Good points.
The doctrine of the Trinity, upheld by evangelical universalism, states that within the nature of the one God there are three eternal persons.
Here is some food for thought related to this idea:
OT, Trinity implied:
Genesis 1:1, 26
1 In the beginning God [Elohim, plural] created [bara, singular] the heavens and the earth.
26 Then God [Elohim, plural] said, âLet Us [not angels, since angels donât create] make man in Our imageâŚ.Isaiah 48:16
âCome near to Me, listen to this:
From the first I have not spoken in secret,
From the time it took place, I was there.
And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit.â
And triple benedictions are consistent with a Trinity:
Numbers 6:24-27
The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD turn his face toward you and give you peace. So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them.Isaiah 6:3
And they were calling to one another: Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.Genesis 48:15-16
Then he blessed Joseph and said, "May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the Angel who has delivered me from all harm may he bless these boys. May they be called by my name and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and may they increase greatly upon the earth.
OT, God The Father implied:
Malachi 2:10
Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our ancestors?
OT, God The Son implied:
Psalm 45:7
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of joy above Your fellows.Proverbs 30:4
Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!
OT, God The Holy Spirit implied:
Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
NT, Trinity implied:
Matthew 3:16-17
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, âThis is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.âMatthew 12:28
But if it is by the Spirit of God that I [Jesus] drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,Luke 1:35
The angel answered, âThe Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.Luke 3:21-22
When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: âYou are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.âJohn 14:16-17
And I [Jesus] will ask the Father , and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you foreverâ the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I [Jesus] have said to you.John 15:26
âWhen the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father âthe Spirit of truth who goes out from the Fatherâhe will testify about me [Jesus].Acts 1:4
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: âDo not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift [The Holy Spirit] my Father promised, which you have heard me [Jesus] speak about.Acts 2:33
Exalted to the right hand of God, he [Jesus] has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.Acts 10:38
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood [of Jesus].Romans 14:17-18
For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.Romans 15:30
I urge you, brothers and sisters, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me.1 Corinthians 6:11
And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.1 Corinthians 12:4-6
There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.2 Corinthians 1:21-22
Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.2 Corinthians 13:14
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.Galatians 4:6
Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, âAbba, Father.âEphesians 2:18
For through him [Jesus] we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.Ephesians 2:22
And in him [Jesus] you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.Ephesians 4:4-6
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.Hebrews 9:14
How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!1 Peter 1:2
who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.Jude 1:20-21
But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in Godâs love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.Revelation 4:8
Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying:ââHoly, holy, holy
is the Lord God Almighty,â
who was, and is, and is to come.â
As a new Christian living in Holland, the following is the same diagram a German boy, the son of a pastor, drew for me on a piece of paper concerning my question about the Trinity:
Blessings!
Thanks, but I think the translation bias is pretty clear, and that long list , which at one time would have been very convincing to me, has been addressed very well in the links referred to.
Of course that is no more than the way I see it, and itâs not my aim to convince anyone.
Blessings to you as well!
Qaz, I pretty much think thatâs a good position to have. I have sincerely tried to understand what difference being a trin or not a trin has on our faithful obedience to God, but I canât.
I only call myself a unitarian because I think that is what the scripture teaches, but I donât think the issue one way or another should be binding on a Christianâs conscience, much less a church dogma that separates âusâ from âthemâ.
My thinking is this:
If you maintain that the HS is a Person, a Who not a what - then necessarily he is God.
-not an Angel
-not a sub-god
There is no other classification to put him in, is there? God, Angel, Sub-god, thatâs about it.
So: if the HS is a person, a who, he is God Himself. Which means, if you are a Trin, that the HS is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and the other omni-attributes of God.
I think Iâm right to this point.
If I am right to this point, what we have is not so much a detailed examination of all the texts involving the HS - (though Finnegan (the pdfâs I linked to) imo puts âpaidâ to the fact of translational bias and does a detailed examination of a proponderance of texts),
what we have is an ontological problem, a trinity theory problem.
The question of the who-ness of the HS is a question of whether he is God, and whether any of the biblical writers ever though of him as that.
I may have missed something in my thinking here?
So, unless we can find substantial, not accidental, scriptural evidence that when the writers talk about the HS they mean to talk about or at least infer his identity with God, I think weâd be best served by taking Finnegan seriously enough to read him. That may not be enough to convince any one of us of course.
The idea that the HS is God acting in the world, that the HS is not a separate being, sits right with me. Seriously, if all 3 âpersonsâ are all omni-attributed, I just cannot understand the necessity of a trinity. But thatâs just me.
1 Like
My personal view is that the Holy Spirit is personal, but not a âthird personâ of a Trinity. Rather the Spirit is the very Persons of the Father and of the Son who can extend their Persons anywhere in the Universe, and especially into the hearts and minds of the faithful. Jesus said to His disciples, âThe Father and I will come and make our home with you.â How do They do that? By means of Their Spirit.
The passage in 1 John 5:7 as found in the AV, NKJV, JB2013, and yes even in the Catholic Douay, is clearly Trinitarian:
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one (1 John 5:7 NKJV).
This translation is based on the Greek of Textus Receptus. However, most translations, based on other Greek manuscripts have (as in the ESV):
For there are three that testify:the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. (1 John 5:7,8 ESV)
The passage is not contained in any extant Greek manuscripts which have been dated prior to A.D. 300.
Also, I think we are taught that God is EVERYWHERE in the Universe already. Right outside our skin. Thatâs a thought Iâd like to explore sometime.
I perceive that he exposes translational bias in translating neuter pronouns for spirit as personal (who, not that). But part 2 affirms masculine pronouns can break grammar rules to show that a neuter subject IS recognized as personal, and that in personalistâs main cases, this indeed appears to happen with personal pronouns immediately next to the neuter âpneuma.â
E.g. Jn 16:13 âWhen he (masc.) comes, the Spirit (neuter)âŚ.â Finnegan dismisses âHeâ as referring back to vs. 6 where the Holy Spirit is "the âAdvocate (masc!) who speaks to youâŚâ (thus not violating pneumaâs grammar as neuter). This is possible, but I assume Trinitarians will feel stretching back 7 verses for a subject to fit the personal pronoun looks desperate as a way to maintain the thesis that the NT wonât treat the Spirit as personal.
FWIW, I agree that this may not matter for proving the Spirit is a third person in the Trinity. My instinct is that one can recognize that whether the nomenclature is âSpirit of Godâ or âSpirit of Jesus,â one can conclude that these are ways of saying the spirit IS God (who Jesus taught us is spirit), or Jesus, and is thus indeed personal, but not that it refers to a separate person from God or Jesus.
I see no ontological 'Trinity" developed in the NT. The proper question is whether such a formulation is a reasonable extrapolation from what the NT does indicate. I once argued that our siteâs doctrinal statement uses Trinitarian language that departs more than the rest from actual Biblical terminology, and that we should use a more Biblical vocabulary (esp. about Jesus). Even though I was an original founder, my reasoning led the rest to cordially dismiss me from the governing board. But most of them are long gone, and my troubling heretical presence still remains 
1 Like
Thanks for those comments Bob and taking time to have read some of Finneganâs output.
(There is the matter of cookies, delivered to you as per my earlier pledge! Iâll leave that to you.)
That is the question, and is one of the reasons I tend to think that making a trinity theory out of an extrapolation (which people are free to do) should NOT mean that the extrapolation is binding on Christian fellowship.
1 Like
I am questioning NT Wrightâs translation and explanation of a well-known passage in Phillipians
Ch.2. Here is, first, the context from the ESV. Then I will add the passage in question from the ESV and from Wrightâs Kingdom New Testament.
Context:
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others;
Passage ESV:
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Passage Wright:
This is a notoriously difficult passage to be sure. In verses 5-8 we either have a high Christology - he is just God, or we have imo something better. Iâll give an alternate translation in a minute.
Questions:
- What does the âform of Godâ mean, or âform of slaveâ? Wright thinks the following story, apparently: Jesus just is God, in nature and essence, so is the âformâ of God. Then, before his incarnation, he emptied himself of that and took on the âformâ - the nature, essence, of a slave. Also taking on human âformâ, but not grasping after the Godlike gifts that were his by right; and then after his work was accomplished, then GOD exalted Jesus. Etc.
So in essence according to WRight, this proves that Jesus is God. That he pre-existed, then emptied, obeyed unto death and was exalted.
Is this the best reading? Is this what Paul was teaching here? - The next move is one I favor, and itâs been around. Itâs the Adam move.
Who else do we know that was in the form (image) of God, but chose to grasp higher and become like God. Duh, Adam.
So if Paul is drawing on that Eden story, this passage clears right up.
And here is a translation from Dale Tuggy:
(Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who:)
âEven though, like Adam, he existed in the form of God, unlike Adam he did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking on the condition of a slave, by looking like other men, by sharing in the human condition.â
What did he empty himself of? Ambition, sexual fulfillment, having a wife and children - he emptied himself of all of it, as opposed to Adam who grasped to become even like God.
As for âformâ and âimageâ and likeness etc, the translation seems to flow just perfectly.
Notice this is not denying the exalted Christ or his astounding obedience and sacrifice; that is all still in place as it should be.
Why would Christ have to grasp at being God if he already was.
How could he be exalted any more than being God already, if he was?
Anyway it looks to me like Wright stacked the deck in favor of a theological stance. Iâve read his commentary on the passage and honestly, itâs not up to his usual standard.
You might want to listen to this short podcast:
https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-49-2-interpretations-of-philippians-2-part-2/
Why does WRight use the words âhis equality with Godâ? Jesus always spoke of himself not as an equal, but a subordinate to God.
âDid not count equality with God a thing to be held onto, but emptied Himselfâ
I think this clearly indicates that He emptied Himself of His divine attributes. As a human being, He was limited like any other human being. Any miracles that were done through Him, were done through His faith in His Fatherâagain like any other human being who lives by faith.
1 Like
I canât quite agree with that.
Your words âto be held ontoâ are more accurately (?) âto be graspedâ which is more in line with the Adam allusions. âTo be held ontoâ can only be true if, like yourself, you already believe that Jesus pre-existed.
Now please throw a lot of Greek at me! No donât, I"m just channeling those who also know the Greek. The point is the CONTEXT, which does not at all call for giving up pre-existing divine attributes. Or not. Books have been written, much ink spilled over this, mainly by those striving to maintain Trinitarianism as the bedrock belief of Christians. Which it ainât.
Dave, you raise an interesting alternative way to read this. But I perceive that like Paidion, Wright and many assume Paul hears Jesus did not âgrab ontoâ or âhold ontoâ equality with God as implying that he couldnât grab onto it unless he had it. And Iâm not clear how the context necessarily conflicts with that reading.
If the Adam allusion has some validity, then the passage just falls so easily into place.
âHolding ontoâ does imply that he already was in possession of it and did not want to give it up. You cannot hold onto something that you donât already have âheldâ. Does that make sense?
Bob, I guess that actually I donât understand your statement. Could you state it differently please?
Just before the death of actor W. C. Fields, a friend visited Fieldsâ hospital room and was surprised to find him thumbing through a Bible. Asked what he was doing with a Bible, Fields replied, âIâm looking for loopholes.â
Of course, Egor might have been looking for loopholesâŚwhen Dr. Frankenstein, asked him to find a human brain - from a cadaver.
And here is a good example, of deductive reasoning:
Yes, you appear to restate what I was guessing is Wrightâs logic. That if equality with God is something Jesus decided not to hold onto, that implies that this was something he already held as a possession.
Tuggyâs translation that Paul is saying âunlike Adamâ Jesus did not treat equality with God that way, inserts words Paul does not use, and itâs doubtful that being in Godâs image would be equivalent to âequality with Godâ (or even to being in the âformâ of God), much less that what Adam gave up was an âequalityâ of which âhe already was in possession.â
Of course, much of this interpretation appears to hang on the implication of the verb translated as grasp or hold onto, and I have no intelligent knowledge about what it signifies. Maybe Paul is implying that Jesus refused to seek a divine status that he did not deserve, but given the high Christology that evangelicals tend to see attributed to Jesus, it probably seems more likely to most of them that in a context of emptying himself, Paul is speaking of letting go of a position that did rightly belong to him.
Actually it is not a translation nor does he call it that. He was throwing in his interpretation, which is fine with me since Wright does the same thing imo.
I donât think I made that assertion, did I? Adam was certainly in the image of God, right? And so was Jesus. Adam tried to go higher and be LIKE God, grasping for that property; Jesus did not grasp for that but apparently was happily subordinate, and emptied himself of all human ambitions and even legitimate pleasures, etc. Iâm still missing what youâre getting at.
I see no evidence of that, frankly.
But all that means is that it makes sense to me, and fits in the rest of the NT evidence very neatly. I like it. (What evangelicals think is not a big issue with me.)
The Tuggy podcast I linked to is only 17 minutes long, probably worth a listen for those that are open-minded.
Iâve read 3000 pages or so of Wright and I will continue to be led by him in most things, but this translation of this passage could have been handled a bit less heavy-handed in favor of his theory. I do not think Paul thought of Jesus as God. Nor did Jesus, as far as I can tell.
Randy - funny as usual. The real joke is that the trins are the ones looking for loopholes.
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:5-12 RSV)
The word that the RSV translated as âservantâ is âδοĎ
ΝοĎâ which actually means âslave.â
Here is a song that I wrote a few years ago that corresponds to the passage quoted above. It can be sung to the tune âJesus Lover of my Soul.â
Let in you be the same mind
Which in Jesus Christ we find,
Who though fullest Deity
Did not seek equality.
But He emptied Himself to save,
Having taken the form of a slave.
Born like to sinful man,
He obeyed to deathâs last pain.
After this great deed of Love,
God exalted Him above.
Highest name is Jesus now
At which every knee shall bow,
And shall every tongue confess
Jesus Christ is Lord â no less!
So Beloved, now obey,
Even as you have alway.
1 Like