“They are ... not three beings ... consisting of one substance.”
Says who? Where is that said? Where, anywhere, is the idea that one being can consist of more than on personage found anywhere in the scriptures? Nowhere. Where do the scriptures even reference their ‘substance’? Nowhere. It is an idea men came up with to try and explain the oneness of the Godhead, but it is a false idea.
“They are ... coequal.”
Christ said his Father was greater than he and there he was not ‘good’ but there was none good but God the Father, Christ said that God the Father was his God. Christ said he did not know the date of the second coming, that only the Father knew. The apostles taught that Christ increased in wisdom and in favor with God and that he was exalted after his resurrection, and that he was an heir of God, inheriting power glory and dominion from the Father. The scriptures are clear that the Son obeys the Father, not the other way around, the Father presides over Christ.
“The chart below should help you to see how the doctrine of the Trinity is systematically derived from Scripture.”
I notice the list has no entry for verses supporting ‘three persons in one being’ or ‘one substance’
“Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at by looking at the whole of scripture, not in a single verse.”
And tossing in some ideas taken from Greek philosophy
All your article does is assert it’s position and provide a list of scriptures that don’t even attempt to address the points in contention between us.
Now, are you going to actually address the substance of the article I posted, or just hide from it.
Clarification is badly needed in this dialogue of yours. There are two levels of "equality." On the one hand, there is pre-eminence...meaning that a president of the US is deemed as "greater" than a "mere" bureaucrat. But frankly, we in the West no longer primarily think in aristocratic mindsets. We think more in egalitarian ways. A bureaucrat's life is of no less value or sanctity than a president's life (no matter how much you may harbor vs. say, the IRS).
Anyway your convo begs for clarification as to which point. I mean, when Christ referenced His Father as being "greater," He wasn't saying he was more of a god than He was (I mean that's like saying someone is more "pregnant" than another); or that His Father was already God whereas Christ was some mere God wannabe.
And besides, when it comes to pre-eminence in our relationship with Jesus our Lord, who was the Original Servant in this relationship? (Why, He was). Does that mean we are "greater" than Him just because He served us first?)
Grig says: Christ said...he was not ‘good’ but there was none good but God the Father...
An outright lie because YOU are the one who inserts "Father" into the text when it's not there. (Go ahead, look up Matthew 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). Instead, what Jesus said is that there is "No one...good except God alone." (Lk 18:19 and Mark 10:18) Matthew says "There is only One who is good" (Matt 19:17).
Why is this distinction important? Well you, Mr. Grig, are the one who presumes that Jesus doesn't see Himself as that "One." Jesus often talked about Himself in a third-person sort of way, often referring to Himself as "the Son of man." People who do that are usually at both extremes...either extremely prideful like the "Jimmy" character on one Steinfeld show; or extremely humble like Jesus Christ.
Jesus simply asks "Why do you call me good?" to question the assumption that this man he was talking to thinks men in general are good. He was directly challenging the false worldview of this man about men; He was NOT impugning His own character (I mean you're not going to tell us Jesus was wicked or evil, are you?) If not, then you are deliberately twisting the meaning of this passage to try to pile up proof texts. Stop it. Repent. I don't think the Son of God appreciates hearing your opinion that "he was not 'good'"...such statements are not beneficial to your short and long-term spiritual health.
Christ said that God the Father was his God.
Well, yes, a forsaken Son citing an Old Testament passage on the cross was one point in time and eternity where the previous and ensuing unity of the "Godhead" was disrupted, as also when he descended into hell. But Jesus is only defined by the cross and by his descent into hell.
Christ said he did not know the date of the second coming, that only the Father knew.
So you're now telling us that if your earthly father knows something you don't know, that you're a dog? Or an animal? Or something less than the substance of humanity? (Try again) Besides, it's almost like, Grig, you've deliberately avoided reading Phil. 2:6-7: "Christ Jesus, Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness."
Well, oops, Grig, there goes your wonderment as to where to find "Where do the Scriptures even reference...'substance'?"...the early English word given to the discussion of the nature of God was "substance." I suppose "nature" would have been fine also.
I mean, Grig, if you were a prince in my kingdom and I sent you to another part of the world to save some wolfpack from species extinction; and you got down on all fours and howled so that they would identify with you...that would be an example of royalty not grasping his throne--not grasping royal rule, but becoming like a wolf to save the wolves. And if, for some reason, as you were howling, you failed to bark out the time I as King would send you back for a second time, it wouldn't make you any less of a Prince; any less human; any less equal to the King. Everybody back at the castle would still regard both of us as royal rulers.
The apostles taught that Christ increased in wisdom and in favor with God...
OK, Grig, let's try this same application to your family that you're trying to impose upon the Son of God these many years after his run on earth as Jesus. Let's say you have a young son. You tell me, "Hey, C, isn't it great the way he has increased in wisdom and favor with me?" So my response, if I was imitating you, would be, "Wow, G, what are you saying? Are you telling me that because you don't see him as equal to you in wisdom and grace that your son is less than human...that he's still a human wannabe?"
And you say, "When did I say that?"
"Well, says I, (in my best Grig voice), aren't you saying that because he is less mature than you are in wisdom and favor, that he is less than you--less equal than you?"
"Well, again, when did I say that? My son has the same status as a human being that I do. He has the same inalieble rights that I do. He has the same sanctity that I do. He is humanity, like I am. We are one as the same family. We are the same flesh & blood substance."
I mean, look at humanity the way God does...this "equality" measurement you have is topsy-turvy to God's idea. In God's thinking, the 99 are left to search for the one. The least of these is greatest. The last is first. The leader is servant to all. You somehow assume that humility is the mark of only some lowly beast. I mean, it's almost like you expected the diapered Jesus to come out hurling lightning bolts at demons when He decidedly came as a suffering servant.
and that he was exalted after his resurrection...
I have a Biblical quiz for you? Whose power raised Jesus? The Father's? The Holy Spirit's? Jesus' own power? (Interesting question, wouldn't you say?) I have the feeling based on how you've worded everything else, that you assume it was the Father's power. Right? Well if you quote any number of Paul's passages (1 Cor; 2 Cor; Eph; Rom; Col.; Gal; and even several from Luke in Acts and also several verses from John 5) you would be correct.
But guess what? The power of the Holy Spirit also raised Jesus. (see Romans 1:4-5; 8:11; 1 Pet. 1:18; 3:18; 1 Th. 4:17). And guess what again? Jesus prophesied that He would raise his body: "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." (John 2:19, 21) "...I lay down my life--only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again." (John 10:17-18) Three-in-one resurrection power. (Sounds trinitarian to me)
...and that he was an heir of God, inheriting power glory and dominion from the Father.
More foundationless assumptions. Question: Do you have to be poor, penniless, and powerless to be an heir? I mean, can't an heir be someone who is just as wealthy as the one transferring the estate?
The scriptures are clear that the Son obeys the Father, not the other way around, the Father presides over Christ.
Look at Phil. 2:8: "And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death--even death on a cross." Look at Heb. 5:8: "Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered..."
So, according to Scripture, Jesus not only obeyed the Father, he obeyed death. He obeyed the cross. He obeyed suffering. He became our servant in death. He became our servant on the cross. He became the suffering servant. He became our servant-substitute in death; He became our servant-substitute on the cross; he became the suffering servant-substitute for us.
So question time: Does Jesus' obedience to the cross make him lower than it? Does the fact that death and the cross presided over Jesus make the cross an implied object of worship?
What about in marriage? Wives are supposed to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22, 24). Does than mean, according to your line of thinking, that women are "less equal" than men? Isn't the fact that husbands, being that they are to give up themselves for their wives (Eph. 5:25), mean that men play the role of servant-leaders? Does that servanthood & sacrifical submission make them less than their wives in any way?