Hi Cam,

Its been a bit quiet on this group recently, but welcome anyway! You
are right in saying that the Trinity is difficult to comprehend -
but do we really expect to fully understand the nature of God? In
fact, I read an interesting section of Luther's commentary on
Galatians recently where he argues that "It is a principle of the
Bible that we are not to inquire curiously into the nature of
God ... True Christian theology does not inquire into the nature of
God, but into God's purpose and will in Christ, whom God
incorporated in our flesh to live and to die for our sins." You can
read more at
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/ga
l1-01.html if you're interested.

What we know of God is by his own self revelation, not our own
philosophical speculations. So the Bible is the place to go if we
are to find out what may be known for certain about the nature of
God. You say you don't want to be "considered a heretic". Well
there's nothing wrong with coming to Scripture with an open mind,
ready to hear what it says rather than coming to it simply to find
confirmation of the things we already thought. After all, that's
what the reformers did - they let God speak through his word, and
found out that many of the orthodox teachings of their day were
actually heresies. But you must bear in mind that when we consider
the person of Jesus Christ, wrong views of him are especially
dangerous. Any teaching that detracts any glory from Jesus will have
to be assigned to the "heresy" category. As you seem to be aware,
the early church took very seriously any deviation from the orthodox
belief in Jesus as the second person of the Trinity.

Now I have a few immediate problems with your argument. First, what
happened to the Holy Spirit? You start off with just the Father, and
then add the Son, but never mention the Spirit. Secondly, we must
affirm that Jesus was not created and existed outside of time - in
the beginning (see John 1). Therefore there was never a time when
Jesus the person did not exist - he has always existed. You can't
have a "before" and "after" outside of time as you seem to be
requiring. Thirdly, you seem to be trying to solve a problem that
isn't really a problem - Jesus being called the only "begotten" son.
I think if you read some commentaries on the meaning of the
Greek "monogenes", you will see that this phrase is better
translated "one and only" son - the idea of coming into existance is
not there.

I could try to summarise the Scripture arguments for believing in the
Trinity, but that would take a long time. Perhaps you could post
again with your thoughts on what I have said. If you can get hold of
Wayne Grudem's "Biblical Doctrine" book, you will find a very clear
and readable explanation of both the doctrine of the Trinity and the
numerous Scripture references that back it up.

Finally, as you are thinking deeply about the person of Jesus, you
might find this article interesting:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~kbush/Wright_JIG.pdf It has some very
useful insights into Jewish monotheism.

anyway, I pray that through your study of God's word and thoughts
about Jesus, you will be moved to worship

Mark

--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., camp602001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just joined this group! I am having problems understanding the
> Trinity as it is difficult to comprehend and decided to have a
> slightly alternative view.
> I would still like to think myself as a Christian rather than be
> considered a heretic!!!
>
> My thoughts are pretty basic in that I believe that only the
Father
> existed in the beginning. As God he existed outside of time.
> At some point before anything else was created he decided to have
a
> son so he created Jesus and thus we have time as the Father knows
> when he formed his Son. Question then is how was Jesus formed? If
> our Lord was formed by utterance i.e. Father said "Let there be a
> son" and Jesus was formed he cannot be considered God. He would
> simply be the first created spirit ahead of the angels. However,
if
> the Father created Jesus from his own NATURE,
> is this what John meant when he referred to Jesus as the "only
> begotten Son?" If this was the case then Jesus too is God because
> of his nature and he too has no beginning in terms of his nature
but
> only his personality has a beginning. " God from God, Light from
> Light, True God from True God, begotten not made" (creed). Father
> taught his Son everything and through his Son created everything.
> This is why I truly believe that Jesus is literally God's son and
> that the Father being Father is greater than his son who sits at
his
> right hand. The next obvious question is are there two Gods or
one?
> Rather than try to solve this mathematical formula and get myself
in
> a muddle, I prefer to look at it in another way. What makes God
God?
> For me it has to be his nature. For another God to exist, it has
to
> have its own nature and must either proceed or existed
independently
> from the Father's nature. We know from the bible that EVERYTHING
was
> created by God therefore there is no other God or nature that
> existed independently. Since Jesus' nature is from the Father's
> nature, there is still the one nature hence one God.
>
> When we look back at the original controversy between Arius and
> Bishop Alexander, Arius views were rightly rejected for he denied
> the divinity of Christ. Is the above just as bad?
>
> God bless,
>
> Cam