or being. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God.

Jesus, the Son, is one Divine Person with two natures: Divine and Human. This is called the Hypostatic Union. The Holy Spirit is also Divine in nature and is self aware, the third person of the Trinity.

The word "person" is used to describe the three of the Godhead because the word "person" is appropriate. A person is self aware, can speak, love, hate, say "you," "yours," "me," "mine," etc. Each of the three Persons in the Trinity demonstrate these qualities.

What is so hard to understand about God being Triune? The Father is not the the Son. The Son is not the the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. God is a Tri-Unity of 3 Persons who are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not three gods nor is the Trinity three beings. We call them "Persons" because each one of Them have a will, speak, teach, love, receive praise, prayer, share the same Glory, etc. These are all characteristics of person-hood. They are of one substance, nature, essence or Being. You cannot have the Father without the Son, the Son without the Father, The Son without the Holy Spirit or you would not have the God according to Scripture, you would have a false god or what is known as an idol.

Lets discuss

hope this helps,

All right this looks excellent. Your question "What is so hard to understand about the trinity?" I don't know I've never had a problem Believing in it. I don't understand everything about it. I've heard people say that it's hard to explain the trinity to someone that's never heard of it. But I didn't have that problem in believing in the trinity. Let me dig through this thread And if I have any questions if it's okay I'll get back with you to see what you think.

Most assuredly let's discuss

 

[Cyrus]

Okay I'm going to throw in my two cents. I don't claim to know that much about the trinity as I've already stated the first time I heard it preached I believe in it but never did a deep dive into the theology behind it. But I do know to a lot of people the doctrine of the Trinity seems a very strange teaching indeed. It seems to violate logic, for it claims that God is three and yet that he is one. How can this be? And why would the church Change such a doctrine?

Remember we know that it doesn't appear to be taught in the Bible. So that alone could present a problem especially for new believers. And here is why I believe that.

Traditionally when we share the gospel, what we believe about salvation, forgiveness of sin and reception of new life, we explain that salvation is possible because the second person of the Godhead took on human form without giving up his deity. In this incarnate form he bore the sins of humans as their substitute. Thus, he was able to present to the Father the perfect sacrifice for human sin, on the basis of which the Father then forgave their sins and the Holy Spirit conferred new life. If the doctrine of the Trinity is not true, then the understanding of salvation must be modified.

But we know it is true and that it is the correct gospel message.

Also, our view on the doctrine of the Trinity affects our views of other doctrines. If the Godhead does not consist of three persons equally divine and yet inseparably one, we must redefine one or more of those persons. Jesus may not be fully God, or if he is, he is a lesser deity than is the Father. The Holy Spirit is in some sense inferior to both the Father and the Son. The doctrine of the atonement is modified as well. Instead of a voluntary self-sacrifice by a member of the Godhead, it is something imposed on a human by God, and thus contains an element of injustice.

That's why I don't believe in penal substitutionary atonement. To me that would make God unjust plus it's problematic when looking at it in light of the Old Testament, Trinitarian doctrine, and Jewish thought. You might think that's a whole different topic but the two actually are closely associated.

This becomes problematic in the light of the Trinity when we look at Christ on the cross. The Father pours out his wrath on the Son. The Father has wrath, and for his need for justice, so He must punish. The Son, on the cross, asks for forgiveness, making a conflict in the divine will - punishment versus forgiveness. Taking it to the furthest logical conclusion puts the Son and the Father at odds, creating a divide within the indivisible Trinity. It also calls to question Christ's place in the Godhead. Shouldn't Christ's holiness also be offended? Why would the Father need appeasement and not Christ or the Holy Spirit?

And if God the Father is truly punishing Christ, that is also sowing very real division within the Trinity. If the Father inflicts torture on the Son, how can the perfect love and unity of the Trinity survive?

 

[360watt]

Okay I'm going to throw in my two cents. I don't claim to know that much about the trinity as I've already stated the first time I heard it preached I believe it and never did a deep dive into the theology behind it. But I do know To a lot of people the doctrine of the Trinity seems a very strange teaching indeed. It seems to violate logic, for it claims that God is three and yet that he is one. How can this be? And why would the church Change such a doctrine?

Remember we know that it doesn't appear to be taught in the Bible. So that alone could present a problem especially for new believers. And here is why I believe that.

Traditionally when we share the gospel, We believe about salvation, forgiveness of sin and reception of new life, we explain that salvation is possible because the second person of the Godhead took on human form without giving up his deity. In this incarnate form he bore the sins of humans as their substitute. Thus he was able to present to the Father the perfect sacrifice for human sin, on the basis of which the Father then forgave their sins and the Holy Spirit conferred new life. If the doctrine of the Trinity is not true, then the understanding of salvation must be modified.

But we know it is true and that it is the correct gospel message.

Also our view on the doctrine of the Trinity affects our views of other doctrines. If the Godhead does not consist of three persons equally divine and yet inseparably one, we must redefine one or more of those persons. Jesus may not be fully God, or if he is, he is a lesser deity than is the Father. The Holy Spirit is in some sense inferior to both the Father and the Son. The doctrine of the atonement is modified as well. Instead of a voluntary self-sacrifice by a member of the Godhead, it is something imposed on a human by God, and thus contains an element of injustice.

That's why I don't believe in penal substitutionary atonement. To me that would make God unjust plus it's problematic when looking at it in light of the Old Testament, Trinitarian doctrine, and Jewish thought. You might think that's a whole different topic but the two actually are closely associated.

This becomes problematic in the light of the Trinity when we look at Christ on the cross. The Father pours out his wrath on the Son. The Father has wrath, and for his need for justice, so He must punish. The Son, on the cross, asks for forgiveness, making a conflict in the divine will - punishment versus forgiveness. Taking it to the furthest logical conclusion puts the Son and the Father at odds, creating a divide within the indivisible Trinity. It also calls to question Christ's place in the Godhead. Shouldn't Christ's holiness also be offended? Why would the Father need appeasement and not Christ or the Holy Spirit?

And if God the Father is truly punishing Christ, that is also sowing very real division within the Trinity. If the Father inflicts torture on the Son, how can the perfect love and unity of the Trinity survive?

Is punishing actually what the Father is doing?

 

[Cyrus]

Is punishing actually what the Father is doing?

I hear you and I think it depends on one word being translated correctly and used correctly.

As Eric Hyde argues, "If one chooses to interpret hilasterion as propitiation (literally: "to make favorable," with the implication of placating or appeasing the deity), then the entire Western notion of substitutionary atonement fits well." But, if one uses the word expiation, which implies a cleansing and removing of sin, this fits less into the penal substitutionary atonement model. This turns the death and resurrection of Christ around - no longer is Christ trying to appease an angry God the Father who has wrath that must be satisfied; instead, Christ is lovingly redeeming and restoring humanity. Let's also consider that hilasterion is used in the Septuagint to mean the "mercy seat" or "thing that atones." It also appears again in Hebrews 9:5 as the mercy seat. Given that context to hilasterion, it makes more sense that Christ's self-sacrifice was an act to remove our sins instead of an act to appease or pacify an angry Father, so He can forgive.

Does that answer your question?

 

[360watt]

I hear you and I think it depends on one word being translated correctly and used correctly.

As Eric Hyde argues, "If one chooses to interpret hilasterion as propitiation (literally: "to make favorable," with the implication of placating or appeasing the deity), then the entire Western notion of substitutionary atonement fits well." But, if one uses the word expiation, which implies a cleansing and removing of sin, this fits less into the penal substitutionary atonement model. This turns the death and resurrection of Christ around - no longer is Christ trying to appease an angry God the Father who has wrath that must be satisfied; instead, Christ is lovingly redeeming and restoring humanity. Let's also consider that hilasterion is used in the Septuagint to mean the "mercy seat" or "thing that atones." It also appears again in Hebrews 9:5 as the mercy seat. Given that context to hilasterion, it makes more sense that Christ's self-sacrifice was an act to remove our sins instead of an act to appease or pacify an angry Father, so He can forgive.

Does that answer your question?

Yes.. I didn't know the penal substitutionary atonement actually taught that! I've never been to seminary.. but studied the bible in depth anyway.

 

[Cyrus]

Yes.. I didn't know the penal substitutionary atonement actually taught that! I've never been to seminary.. but studied the bible in depth anyway.

Well you've got that right, The Bible is the main thing. Commentaries and what I call Word Books, Books that explain the Bible are great. There are a lot of free online courses I think I saw a link here to one. Found it:

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/free-online-courses-at-hillsdale-college.846/

Devotion books are great also. And Bible in a year. Plus all the stuff that's available on the internet. Of course, you have to be careful, but you can usually tell if it's some false teaching or not.

Another thing that great is home Bible studies. I've been leading one for the past 11 years And what I like about it it's iron sharpening iron plus loving each other and going through stuff together. Ours are sermon based in our church put the lesson online so we can just download it and print it out passing around to the group. We have 16 in the group.

Anyway, my point is you don't need to go to Seminary just find what works for you and abide in Jesus in his word.

 

[360watt]

Well you've got that right, The Bible is the main thing. Commentaries and what I call Word Books, Books that explain the Bible. There are a lot of free online courses I think I saw a link here to one. Found it:

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/free-online-courses-at-hillsdale-college.846/

Devotion books are great also. And Bible in a year. Plus all the stuff that's Available on the internet. Of course you have to be careful but you can usually tell if it's some false teaching or not.

Another thing that great is home Bible studies. I've been leading one for the past 11 years And what I like about it it's iron sharpening iron plus loving each other and going through stuff together. Ours are sermon based in our church put the lesson online so we can just download it and print it out passing around to the group. We have 16 in the group.

Anyway my point is you don't need to go to Seminary just find what works for you and abide in Jesus in his word.

I was part of an unofficial bible college, led by my old pastor. We did essays on what we believe and why, directly from scripture. So that is where I have got some foundation. Since then thru bible study with fellow church members its got more refined.

 

[Cyrus]

I was part of an unofficial bible college, led by my old pastor. We did essays on what we believe and why, directly from scripture. So that is where I have got some foundation. Since then thru bible study with fellow church members its got more refined.

That sounds awesome to me. That way you're learning on a more personal level than a large group. And you're able to have discussions. When you read through the Bible in a group... what I call corporate Bible reading it seems like the word comes alive, well it is Living Word. But I mean it comes alive in a way that you can all discuss it in the group. Sometimes it seems like the Holy Spirit will speak through someone about how the word affected their life. It makes me so happy that I'm a Christian.

I'm really happy for you too. And the really cool thing about it is when God puts somebody in your path that needs to hear the word it'll come out and you'll be able to plant that seed.

Conversing with you has encouraged me.

 

[civic]

Yes.. I didn't know the penal substitutionary atonement actually taught that! I've never been to seminary.. but studied the bible in depth anyway.

I wrote a thesis paper on the topic

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-nature-of-god-in-the-atonement.30/

 

[Rowan]

I wrote a thesis paper on the topic

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-nature-of-god-in-the-atonement.30/

Yeah I've read it that's where I got a lot of good information about it. Excellent thesis paper. I think I will take another look at it.

 

[dwight92070]

God is a Trinity of persons, a Tri-Unity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are the one God. Each Person has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are qualities or characteristics of personhood. The Trinity is in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance, essence, nature or being. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God.

Jesus, the Son, is one Divine Person with two natures: Divine and Human. This is called the Hypostatic Union. The Holy Spirit is also Divine in nature and is self aware, the third person of the Trinity.

The word "person" is used to describe the three of the Godhead because the word "person" is appropriate. A person is self aware, can speak, love, hate, say "you," "yours," "me," "mine," etc. Each of the three Persons in the Trinity demonstrate these qualities.

What is so hard to understand about God being Triune? The Father is not the the Son. The Son is not the the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. God is a Tri-Unity of 3 Persons who are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not three gods nor is the Trinity three beings. We call them "Persons" because each one of Them have a will, speak, teach, love, receive praise, prayer, share the same Glory, etc. These are all characteristics of person-hood. They are of one substance, nature, essence or Being. You cannot have the Father without the Son, the Son without the Father, The Son without the Holy Spirit or you would not have the God according to Scripture, you would have a false god or what is known as an idol.

Lets discuss

hope this helps,

The Bible does say that the Son is the Father (Is. 9:6, John 1:1) the Father is the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17), and the Holy Spirit is the Son. (2 Corinthians 3:17)

 

[civic]

The Bible does say that the Son is the Father (Is. 9:6, John 1:1) the Father is the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17), and the Holy Spirit is the Son. (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Are you oneness Dwight or trinitarian?

 

[dwight92070]

I guess I am neither. I believe the Trinity doctrine except where they say "The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. I believe they ARE each other, as I stated in #314.

I find it amazing that people don't see a contradiction in the Trinity doctrine. If the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then it only makes sense that they ARE each other. ( If A=X, B=X and C=X, then A=B=C ) If the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then the Father is the Son, who is the Holy Spirit.

 

[360watt]

I guess I am neither. I believe the Trinity doctrine except where they say "The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. I believe they ARE each other, as I stated in #314.

I find it amazing that people don't see a contradiction in the Trinity doctrine. If the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then it only makes sense that they ARE each other. ( If A=X, B=X and C=X, then A=B=C ) If the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then the Father is the Son, who is the Holy Spirit.

I'm in a similar position to this. I don't like separation between the Father, Son etc..

In scripture you can see them doing the same thing at the same time with the same power.

The only thing is though.. the bible does separate them into distinctive 'persons'. Jesus does talk with the Father as a distinctive entity, rather than Himself.

I like to think of the lines between these entities blurred rather than thick lines of separation that you see in most diagrams of the Trinity.

But trying to work this out is like a 2d being trying to comprehend a 3 or 4d being

I mean..the Holy Spirit indwells a believer with His presence. Does that make it millions of Holy Spirit's?

It doesn't.. so obviously God works in ways that go beyond our view point.

 

[101G]

The Bible does say that the Son is the Father (Is. 9:6, John 1:1) the Father is the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17), and the Holy Spirit is the Son. (2 Corinthians 3:17)

it do, and congratulations. and also, do not the BIBLE also say the Holy Spirit is the ONLY "ONE" PERSON of the Godhead. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirito of God moved upon the face of the waters."

"of" translates the genitive case of nouns, with various shades of meaning. Of these the subjective and objective are mentioned here, which need careful distinction.

example. the Love "OF" God is God. for God is LOVE. the Spirit of God is God..... for, John 4:24 "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

101G

 

[TedT]

Yes that Creed is excellent along with Chalcedon. Thanks for your input. I have no problem with the word person but I know many do have an issue using the word.

I think it is in fact a superior word in this context...!

 

[Rockson]

I guess I am neither. I believe the Trinity doctrine except where they say "The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. I believe they ARE each other, as I stated in #314.

As for me I've never been ever to understand why people can't accept that they're one but different.....especially since we have things in our created natural world which it similarly can be said. H2O can be said to be one type of substance. It can however be in three forms, liquid, ice or vapor. Other things can be said as well.