Three is also the minimum number required for family or community to exist; not merely relationship but a harmony of relationships. The sort of loves and unity that can exist between three persons is distinct from the loves and unity that can exist between two. Three persons in the Godhead allows for all of the dimensions, the height, depth, length and width of perfect love to exist in God.
why can’t family or community be made of 2 persons? for example, not every family has kids. and why can’t 2 people form a community? as long as there is love and interaction, which requires at least 2, isn’t that enough of a community?
Thank you for this, brother. I'm thoroughly sympathetic to the question. However, question, isn't it ultimately backwards to ask "why?" in relation to God's essence? Isn't it a quest for something back of God that is the reason He is the way He is? When we endeavor to comprehend Him as Knower/Knowing/Known or Lover/Loving/Beloved, aren't those paradigms the consequence of God being what He is? He explains the three-ness of those paradigms, rather than those paradigms explaining His three-ness. Even the numbers one and three are not prior to God, but He Himself is the ground of mathematics. I'm really not trying to out-pious you or something, but I'd suggest that if we affirm the equal ultimacy of His Unity and Trinity, and that He is "most absolute," then perhaps the only possible answer to "why three...?" really is, "He is."
I was just wondering about this very same question. Then suddenly i see your video in my recommendations. Thanks Gavin for tackling this. It's still helping fellow Christians even after two years. Cheers mate
@@TruthUnites awesome! This is one of the channels that I immediately watch whenever I see a new video (then play in the background on loop while I’m designing so I can lock it in)
Good old C.S. Lewis! Mere Christianity was instrumental in my becoming a Christian many years ago, and I remember well that chapter called “Beyond Personality.” Thanks for highlighting it.
"No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the Splendour of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One. When I think of any One of the Three I think of Him as the Whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking of escapes me. I cannot grasp the greatness of That One so as to attribute a greater greatness to the Rest. When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the Undivided Light." - Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 40:41
About six minutes in and 15 seconds. Very interesting.… I can definitely see the whole concept of the word proceeding from the father from the thought of the father and the word having been always been in him. To me, Colossians 2:9 speaking about God being “manifest “in the flesh Really makes sense, but even then, I don’t see how it necessitates some second person. “When we think of the concept of one God in three “persons “, do we mean “people? “Is there another word that we can use besides persons? This is definitely a difficult concept for Jewish believers as many of them have always been taught that God is one, that he can manifest even simultaneously in many ways, and with many attributes distinct in many ways, but not sure that they ever would’ve thought of “persons “in the godhead. Love this channel. I love your thoughts on baptism in particular, as I have been exploring that topic a lot lately.
So good, thanks Gavin. The comparison between Trinitarianism and Naturalism at the end was helpful. I would love Joe Schmid to see this, he is a brilliant young agnostic philosopher, who runs the TH-cam channel Majesty of Reason. He focuses his channel on truth seeking and love between interlocutors. I share that goal and appreciate his work, but see this in tension with his Naturalism. Reminds me of Paul in Acts 17.. *He (God) is never far from anyone of us*
Great job Gavin on this video and also the one on the argument from beauty! Both videos introduced me to come convincing and truly enchanting concepts for the first time! 😄May God continue to bless and guide you!
What a great resource to share with my students as we are exploring the catechism questions and discussing the three persons of the Trinity. You reference of Anselm and Lewis both help to take a potentially stodgy doctrine and bring it to life. I'm curious to know your thoughts Gavin on Michael Reeves' work "Delighting in the Trinity". I found it very helpful to introduce students as well.
Jonathan Edwards unpublished essay is good on this. I've come to find the Person/Speaker-Thought/Word-Love/Breathe analogy to be totally convincing for me and I think the Bible even suggests it, but I understand the caution, which I initially had at first.
To be perfectly honest, I really struggle with the concept of the Trinity. I struggle not at all with the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. I do not struggle with the fact that God is father, son, and Holy Spirit, but I struggle with the concept of “persons. “I do realize that the word persons meant different things during the time of Tertullian then the way seems to be commonly discussed now. Have great difficulty seeing the modern understanding of three “persons “as tritheism. I struggle not to see the concept of “persons “as three gods. I know we say it is not three gods, but that seems to me to be as far as it goes. What really bothers me is that people have this idea that you can’t be saved if you don’t believe in the Trinity, which is ridiculous. You must believe in the full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, Romans, 10 verses 9:10, but nowhere in the old or the new testament is it stated that you must believe in one God who is three persons/people to be saved. It just ain’t there. Another thing that bothers me is that the doctrine of the trinity is definitely a formulation. Some of the early Trinitarian were subordination, and then there were problems with Arianism, which is why so many condemn non-trinitarian, which is certainly right, because Arians do not believe that Jesus is fully God. So I get the hesitation, excepting non-trinitarian. But there are non-trinitarian who most definitely affirmed that Jesus is fully God and fully man and always has been. Very interesting though. This whole second and third person thing really bugs me as well. If Jesus is the name above every name, and he is, Philippians two, how could he be a second person? How would that not be subordination ism? How would subordination not be semi Arianism? It is interesting to me how people act like this is such an essential doctrine, but yet you can’t figure it out and it’s a mystery and if you don’t believe it, you’re not saved. Boggles my mind. This is one of my favorite channels.
This was an excellent talk Dr. O! Particularly the part where you talked about how it was an overflow of love that produced the Universe. Do you know of any books that delve deeper on that specific topic of how an overflow of love created the Universe? May God bless your work and ministry.
Appreciated this summation. One thing I’ve always struggled with in this discussion is grasping how, when you think merely in these terms, that God’s reason/thought/mental image (as Lewis refers to) and God’s love can be persons. The human side of the analogy fails us in this regard, of course - while my thought and my love can be considered as distinct, it’s impossible to ever think of them possessing personal qualities (thought, emotion, will) or being actual persons themselves. Would love to hear a short summation of any thoughts along these lines, or any historical or contemporary resources someone might be able to point me towards.
The holy spirit brought me to the same understanding. I use the terms idea, motive and expression to explain the trinity. Consider that all three parts are essential, independent and the same in any expression. For example is I say "sit beside me" the expression (words) the motive (for you to be beside me) and the idea (sit beside me) are all the same but also distinct.
Thank you for this! Super helpful call at the end for those who don't believe. The things they care about deeply like love and reason have not always been and will not last. I might steal this for conversations I have with friends, haha.
As I recall, St. John of Damascus uses the analogy of the Mind (Father), Speech (Son), and Aspiration (Holy Spirit) saying something like that the Mind is the source of Speech, yet the Speech reveals the Mind and the Aspiration gives articulation to the Speech. He uses this analogy in On the Orthodox Faith. I'll have to track down the exact quote and cite it here.
Great stuff Dr Ortlund. Are you familiar with Jonathan Edwards's treatment of this? His unpublished essay sounds a lot like what you're describing in Anselm.
Thank you for this, brother. I'm thoroughly sympathetic to the question. However, question, isn't it ultimately backwards to ask "why?" in relation to God's essence? Isn't it a quest for something back of God that is the reason He is the way He is? When we endeavor to comprehend Him as Knower/Knowing/Known or Lover/Loving/Beloved, aren't those paradigms the consequence of God being what He is? He explains the three-ness of those paradigms, rather than those paradigms explaining His three-ness. Even the numbers one and three are not prior to God, but He Himself is the ground of mathematics. I'm really not trying to out-pious you or something, but I'd suggest that if we affirm the equal ultimacy of His Unity and Trinity, and that He is "most absolute," then perhaps the only possible answer to "why three...?" really is, "He is."
I have never had a problem with the Trinity, but I don't get how the Word fits in. This has helped a bit. Will read Ch4 of Mere Christianity. Thank you
If you're up for it, read the Cappadocian fathers. Saint Basil, Saint Gregory Nyssa and Saint Gregory Nazianzus. They're the most important Church Fathers for the Trinity
MATTHEW 28:18.. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. How can this scripture work with a TRINITY?
This has bothered me for a while. In the same book, CS Lewis argues for monotheism using the argument that 8 godd is arbitrary, because why not 7 gods or 23. Similarly, in “The Gods Themselves” by Asimov, about parallel universes, a pivotal conclusion in the story is that “two is an abdurd number.” There could be no universes. Or if there were only one universe, that would make sense. But to say there are two and only two universes is absurd, so there must be infinitely many. I find that convincing at least when it comes to the number of gods, but I’ve always struggled to understand why it doesn’t work just as well for Persons. Thanks for these insights into it.
Three is the essential numeric value of love. Where there is only one person, love cannot occur. Where there are two, each is the sole recipient of the other's attention, giving place for self-absorption. But the moment there are three, each recipient of any one's love must also humbly defer attention to the third party, and each one is the third party to the other two. Pure selflessness can now occur by virtue of the fact that each one must love and be loved with both an exclusive and a divided interest. If God's essential identity is traceable to a solitary selfhood-which would be the case if Jesus in any sense had a point of beginning, and if the Holy Spirit does not eternally exist with distinct personhood -then love is not essential to God's nature. Said more simply, if Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not eternally co-existent, it cannot be said with any coherence that "God is love." The pure biblical genius of identifying God as a triune fellowship rather than as an absolute singularity or even as a dualism, is convincing evidence that the Bible is, in fact, the revelation of the one and only true God, whose essential nature is love. --Ty Gibson
Great vid, as always. This may disqualify me as a Christian, I dunno, but I’m basically agnostic about the Trinity. I’m curious about it, but I’ve resigned from having a position on it or affirming it. I don’t think Jesus will withhold salvation from me over this. I just don’t think He cares that much about the theological assumptions of the carnal mind. That said, I’ve always seen God as One, invisible, unattainable, infinite. But His Word is the part of Him that can be seen or understood, it is how He is relatable to His creation, so that any time we are seeing God or understanding Him, we are only perceiving the Son. Then the Holy Ghost seems to be all that is Good in God, without privation. For example, the Holy Ghost doesn’t revenge or get angry or destroy or allow evil, while God in His totality, does. When the HG works in us, it’s always the ‘nice’ traits, the ‘Jesusy’ things, love, patience, meekness, etc. This would be why rejecting the HG is unforgivable. I think that many atheists, though they reject God in general, & the Word as they perceive God through Jesus, they usually don’t reject the HG, their love of God’s goodness & power & knowledge. You know the saying “You are three people; the person you think you are, the person others think you are, & the person God knows you to be”? Well… God is three people, the God we perceive (the Word), the God that can be perceived in us (the HG), & the God which God knows Himself to be (God).
The trinity is one of the most significant doctrines in Christianity. Knowledge of the relationship and eternal love between the three persons of God is crucial and is the reason for Gods creation . Thanks for this important video
God isn't just suprapersonal in the sense of being tripersonal, but also, in the sense that he has a qualitatively higher personality... more personality... much, much more...
I see God as revealing himself in an abstract way. I’m fairly new to this all and I’m more comfortable saying “Godhead”than “Trinity”, though I certainly acknowledge Father, Son and Spirit. Not in a modalist way either...But the phrase “3 persons” has thus far made me uneasy. It sounds exactly like saying “God is 3 people.” In my limited understanding, God is the person of Jesus Christ. I think that misrepresentations of the Godhead lead many to see Christians as having 3 gods. It leads to the idea of God sitting on 3 separate thrones. (He) is awesome. Not, (They) are awesome. He allows us to wonder about the fullness of his awesome presence. That’s how I currently see it anyway. How are we to understand the Angel of the LORD? The Ancient of Days? Thanks for the content. God bless.
Encouraging to hear you thinking these things through, and hope you're encouraged to continue to do so. I'll let Gavin, or others more knowledgable than myself enter here, but if I could graciously caution the following in approaching this: not to base the truth on what makes you uneasy, not to treat things by how they 'sound' (only what they *are* ), and not to let people's misunderstandings and misrepresentations shape your approach to them - for these things do not change whether something is real or true, or not, in the slightest, any more than how I feel about the rising of the Sun would change it as a reality. God bless!
@@michaelmacdonald7748 thanks. Definitely I do let things shape my approach as you say. This especially is a topic for me to not lean to my own understanding. It’s also a topic that others’ understanding seems to complicate. May we trust in God.
Dr. Ortlund why do your not trust yourself on this and then not other areas of revelation from God? Why is this simple and other examples take way more thinking?
Why the Godhead Consists of Three Persons and Not an Infinite Number Axioms: 1. Axiom 1:God is perfect and possesses all perfections. 2. Axiom 2: Perfect love requires a relationship between distinct persons. 3. Axiom 3: God's nature is simple, unified, and not infinitely divisible. 1. Premises: - Premise 1:Perfect love involves a complete and sufficient relationship among persons. - Premise 2: A complete and sufficient relationship of love requires a lover, a beloved, and the act of loving. - Premise 3: An infinite number of persons in the Godhead would imply an infinite complexity, which contradicts the axiom of God's simplicity and unity. 2. Inference/Conclusion: Given the axioms and premises, the Godhead must consist of a finite number of persons to embody perfect love. Specifically, a relationship involving three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is both complete and sufficient for perfect love, without violating God's simplicity and unity. Therefore, the Godhead consists of three persons and not an infinite number. 3. Justification: - Premise 1 Justification:A complete and sufficient relationship for perfect love does not require more than three persons. Three persons fulfill the roles of lover, beloved, and the act of loving perfectly and comprehensively. - Premise 2 Justification:Philosophically, the relational dynamic of love is complete with three roles: the lover (the Father), the beloved (the Son), and the bond of love (the Holy Spirit). This triadic relationship embodies perfect love. - Premise 3 Justification:The axiom of God's simplicity asserts that God is not composed of parts or infinitely divisible. An infinite number of persons would imply an infinite division within the Godhead, contradicting the nature of divine simplicity and unity. 4. Counterarguments/Rebuttals: - Counterargument 1:One might argue that more than three persons could enhance the perfection of love. Rebuttal: The perfection of love is not enhanced by an increasing number of persons. Instead, perfect love requires a relationship that is complete and sufficient, which is achieved with three persons. Adding more persons does not add to the perfection but introduces unnecessary complexity. - Counterargument 2: Another argument could be that God's nature could allow for infinite persons without compromising simplicity. Rebuttal: The doctrine of divine simplicity indicates that God's essence is unified and not infinitely divisible. An infinite number of persons would imply a composite nature, contradicting the axiom that God is simple and unified. 5. Conclusion: In conclusion, the argument based on the axioms of God's perfection, the requirement of a complete relational dynamic for perfect love, and the simplicity and unity of God's nature supports the conclusion that the Godhead consists of three persons. The roles of the lover, the beloved, and the act of loving are fully embodied within the three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), providing a complete and sufficient relationship for perfect love. Therefore, an infinite number of persons is unnecessary and contradictory to the nature of God, affirming the doctrine of the Trinity as three persons in one God.
Do you think you could go into why you don’t view Catholics as non-Christian as many evangelicals (mainly reformed) do? (If my impression of your view on that is correct?)
Probably because Catholics have been around for at least 1500 years longer than Protestants/Evangelicals lol. Don't forget Protestants came from the Roman Catholic Church. There are 3 main "branches" of Christianity - Protestant (made up of multiple different denominations), Roman Catholic, & Eastern Orthodox.. However only one of these 3 can be the truth
As many times as I've heard this explanation of the trinity, I still find it difficult to find personhood in Reason and Love. How can the Love between the Father and Son be a person? I've always been bothered by the fact that the Father and Son are in familial relationship, but why isn't the Holy Spirit? Why is He depicted instead as a bird? I know it's not a literal bird, but it's also not a family member. I've privately elevated Him to the status of a family member and I've even given Him a name. Don't worry, I won't tell anyone.
My question is this: how do we know that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are persons? Would it be anti-biblical to say these three are just three modes / ways or apsects God acts toward creatures. It seems the unity of God could be better preserved in this way. In other words, we then would avoid the whole problem of trying to explain how each of the three is fully God and yet at the same time there aren't three gods. This is the criticism of Isalm against Christainity. That religion maintains that Christians are polytheists. I beleive Sabellius of the third century was the first one to put forth the theory that the three realities in God were modes and not persons. He was condemned for it
you can't have more than 3 persons, everything more than a Triad is a repetition of either a dyad or a triad which makes no sense. Cappadocian Fathers and St. John of Damascus give arguments for the Tri-hypostatic nature of God. you can't have 2 begotten sons of God or 2 spirated spirits, because if we have 2 sons, they are either equal in everything which is gonna be the same thing and not 2 sons or one is going to be better than the other one, which makes the one who is less a creature. likewise it's the same case with the Spirit. so a perfect Father, logically, can only have one perfect begotten Son and one perfect spirated Spirit. one Uncaused Father, giving existence from eternity to his word and his spirit. God is a perfect Triad and we have a perfect monarchia in the Triad (the Father).
The Angel of the Lord was also part of God. He was interchangeable with Yahweh. I don't think that necessarily means God is more than 3.... it just means that he's Almighty and can do things that boggle our minds.
Why 3-persons-1-being, and not 1-person-3-beings? "We can't trust out intuitions" That tricky, mysterious god, tuning our intuitions to be untrustworthy. He's revealed himself as a trinity? The trinity is not explicitly spelled out in the bible, so how can you be sure that, for example, the angels aren't actually part of the divine being? It could be a legion of persons in one being
The principal feature of God is that He is alive, for that is what He swears by most often (i.e. As I live, saith the Lord). According to how God made living things with the ability to produce after its own kind , it must be of His own nature. Therefore, God produces after His own kind -eternal God has an eternal Son. According to the Apostles' statements, The Spirit is the Spirit of Life - a third Person. This means that God cannot be a single person as claimed by the JWs or Muslims or Oneness Pentecostals, because they unwittingly present a sterile deity.
Do you think if you applied the exact level of scepticism you have for the papacy to the trinity, you would become a Unitarian. I mean, we are talking about the nature of God here and yet we don't even have scripture which tells us to worship or pray to the Holy Spirit. Now, I am trinitarian and love the Triune God but I accept an infallible church which has defined it. I do love your approach and your videos. I sometimes feel like you are over sceptic about some things but do not apply that same level for other, even more important things.Thoughts?
I always find it a bit strange when people say that I am "skeptical" of the papacy--probably as you would if I described your view as being "skeptical of Protestantism." As I see things, the Trinity is well established in the NT and at the very core of the gospel. By contrast, I don't see a single verse in the NT that even mentions an office like the papacy.
@@TruthUnites right, so in your view why do unitarians, jehovah witnesses and modalists exist? The problem I have is if there is no infallible authority outside of scripture, why is your interpretation of the scriptures any more valid or authoritative than these heretical groups? A Unitarian btw can say I see no single verse which mentions that the Son is of the same substance as the Father. Again Ill say there is not one single verse saying we should worship the Holy Spirit or pray to him.
@@TruthUnites Also I am not saying that you shouldn't be sceptical, what Im saying is apply that same scepticism consistently throughout everything. My claim is if you were consistent in your scepticism of the doctrines of Catholicism, you would deny the trinity. Protestantism isn't the default if Catholics cannot convince you.
@@angelosioannides8382 U obviously didn't read his response: the( concept ) of the trinity is all over the Bible, even in the O.T. as the Jewish theology of the Two Powers in heaven; a book by Alan Segal and in videos by Dr.Michael S.Heiser on TH-cam. They aren't on the same level: BTW you're church which is only ( a part )of the Universal church of Christ is not infallible; you claiming it's the only Universal church and infallible is two erroneous points that are self defeating.
Brother, God is a Trinity because he is God, God's Word, and God's Spirit (Psalm 33:6). God is "unapproachable" (1 Timothy 6:16). God cannot be interacted with by things that are not God. He is in a class of his own. You can say that God is ineffable or undefinable. So God interacts with things that are not God through his Word, which is his defined perfect representation (Hebrews 1:3). But God and God's Word are transcendent (except when the Word became flesh). So in order to interact with things that are not God in an immanent way, God exists as God's Spirit within creation (Genesis 1:2). Therefore, God (the Father) is undefinable/transcendent, God's Word (the Son) is defined/transcendent, and God's Spirit (the Holy Spirit) is defined/immanent. God needs 3 but not more than 3 persons in order to exist perfectly across these metaphysical spaces.
YHWH ....Father Son Holy Spirit ARE in complete perfect LOVE JOY PEACE since forever to forever .....so LOVE IS ETERNAL ...JOY PEACE ARE ETERNAL ....everything was created by LOVE ...Bible Says GOD ....IS....LOVE❗.... And we saved by Jésus will be in this ETERNAL LOVE JOY PEACE IN YHWH WITH YHWH FOREVER ....IN THE ESSENCE OF LOVE ITSELF .....GOD BEING LOVE ....FOREVER ...WOW
What do you think of the rejection of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit? (As of now, I find myself in this camp). Namely, if the Son and Spirit are dependent on the Father, even in an eternal way, the Son and the Spirit are left without two attributes that the Father has, namely self-existence and aseity. This will make the Father ontologically greater than the Son and the Spirit.
We’ll think about it this way. Why is the father referred to greater than the son ? Because he receives his divinity from the father, which in term also proceeds the Holy Spirit giving and sharing the same divine essence to each person of the hypostasis, if each were to be self existent IN THE SENSE ( this is important) in the sense that each receive their own divine essence apart from the father, that leaves you with polytheism, because now it’s a different divine essence apart from the fathers … there are certain attributes in the sense of how the trinity operates that the father works in that the son doesn’t, like the procession of the Holy Spirit, and the father also being the causation of everything to ever exist, that doesn’t mean that triad works in contrary to each other, no it just means each have their own role that works towards one purpose that the TRIAD operates in perfect harmony
@@jogon2433 The issue on your model that the Son and Spirit derive their divinity from the Father is that then the Father becomes ontologically superior to both as he remains the only a se being with the Son and Spirit being contingent. This makes the Father greater than (as a in a more supreme being) than the Son and Spirit. So in the end, it can no longer be properly called a Trinity. Even if the processions are eternal, they are still eternally contingent and less than the Father. Only the Father can then be properly be called God under standard defintions of perfect being theology. So we have one God, but no longer three persons as only one can properly be called God with the other two deriving their being and existence from him. I think of the three persons as sharing in the divine essence, deriving together in unity. That being said, I do not think of it as a pyramid with the Father on top. I take their titles to be accidental properties and not actual descriptions of the divine essence.
@@aperson4057 I disagree, you’re presuposing that the orthodox theology is assuming that the father is the reason why the son exist which is not true, their is no reality in any case where the trinity is not a trinity, for example there is no universe (in Gods infinite reality) in where there’s a duality or a single person consisting as “ God “. Simply that the father is the head of trinity, the reason why you’re confused on this notation is correct if I’m wrong but it is because of the filoque in a sense that there’s an imbalance In attributes giving in the roles to each person of the trinity, like for example in the filoque the son proceeds the Holy Spirit, causing an inferiority to the Holy Spirit to be subjected to the father and son, meaning that the father and son are supreme beings over THS ( the Holy Spirit ). Now with this in mind, wether or not your belief is grounded on that. Is the reason why we shouldn’t agree upon the filoque, because the sole doctrine the early church fathers agreed upon is the fact that the father eternally begot, the son and ultimately through the son has proceeded the Holy Spirit (economically). And attribute that is pertain only to the son for example is being able to incarnate into flesh, not because of power per say but rather that it’s not the fathers role or Holy Spirit role to do so. The father is supreme not in nature or essence but in authority. The son has eternally subjected himself to be begotten of the father
@@aperson4057 to call the father superior over Jesus is not heresy, to say the father is more powerful is tho. Just keep at this, the reason why the trinity has to be this way is because, if you have a trinity where the father doesn’t share the divine essence to the rest of the members where else would the members derive their divinity from ? That would lead to the fact that the “ divine essence “ is the actual God not each of the hypostasis and the members of the trinity are essentially feeding off of this “ essence “ to be Able to share this one essence that makes each 100% God. See how that doesn’t work ? The son has to be contingent on the father not on his existence but rather in the sense that the father is the cause of the divinity of the divine essence. This doesn’t make the father ability to take away his divinity in any way, because they are all co equal and co existent
@@jogon2433 the problem of the Father’s superiority is it does in fact make him more powerful. I used the words ontologically superior which is a big step away from trinitarianism. If the Son and Spirit cannot be triune with out deriving divinity from the Father, then they are contingent upon the Father for their being and existence. They also lack properties that the Father has like aseity and self existence. You no longer have a Trinity, and calling them each God, in the philosophical sense, would make no sense. I will have to think more about my model of the Trinity, but the standard view of the monarchical view of the Father I think is overloaded with issues to difficult to overcome.
There is no such thing as the trinity, that is, three persons in the godhead, there are two persons in the godhead, the Father and the Son, there is no mention of the spirit in the godhead, because the spirit cannot be separated into a person, the spirit is the father the spirit is the son, by mere definition of father and son, they are separated, but it is the spirit which unites them, therefore, the spirit cannot be separated into another person, because it cannot be separated from itself, God is the Holy Spirit the son is the Holy Spirit, there is no such thing as a triune god, as it is written, God is one,
Was Eve Adam? - Is Jesus God? What do I mean by "was Eve Adam"? Before I answer that, I want to mention that the answer pertains also to the question "Is Jesus God?". Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. Notice it says that both the male and female were named Adam. Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. So the female was named Eve but was also named Adam along with her husband. The name Adam signifies a human being, thus Adam (human) is what Eve was. Eve was truly Adam in nature, as she was taken from him. Thus she was as truly a human being as was her husband. Yet she was not Adam in person; i.e. Adam isn't who she was in identity. She was a separate being from her husband. So to answer the question: Yes Eve was Adam - No Eve wasn't Adam. Both are true, but it depends on if you are talking about in nature or in person. So now for the follow up question. Is Christ God? Once again the answer is both yes and no. It hinges on what is meant by "God". If the question is if Jesus is God in nature, or in other words is he a divine being, the answer is yes. However if the question is if Jesus is God in person; if God is WHO he is in identity, then the answer is no. The one God of the Bible is God the Father. God is both who the Father is and God (a divine being) is what the Father is, just like Adam is who the first man was and Adam (a human being) is what the first man was. In a similar fashion as Eve was taken from Adam and inherited his human nature, the Son of God came from God and inherited his divine nature. I want to point out, that I'm not saying that a rib of God was formed into his Son. It isn't revealed how he begat him, but it is clear that he did beget him before anything was created. God truly has an only begotten Son. This is no metaphor. His Son came from a part of himself, yet he is a separate being. Having an origin doesn't make him less divine than his Father; their natures are identical. Adam wasn't begotten though. Instead the earth was created and then from the dirt Adam was formed. Adam is a creation of God. However the origin of the Son of God was before anything was created. Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Since God created all things by his Son, his Son can't be a created thing, because he must have existed before anything was created. On top of this we have clear conception/birthing language in Proverbs 8 informing us that God literally begat his Son. To whom do all of these following things apply? 1. He is to be heard and His ways obeyed. 2. He can be sinned against (note: sin is the transgression of the law ( 1 John 3:4) and not just any law, but divine law). 3. He is to be found, for in Him is life found and through Him favor is obtained of Jehovah. Proverbs 8:32-36 is where those three points can be found in the Bible. Compare these to: John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Thus if one "shall obtain favour of the LORD"; in other words have his grace and have life, through his Son, then he will love the Son and obey his commandments. And since sin is the transgression of the law, they won't sin against him. Proverbs 8 is clearly speaking of Christ, the Son of God. If we read all of Proverbs 8 we see the importance of this. The one brought forth before the hills was the Son of God. Proverbs 8 tells us about his origin as a being. We also see this in John 5:26. John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; The Son didn't always have life throughout eternity past. He didn't have life until his Father gave him life. He had an origin when he was begotten. See also Micah 5:2. Don't let yourself get hung up on the fact that Wisdom is spoken of with female pronouns. Unlike English, Hebrew has feminine and masculine nouns. Wisdom, in Hebrew, happens to be a feminine noun, thus the grammar demands that feminine pronouns are used. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Wisdom represents Christ. Besides that, Jesus compared himself to a hen, which is of course female, in Matthew 23:37. So once is it seen that Wisdom, in Proverbs 8, represents the Son of God take a look at the conception/birthing language used. Compare how the same word "khool" (Strong's H02342) is used in the verses below. The 8797 just shows they are all in the Pulal form and Perfect tense. Job 15:7 Art thou the first man that was born? or wast thou made (8797) before the hills? Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen (8797) in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Both of these are using Hebrew parallelism and show that "khool" is birthing/conception language. Then below are the two times it is used for Wisdom. Proverbs 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth (8797); when there were no fountains abounding with water. Proverbs 8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth (8797): From the online Hebrew Lexicon we have: 1c) (Pulal) 1c1) to be made to writhe, be made to bear 1c2) to be brought forth Writhing and bearing there is speaking of the sense of being in child birth. Not that I am suggesting the God begat his Son in the same manner. It isn't revealed exactly how this happened. We know that no woman was involved. God begat on his own. I think that how Eve was formed from a part of Adam may be a hint of how God used a part of himself to beget his Son. To be continued.......
Part 2 of 2 But there is still more evidence to look at. Now notice earlier what Proverbs 8 says of Wisdom (the Son of God). "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way" (verse 22) The word translated as "possessed" comes from the Hebrew word "qanah" (Strong's H07069). According to the Online Bible Hebrew Lexicon, one of the definitions is "of God originating". See the Strong's definition below. Strong's Hebrew Lexicon 07069. qanah kaw-naw’; a primitive root; to erect, i.e. create; by extension, to procure, especially by purchase (causatively, sell); by implication to own: - attain, buy(-er), teach to keep cattle, get, provoke to jealousy, possess(-or), purchase, recover, redeem, X surely, X verily. So Wisdom had an origin. Was there a time that God didn't have the attribute of wisdom? Of course not. But there was a time when God didn't have a Son, whom is given the title of Wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:24). But this isn't all. "I was set up (nacak - Strong's H05258) from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever (keh'dem - Strong's H06924) the earth was." (verse 23) Strong's Hebrew Lexicon 05258. nacak naw-sak’; a primitive root; to pour out, especially a libation, or to cast (metal); by analogy, to anoint a king: - cover, melt, offer, (cause to) pour (out), set (up). 06924. qedem keh’dem; or קדמה qedmah kayd’maw; from 06923; the front, of place (absolutely, the fore part, relatively the East) or time (antiquity); often used adverbially (before, anciently, eastward): - aforetime, ancient (time), before, east (end, part, side, ward), eternal, X ever(-lasting), forward, old, past. Compare 06926. In what sense was Wisdom "anointed or poured out" in the eternal days before (better translation than ever) the earth was? The word "nacak" is used in the Niphal form in verse 23. Online Bible Hebrew Lexicon 1b) (Niphal) to be anointed I will leave you to decide for yourself what this means. I lean towards God anointing His Son with His Holy Spirit, maybe at his begetting. But I ask, if Wisdom is here only an attribute, and not the Son of God, how is it anointed? Below are a few more verses which I think talk about God giving His Holy Spirit to His Son. John 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. 35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. Proverbs 8:30 Then I was by him, as one brought up (’amown - Strong's H0525) with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. Strong's Hebrew Lexicon 0525. ’amown aw-mone’; from 0539, probably in the sense of training; skilled, i.e. an architect [like 0542]: - one brought up. Was the attribute of wisdom brought up with God and did it rejoice? Was the daily delight of God his attribute of wisdom. Or is this speaking of the Son of God? I think the answer is clear. Satan seeks to cover up the truth that God has a Son. Giving his Son is how God made known his love to us. Thus by obscuring this fact, Satan can obscure the love of God. Sadly Satan has been very successful in this endeavor, but God can wipe away the scales from peoples eyes and show them the truth. I pray this study helps along those lines. 1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Note that God had a Son to send, not a son by creation as are the angels nor a son by adoption, like forgiven sinners. God sent his ONLY BEGOTTEN Son.
Hello Jesus is the Messiah The Son of God The Son of David The Son of man The man God has chosen to be his anointed king The man God will judge the world through The man God raised from the dead Jesus has a God There is no triune god in scripture Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. -
Three is also the minimum number required for family or community to exist; not merely relationship but a harmony of relationships. The sort of loves and unity that can exist between three persons is distinct from the loves and unity that can exist between two. Three persons in the Godhead allows for all of the dimensions, the height, depth, length and width of perfect love to exist in God.
Interesting point!
@Balboa yes, kinda
@Balboa what matters is what the bible says
why can’t family or community be made of 2 persons?
for example, not every family has kids. and why can’t 2 people form a community? as long as there is love and interaction, which requires at least 2, isn’t that enough of a community?
Thank you for this, brother. I'm thoroughly sympathetic to the question. However, question, isn't it ultimately backwards to ask "why?" in relation to God's essence? Isn't it a quest for something back of God that is the reason He is the way He is? When we endeavor to comprehend Him as Knower/Knowing/Known or Lover/Loving/Beloved, aren't those paradigms the consequence of God being what He is? He explains the three-ness of those paradigms, rather than those paradigms explaining His three-ness. Even the numbers one and three are not prior to God, but He Himself is the ground of mathematics. I'm really not trying to out-pious you or something, but I'd suggest that if we affirm the equal ultimacy of His Unity and Trinity, and that He is "most absolute," then perhaps the only possible answer to "why three...?" really is, "He is."
I was just wondering about this very same question. Then suddenly i see your video in my recommendations. Thanks Gavin for tackling this. It's still helping fellow Christians even after two years. Cheers mate
Same. I had someone ask me why God would send Himself as a sacrifice to Himself
I just checked this channel to see if anything was new and didn't see this till I went onto twitter! Can't wait to watch it 😊
Enjoy! Planning on typically having one video drop every Friday. :)
@@TruthUnites awesome! This is one of the channels that I immediately watch whenever I see a new video (then play in the background on loop while I’m designing so I can lock it in)
@@TheRoark Ha ha, thank you so much! I really appreciate the support, it means a lot!
Good old C.S. Lewis! Mere Christianity was instrumental in my becoming a Christian many years ago, and I remember well that chapter called “Beyond Personality.” Thanks for highlighting it.
Any chance truth unites will become a podcast? I'd love to be able to listen to these on my run. Happy to help make that happen.
"No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the Splendour of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One. When I think of any One of the Three I think of Him as the Whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking of escapes me. I cannot grasp the greatness of That One so as to attribute a greater greatness to the Rest. When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the Undivided Light."
- Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 40:41
About six minutes in and 15 seconds. Very interesting.… I can definitely see the whole concept of the word proceeding from the father from the thought of the father and the word having been always been in him. To me, Colossians 2:9 speaking about God being “manifest “in the flesh Really makes sense, but even then, I don’t see how it necessitates some second person. “When we think of the concept of one God in three “persons “, do we mean “people? “Is there another word that we can use besides persons? This is definitely a difficult concept for Jewish believers as many of them have always been taught that God is one, that he can manifest even simultaneously in many ways, and with many attributes distinct in many ways, but not sure that they ever would’ve thought of “persons “in the godhead. Love this channel. I love your thoughts on baptism in particular, as I have been exploring that topic a lot lately.
So good, thanks Gavin. The comparison between Trinitarianism and Naturalism at the end was helpful. I would love Joe Schmid to see this, he is a brilliant young agnostic philosopher, who runs the TH-cam channel Majesty of Reason. He focuses his channel on truth seeking and love between interlocutors. I share that goal and appreciate his work, but see this in tension with his Naturalism. Reminds me of Paul in Acts 17.. *He (God) is never far from anyone of us*
What is interlocutor?
Great job Gavin on this video and also the one on the argument from beauty! Both videos introduced me to come convincing and truly enchanting concepts for the first time! 😄May God continue to bless and guide you!
What a great resource to share with my students as we are exploring the catechism questions and discussing the three persons of the Trinity. You reference of Anselm and Lewis both help to take a potentially stodgy doctrine and bring it to life. I'm curious to know your thoughts Gavin on Michael Reeves' work "Delighting in the Trinity". I found it very helpful to introduce students as well.
Thanks Neil! Glad it is of use to you! You know, I have heard so many great things about Reeves' book but unfortunately have never read it!
What is story?
Jonathan Edwards unpublished essay is good on this. I've come to find the Person/Speaker-Thought/Word-Love/Breathe analogy to be totally convincing for me and I think the Bible even suggests it, but I understand the caution, which I initially had at first.
To be perfectly honest, I really struggle with the concept of the Trinity. I struggle not at all with the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. I do not struggle with the fact that God is father, son, and Holy Spirit, but I struggle with the concept of “persons. “I do realize that the word persons meant different things during the time of Tertullian then the way seems to be commonly discussed now. Have great difficulty seeing the modern understanding of three “persons “as tritheism. I struggle not to see the concept of “persons “as three gods. I know we say it is not three gods, but that seems to me to be as far as it goes. What really bothers me is that people have this idea that you can’t be saved if you don’t believe in the Trinity, which is ridiculous. You must believe in the full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, Romans, 10 verses 9:10, but nowhere in the old or the new testament is it stated that you must believe in one God who is three persons/people to be saved. It just ain’t there. Another thing that bothers me is that the doctrine of the trinity is definitely a formulation. Some of the early Trinitarian were subordination, and then there were problems with Arianism, which is why so many condemn non-trinitarian, which is certainly right, because Arians do not believe that Jesus is fully God. So I get the hesitation, excepting non-trinitarian. But there are non-trinitarian who most definitely affirmed that Jesus is fully God and fully man and always has been. Very interesting though. This whole second and third person thing really bugs me as well. If Jesus is the name above every name, and he is, Philippians two, how could he be a second person? How would that not be subordination ism? How would subordination not be semi Arianism? It is interesting to me how people act like this is such an essential doctrine, but yet you can’t figure it out and it’s a mystery and if you don’t believe it, you’re not saved. Boggles my mind. This is one of my favorite channels.
This was an excellent talk Dr. O! Particularly the part where you talked about how it was an overflow of love that produced the Universe. Do you know of any books that delve deeper on that specific topic of how an overflow of love created the Universe? May God bless your work and ministry.
Appreciated this summation. One thing I’ve always struggled with in this discussion is grasping how, when you think merely in these terms, that God’s reason/thought/mental image (as Lewis refers to) and God’s love can be persons. The human side of the analogy fails us in this regard, of course - while my thought and my love can be considered as distinct, it’s impossible to ever think of them possessing personal qualities (thought, emotion, will) or being actual persons themselves. Would love to hear a short summation of any thoughts along these lines, or any historical or contemporary resources someone might be able to point me towards.
So, Scripture alone is *not* sufficient to satisfy us about the Trinity?
Also, I really don't see how the title question was answered here. Why exactly is it that God can't be four "Persons"?
The holy spirit brought me to the same understanding. I use the terms idea, motive and expression to explain the trinity. Consider that all three parts are essential, independent and the same in any expression.
For example is I say "sit beside me" the expression (words) the motive (for you to be beside me) and the idea (sit beside me) are all the same but also distinct.
Thank you for this! Super helpful call at the end for those who don't believe. The things they care about deeply like love and reason have not always been and will not last. I might steal this for conversations I have with friends, haha.
Amazing!
As I recall, St. John of Damascus uses the analogy of the Mind (Father), Speech (Son), and Aspiration (Holy Spirit) saying something like that the Mind is the source of Speech, yet the Speech reveals the Mind and the Aspiration gives articulation to the Speech.
He uses this analogy in On the Orthodox Faith. I'll have to track down the exact quote and cite it here.
Great stuff Dr Ortlund. Are you familiar with Jonathan Edwards's treatment of this? His unpublished essay sounds a lot like what you're describing in Anselm.
I love your content, and I love the doctrine of the Trinity ❤️
Thank you for this, brother. I'm thoroughly sympathetic to the question. However, question, isn't it ultimately backwards to ask "why?" in relation to God's essence? Isn't it a quest for something back of God that is the reason He is the way He is? When we endeavor to comprehend Him as Knower/Knowing/Known or Lover/Loving/Beloved, aren't those paradigms the consequence of God being what He is? He explains the three-ness of those paradigms, rather than those paradigms explaining His three-ness. Even the numbers one and three are not prior to God, but He Himself is the ground of mathematics. I'm really not trying to out-pious you or something, but I'd suggest that if we affirm the equal ultimacy of His Unity and Trinity, and that He is "most absolute," then perhaps the only possible answer to "why three...?" really is, "He is."
What camera and audio equipment do you use?
benefited from this
👌
Did you choose to not discuss R Swinburne's argument because of the accusation of tritheism linked with it ?
I have never had a problem with the Trinity, but I don't get how the Word fits in. This has helped a bit. Will read Ch4 of Mere Christianity.
Thank you
If you're up for it, read the Cappadocian fathers. Saint Basil, Saint Gregory Nyssa and Saint Gregory Nazianzus. They're the most important Church Fathers for the Trinity
Thank you
MATTHEW 28:18..
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
How can this scripture work with a TRINITY?
This has bothered me for a while. In the same book, CS Lewis argues for monotheism using the argument that 8 godd is arbitrary, because why not 7 gods or 23. Similarly, in “The Gods Themselves” by Asimov, about parallel universes, a pivotal conclusion in the story is that “two is an abdurd number.” There could be no universes. Or if there were only one universe, that would make sense. But to say there are two and only two universes is absurd, so there must be infinitely many. I find that convincing at least when it comes to the number of gods, but I’ve always struggled to understand why it doesn’t work just as well for Persons. Thanks for these insights into it.
Three is the essential numeric value of love. Where there is only one person, love cannot occur. Where there are two, each is the sole recipient of the other's attention, giving place for self-absorption. But the moment there are three, each recipient of any one's love must also humbly defer attention to the third party, and each one is the third party to the other two. Pure selflessness can now occur by virtue of the fact that each one must love and be loved with both an exclusive and a divided interest.
If God's essential identity is traceable to a solitary selfhood-which would be the case if Jesus in any sense had a point of beginning, and if the Holy Spirit does not eternally exist with distinct personhood
-then love is not essential to God's nature. Said more simply, if Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not eternally co-existent, it cannot be said with any coherence that "God is love."
The pure biblical genius of identifying
God as a triune fellowship rather than as an absolute singularity or even as a dualism, is convincing evidence that the Bible is, in fact, the revelation of the one and only true God, whose essential nature is love. --Ty Gibson
Im still not convinced that God is only 3 persons. He's only shown 3 persons to us.
Great vid, as always. This may disqualify me as a Christian, I dunno, but I’m basically agnostic about the Trinity. I’m curious about it, but I’ve resigned from having a position on it or affirming it. I don’t think Jesus will withhold salvation from me over this. I just don’t think He cares that much about the theological assumptions of the carnal mind.
That said, I’ve always seen God as One, invisible, unattainable, infinite. But His Word is the part of Him that can be seen or understood, it is how He is relatable to His creation, so that any time we are seeing God or understanding Him, we are only perceiving the Son. Then the Holy Ghost seems to be all that is Good in God, without privation. For example, the Holy Ghost doesn’t revenge or get angry or destroy or allow evil, while God in His totality, does. When the HG works in us, it’s always the ‘nice’ traits, the ‘Jesusy’ things, love, patience, meekness, etc. This would be why rejecting the HG is unforgivable. I think that many atheists, though they reject God in general, & the Word as they perceive God through Jesus, they usually don’t reject the HG, their love of God’s goodness & power & knowledge.
You know the saying “You are three people; the person you think you are, the person others think you are, & the person God knows you to be”? Well… God is three people, the God we perceive (the Word), the God that can be perceived in us (the HG), & the God which God knows Himself to be (God).
The trinity is one of the most significant doctrines in Christianity. Knowledge of the relationship and eternal love between the three persons of God is crucial and is the reason for Gods creation . Thanks for this important video
God isn't just suprapersonal in the sense of being tripersonal, but also, in the sense that he has a qualitatively higher personality... more personality... much, much more...
Wohoo 🥳
1 John 5:7 helped me
I see God as revealing himself in an abstract way. I’m fairly new to this all and I’m more comfortable saying “Godhead”than “Trinity”, though I certainly acknowledge Father, Son and Spirit. Not in a modalist way either...But the phrase “3 persons” has thus far made me uneasy. It sounds exactly like saying “God is 3 people.”
In my limited understanding, God is the person of Jesus Christ. I think that misrepresentations of the Godhead lead many to see Christians as having 3 gods. It leads to the idea of God sitting on 3 separate thrones.
(He) is awesome. Not, (They) are awesome. He allows us to wonder about the fullness of his awesome presence. That’s how I currently see it anyway.
How are we to understand the Angel of the LORD? The Ancient of Days?
Thanks for the content. God bless.
Encouraging to hear you thinking these things through, and hope you're encouraged to continue to do so. I'll let Gavin, or others more knowledgable than myself enter here, but if I could graciously caution the following in approaching this: not to base the truth on what makes you uneasy, not to treat things by how they 'sound' (only what they *are* ), and not to let people's misunderstandings and misrepresentations shape your approach to them - for these things do not change whether something is real or true, or not, in the slightest, any more than how I feel about the rising of the Sun would change it as a reality. God bless!
@@michaelmacdonald7748 thanks. Definitely I do let things shape my approach as you say. This especially is a topic for me to not lean to my own understanding. It’s also a topic that others’ understanding seems to complicate. May we trust in God.
Dr. Ortlund why do your not trust yourself on this and then not other areas of revelation from God? Why is this simple and other examples take way more thinking?
I’m sorry, I can’t tell what you’re asking, the question doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps you could give an example or clarify.
Why the Godhead Consists of Three Persons and Not an Infinite Number
Axioms:
1. Axiom 1:God is perfect and possesses all perfections.
2. Axiom 2: Perfect love requires a relationship between distinct persons.
3. Axiom 3: God's nature is simple, unified, and not infinitely divisible.
1. Premises:
- Premise 1:Perfect love involves a complete and sufficient relationship among persons.
- Premise 2: A complete and sufficient relationship of love requires a lover, a beloved, and the act of loving.
- Premise 3: An infinite number of persons in the Godhead would imply an infinite complexity, which contradicts the axiom of God's simplicity and unity.
2. Inference/Conclusion:
Given the axioms and premises, the Godhead must consist of a finite number of persons to embody perfect love. Specifically, a relationship involving three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is both complete and sufficient for perfect love, without violating God's simplicity and unity. Therefore, the Godhead consists of three persons and not an infinite number.
3. Justification:
- Premise 1 Justification:A complete and sufficient relationship for perfect love does not require more than three persons. Three persons fulfill the roles of lover, beloved, and the act of loving perfectly and comprehensively.
- Premise 2 Justification:Philosophically, the relational dynamic of love is complete with three roles: the lover (the Father), the beloved (the Son), and the bond of love (the Holy Spirit). This triadic relationship embodies perfect love.
- Premise 3 Justification:The axiom of God's simplicity asserts that God is not composed of parts or infinitely divisible. An infinite number of persons would imply an infinite division within the Godhead, contradicting the nature of divine simplicity and unity.
4. Counterarguments/Rebuttals:
- Counterargument 1:One might argue that more than three persons could enhance the perfection of love.
Rebuttal: The perfection of love is not enhanced by an increasing number of persons. Instead, perfect love requires a relationship that is complete and sufficient, which is achieved with three persons. Adding more persons does not add to the perfection but introduces unnecessary complexity.
- Counterargument 2: Another argument could be that God's nature could allow for infinite persons without compromising simplicity.
Rebuttal: The doctrine of divine simplicity indicates that God's essence is unified and not infinitely divisible. An infinite number of persons would imply a composite nature, contradicting the axiom that God is simple and unified.
5. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the argument based on the axioms of God's perfection, the requirement of a complete relational dynamic for perfect love, and the simplicity and unity of God's nature supports the conclusion that the Godhead consists of three persons. The roles of the lover, the beloved, and the act of loving are fully embodied within the three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), providing a complete and sufficient relationship for perfect love. Therefore, an infinite number of persons is unnecessary and contradictory to the nature of God, affirming the doctrine of the Trinity as three persons in one God.
Do you think you could go into why you don’t view Catholics as non-Christian as many evangelicals (mainly reformed) do? (If my impression of your view on that is correct?)
Probably because Catholics have been around for at least 1500 years longer than Protestants/Evangelicals lol. Don't forget Protestants came from the Roman Catholic Church. There are 3 main "branches" of Christianity - Protestant (made up of multiple different denominations), Roman Catholic, & Eastern Orthodox.. However only one of these 3 can be the truth
th-cam.com/play/PLnK9ahzmHnYfEQ2LWbU2Yux9AetaYETX9.html
Do you see breath coming into this? Specifically in relationship to the Holy Spirit. Father - Mind, Son - Word, Spirit - Breath
As many times as I've heard this explanation of the trinity, I still find it difficult to find personhood in Reason and Love. How can the Love between the Father and Son be a person? I've always been bothered by the fact that the Father and Son are in familial relationship, but why isn't the Holy Spirit? Why is He depicted instead as a bird? I know it's not a literal bird, but it's also not a family member. I've privately elevated Him to the status of a family member and I've even given Him a name. Don't worry, I won't tell anyone.
My question is this: how do we know that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are persons? Would it be anti-biblical to say these three are just three modes / ways or apsects God acts toward creatures. It seems the unity of God could be better preserved in this way. In other words, we then would avoid the whole problem of trying to explain how each of the three is fully God and yet at the same time there aren't three gods. This is the criticism of Isalm against Christainity. That religion maintains that Christians are polytheists. I beleive Sabellius of the third century was the first one to put forth the theory that the three realities in God were modes and not persons. He was condemned for it
you can't have more than 3 persons, everything more than a Triad is a repetition of either a dyad or a triad which makes no sense. Cappadocian Fathers
and St. John of Damascus give arguments for the Tri-hypostatic nature of God. you can't have 2 begotten sons of God or 2 spirated spirits, because if we have 2 sons, they are either equal in everything which is gonna be the same thing and not 2 sons or one is going to be better than the other one, which makes the one who is less a creature. likewise it's the same case with the Spirit. so a perfect Father, logically, can only have one perfect begotten Son and one perfect spirated Spirit. one Uncaused Father, giving existence from eternity to his word and his spirit. God is a perfect Triad and we have a perfect monarchia in the Triad (the Father).
i still don’t understand why 3 and not 2?
i get that for love to exist there has to be a lover and recipient of love, hence 2.
but why 3?
We would have to say that the Bible implies it in so many ways that it goes back to "okay if that is what God is, then who am I to argue?"
6:15 That’s Arianism Patrick!
The Angel of the Lord was also part of God. He was interchangeable with Yahweh. I don't think that necessarily means God is more than 3.... it just means that he's Almighty and can do things that boggle our minds.
Why 3-persons-1-being, and not 1-person-3-beings?
"We can't trust out intuitions" That tricky, mysterious god, tuning our intuitions to be untrustworthy.
He's revealed himself as a trinity? The trinity is not explicitly spelled out in the bible, so how can you be sure that, for example, the angels aren't actually part of the divine being? It could be a legion of persons in one being
The principal feature of God is that He is alive, for that is what He swears by most often (i.e. As I live, saith the Lord). According to how God made living things with the ability to produce after its own kind , it must be of His own nature. Therefore, God produces after His own kind -eternal God has an eternal Son. According to the Apostles' statements, The Spirit is the Spirit of Life - a third Person. This means that God cannot be a single person as claimed by the JWs or Muslims or Oneness Pentecostals, because they unwittingly present a sterile deity.
Do you think if you applied the exact level of scepticism you have for the papacy to the trinity, you would become a Unitarian. I mean, we are talking about the nature of God here and yet we don't even have scripture which tells us to worship or pray to the Holy Spirit. Now, I am trinitarian and love the Triune God but I accept an infallible church which has defined it. I do love your approach and your videos. I sometimes feel like you are over sceptic about some things but do not apply that same level for other, even more important things.Thoughts?
I always find it a bit strange when people say that I am "skeptical" of the papacy--probably as you would if I described your view as being "skeptical of Protestantism." As I see things, the Trinity is well established in the NT and at the very core of the gospel. By contrast, I don't see a single verse in the NT that even mentions an office like the papacy.
@@TruthUnites right, so in your view why do unitarians, jehovah witnesses and modalists exist? The problem I have is if there is no infallible authority outside of scripture, why is your interpretation of the scriptures any more valid or authoritative than these heretical groups? A Unitarian btw can say I see no single verse which mentions that the Son is of the same substance as the Father. Again Ill say there is not one single verse saying we should worship the Holy Spirit or pray to him.
@@TruthUnites Also I am not saying that you shouldn't be sceptical, what Im saying is apply that same scepticism consistently throughout everything. My claim is if you were consistent in your scepticism of the doctrines of Catholicism, you would deny the trinity. Protestantism isn't the default if Catholics cannot convince you.
@@angelosioannides8382 U obviously didn't read his response: the( concept ) of the trinity is all over the Bible, even in the O.T. as the Jewish theology of the Two Powers in heaven; a book by Alan Segal and in videos by Dr.Michael S.Heiser on TH-cam.
They aren't on the same level: BTW you're church which is only ( a part )of the Universal church of Christ is not infallible; you claiming it's the only Universal church and infallible is two erroneous points that are self defeating.
Lutheran Satire has a humorous take on the Trinity: th-cam.com/video/KQLfgaUoQCw/w-d-xo.html
Brother, God is a Trinity because he is God, God's Word, and God's Spirit (Psalm 33:6). God is "unapproachable" (1 Timothy 6:16). God cannot be interacted with by things that are not God. He is in a class of his own. You can say that God is ineffable or undefinable. So God interacts with things that are not God through his Word, which is his defined perfect representation (Hebrews 1:3). But God and God's Word are transcendent (except when the Word became flesh). So in order to interact with things that are not God in an immanent way, God exists as God's Spirit within creation (Genesis 1:2). Therefore, God (the Father) is undefinable/transcendent, God's Word (the Son) is defined/transcendent, and God's Spirit (the Holy Spirit) is defined/immanent. God needs 3 but not more than 3 persons in order to exist perfectly across these metaphysical spaces.
I never understood why christians are comfortable with Trinity and not the least concerned if it's idolatry which is the worst sin you can commit
Trinitarians are not worried because any God besides the God who reveals himself in the New Testament is an idol to us.
YHWH ....Father Son Holy Spirit ARE in complete perfect LOVE
JOY PEACE since forever to forever .....so LOVE IS ETERNAL ...JOY PEACE ARE ETERNAL ....everything was created by LOVE ...Bible Says GOD ....IS....LOVE❗.... And we saved by Jésus will be in this ETERNAL LOVE JOY PEACE IN YHWH WITH YHWH FOREVER ....IN THE ESSENCE OF LOVE ITSELF .....GOD BEING LOVE ....FOREVER ...WOW
Why do people type like this?
What do you think of the rejection of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit? (As of now, I find myself in this camp). Namely, if the Son and Spirit are dependent on the Father, even in an eternal way, the Son and the Spirit are left without two attributes that the Father has, namely self-existence and aseity. This will make the Father ontologically greater than the Son and the Spirit.
We’ll think about it this way. Why is the father referred to greater than the son ? Because he receives his divinity from the father, which in term also proceeds the Holy Spirit giving and sharing the same divine essence to each person of the hypostasis, if each were to be self existent IN THE SENSE ( this is important) in the sense that each receive their own divine essence apart from the father, that leaves you with polytheism, because now it’s a different divine essence apart from the fathers … there are certain attributes in the sense of how the trinity operates that the father works in that the son doesn’t, like the procession of the Holy Spirit, and the father also being the causation of everything to ever exist, that doesn’t mean that triad works in contrary to each other, no it just means each have their own role that works towards one purpose that the TRIAD operates in perfect harmony
@@jogon2433 The issue on your model that the Son and Spirit derive their divinity from the Father is that then the Father becomes ontologically superior to both as he remains the only a se being with the Son and Spirit being contingent. This makes the Father greater than (as a in a more supreme being) than the Son and Spirit. So in the end, it can no longer be properly called a Trinity. Even if the processions are eternal, they are still eternally contingent and less than the Father. Only the Father can then be properly be called God under standard defintions of perfect being theology. So we have one God, but no longer three persons as only one can properly be called God with the other two deriving their being and existence from him.
I think of the three persons as sharing in the divine essence, deriving together in unity. That being said, I do not think of it as a pyramid with the Father on top. I take their titles to be accidental properties and not actual descriptions of the divine essence.
@@aperson4057 I disagree, you’re presuposing that the orthodox theology is assuming that the father is the reason why the son exist which is not true, their is no reality in any case where the trinity is not a trinity, for example there is no universe (in Gods infinite reality) in where there’s a duality or a single person consisting as “ God “. Simply that the father is the head of trinity, the reason why you’re confused on this notation is correct if I’m wrong but it is because of the filoque in a sense that there’s an imbalance In attributes giving in the roles to each person of the trinity, like for example in the filoque the son proceeds the Holy Spirit, causing an inferiority to the Holy Spirit to be subjected to the father and son, meaning that the father and son are supreme beings over THS ( the Holy Spirit ). Now with this in mind, wether or not your belief is grounded on that. Is the reason why we shouldn’t agree upon the filoque, because the sole doctrine the early church fathers agreed upon is the fact that the father eternally begot, the son and ultimately through the son has proceeded the Holy Spirit (economically). And attribute that is pertain only to the son for example is being able to incarnate into flesh, not because of power per say but rather that it’s not the fathers role or Holy Spirit role to do so. The father is supreme not in nature or essence but in authority. The son has eternally subjected himself to be begotten of the father
@@aperson4057 to call the father superior over Jesus is not heresy, to say the father is more powerful is tho. Just keep at this, the reason why the trinity has to be this way is because, if you have a trinity where the father doesn’t share the divine essence to the rest of the members where else would the members derive their divinity from ? That would lead to the fact that the “ divine essence “ is the actual God not each of the hypostasis and the members of the trinity are essentially feeding off of this “ essence “ to be Able to share this one essence that makes each 100% God. See how that doesn’t work ? The son has to be contingent on the father not on his existence but rather in the sense that the father is the cause of the divinity of the divine essence. This doesn’t make the father ability to take away his divinity in any way, because they are all co equal and co existent
@@jogon2433 the problem of the Father’s superiority is it does in fact make him more powerful. I used the words ontologically superior which is a big step away from trinitarianism.
If the Son and Spirit cannot be triune with out deriving divinity from the Father, then they are contingent upon the Father for their being and existence. They also lack properties that the Father has like aseity and self existence. You no longer have a Trinity, and calling them each God, in the philosophical sense, would make no sense.
I will have to think more about my model of the Trinity, but the standard view of the monarchical view of the Father I think is overloaded with issues to difficult to overcome.
There is no such thing as the trinity, that is, three persons in the godhead, there are two persons in the godhead, the Father and the Son, there is no mention of the spirit in the godhead, because the spirit cannot be separated into a person, the spirit is the father the spirit is the son, by mere definition of father and son, they are separated, but it is the spirit which unites them, therefore, the spirit cannot be separated into another person, because it cannot be separated from itself, God is the Holy Spirit the son is the Holy Spirit, there is no such thing as a triune god, as it is written, God is one,
Was Eve Adam? - Is Jesus God?
What do I mean by "was Eve Adam"? Before I answer that, I want to mention that the answer pertains also to the question "Is Jesus God?".
Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Notice it says that both the male and female were named Adam.
Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
So the female was named Eve but was also named Adam along with her husband. The name Adam signifies a human being, thus Adam (human) is what Eve was. Eve was truly Adam in nature, as she was taken from him. Thus she was as truly a human being as was her husband. Yet she was not Adam in person; i.e. Adam isn't who she was in identity. She was a separate being from her husband.
So to answer the question: Yes Eve was Adam - No Eve wasn't Adam. Both are true, but it depends on if you are talking about in nature or in person.
So now for the follow up question. Is Christ God? Once again the answer is both yes and no. It hinges on what is meant by "God". If the question is if Jesus is God in nature, or in other words is he a divine being, the answer is yes. However if the question is if Jesus is God in person; if God is WHO he is in identity, then the answer is no.
The one God of the Bible is God the Father. God is both who the Father is and God (a divine being) is what the Father is, just like Adam is who the first man was and Adam (a human being) is what the first man was. In a similar fashion as Eve was taken from Adam and inherited his human nature, the Son of God came from God and inherited his divine nature. I want to point out, that I'm not saying that a rib of God was formed into his Son. It isn't revealed how he begat him, but it is clear that he did beget him before anything was created.
God truly has an only begotten Son. This is no metaphor. His Son came from a part of himself, yet he is a separate being. Having an origin doesn't make him less divine than his Father; their natures are identical.
Adam wasn't begotten though. Instead the earth was created and then from the dirt Adam was formed. Adam is a creation of God. However the origin of the Son of God was before anything was created.
Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Since God created all things by his Son, his Son can't be a created thing, because he must have existed before anything was created. On top of this we have clear conception/birthing language in Proverbs 8 informing us that God literally begat his Son.
To whom do all of these following things apply? 1. He is to be heard and His ways obeyed. 2. He can be sinned against (note: sin is the transgression of the law ( 1 John 3:4) and not just any law, but divine law). 3. He is to be found, for in Him is life found and through Him favor is obtained of Jehovah.
Proverbs 8:32-36 is where those three points can be found in the Bible.
Compare these to:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Thus if one "shall obtain favour of the LORD"; in other words have his grace and have life, through his Son, then he will love the Son and obey his commandments. And since sin is the transgression of the law, they won't sin against him.
Proverbs 8 is clearly speaking of Christ, the Son of God. If we read all of Proverbs 8 we see the importance of this. The one brought forth before the hills was the Son of God. Proverbs 8 tells us about his origin as a being. We also see this in John 5:26.
John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
The Son didn't always have life throughout eternity past. He didn't have life until his Father gave him life. He had an origin when he was begotten. See also Micah 5:2.
Don't let yourself get hung up on the fact that Wisdom is spoken of with female pronouns. Unlike English, Hebrew has feminine and masculine nouns. Wisdom, in Hebrew, happens to be a feminine noun, thus the grammar demands that feminine pronouns are used. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Wisdom represents Christ. Besides that, Jesus compared himself to a hen, which is of course female, in Matthew 23:37.
So once is it seen that Wisdom, in Proverbs 8, represents the Son of God take a look at the conception/birthing language used.
Compare how the same word "khool" (Strong's H02342) is used in the verses below. The 8797 just shows they are all in the Pulal form and Perfect tense.
Job 15:7 Art thou the first man that was born? or wast thou made (8797) before the hills?
Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen (8797) in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Both of these are using Hebrew parallelism and show that "khool" is birthing/conception language. Then below are the two times it is used for Wisdom.
Proverbs 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth (8797); when there were no fountains abounding with water.
Proverbs 8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth (8797):
From the online Hebrew Lexicon we have:
1c) (Pulal)
1c1) to be made to writhe, be made to bear
1c2) to be brought forth
Writhing and bearing there is speaking of the sense of being in child birth. Not that I am suggesting the God begat his Son in the same manner. It isn't revealed exactly how this happened. We know that no woman was involved. God begat on his own. I think that how Eve was formed from a part of Adam may be a hint of how God used a part of himself to beget his Son.
To be continued.......
Part 2 of 2
But there is still more evidence to look at.
Now notice earlier what Proverbs 8 says of Wisdom (the Son of God).
"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way" (verse 22)
The word translated as "possessed" comes from the Hebrew word "qanah" (Strong's H07069). According to the Online Bible Hebrew Lexicon, one of the definitions is "of God originating". See the Strong's definition below.
Strong's Hebrew Lexicon
07069. qanah kaw-naw’; a primitive root; to erect, i.e. create; by extension, to procure, especially by purchase (causatively, sell); by implication to own: - attain, buy(-er), teach to keep cattle, get, provoke to jealousy, possess(-or), purchase, recover, redeem, X surely, X verily.
So Wisdom had an origin. Was there a time that God didn't have the attribute of wisdom? Of course not. But there was a time when God didn't have a Son, whom is given the title of Wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:24).
But this isn't all.
"I was set up (nacak - Strong's H05258) from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever (keh'dem - Strong's H06924) the earth was." (verse 23)
Strong's Hebrew Lexicon
05258. nacak naw-sak’; a primitive root; to pour out, especially a libation, or to cast (metal); by analogy, to anoint a king: - cover, melt, offer, (cause to) pour (out), set (up).
06924. qedem keh’dem; or קדמה qedmah kayd’maw; from 06923; the front, of place (absolutely, the fore part, relatively the East) or time (antiquity); often used adverbially (before, anciently, eastward): - aforetime, ancient (time), before, east (end, part, side, ward), eternal, X ever(-lasting), forward, old, past. Compare 06926.
In what sense was Wisdom "anointed or poured out" in the eternal days before (better translation than ever) the earth was?
The word "nacak" is used in the Niphal form in verse 23.
Online Bible Hebrew Lexicon
1b) (Niphal) to be anointed
I will leave you to decide for yourself what this means. I lean towards God anointing His Son with His Holy Spirit, maybe at his begetting. But I ask, if Wisdom is here only an attribute, and not the Son of God, how is it anointed?
Below are a few more verses which I think talk about God giving His Holy Spirit to His Son.
John 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Proverbs 8:30 Then I was by him, as one brought up (’amown - Strong's H0525) with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
Strong's Hebrew Lexicon
0525. ’amown aw-mone’; from 0539, probably in the sense of training; skilled, i.e. an architect [like 0542]: - one brought up.
Was the attribute of wisdom brought up with God and did it rejoice? Was the daily delight of God his attribute of wisdom. Or is this speaking of the Son of God? I think the answer is clear.
Satan seeks to cover up the truth that God has a Son. Giving his Son is how God made known his love to us. Thus by obscuring this fact, Satan can obscure the love of God. Sadly Satan has been very successful in this endeavor, but God can wipe away the scales from peoples eyes and show them the truth. I pray this study helps along those lines.
1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
Note that God had a Son to send, not a son by creation as are the angels nor a son by adoption, like forgiven sinners. God sent his ONLY BEGOTTEN Son.
Hello
Jesus is the Messiah
The Son of God
The Son of David
The Son of man
The man God has chosen to be his anointed king
The man God will judge the world through
The man God raised from the dead
Jesus has a God
There is no triune god in scripture
Jesus said the Father is the only true God!
John 17
3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
-
th-cam.com/play/PLnK9ahzmHnYfEQ2LWbU2Yux9AetaYETX9.html