Hi Mark,

Thanks for the welcome. Yes it is pretty quite here!!!

Mark: 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.

Cam: This is true. The Bibel is the utmost authority.

Mark: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.


Cam: True. I left the HS out as I want to concentrate on the Father
and Son relationship first.


Mark: 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.


Cam: I did not say that. What I meant was God the Father existed
outside time. When he formed his Son, we had time and we had a
beginning hence John 1.1. You can't have a beginning outside of
time. If beginning was used on account of language limitation, then
which beginning John was refering to? The very very beginning which
was outside time or the beginning before creation? I say the latter
and you would say the former but we can't insist on saying one of us
is correct because we dont't what was going through John's mind when
he wrote it.

Mark: 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.

Cam: Even if we were to use the phrase "one and only" son, that does
not imply or proof Jesus did not have a beginning of some sort. All
that means is Jesus is truly God's only Son.

If the Father and the Son existed at the same time, why is there a
Father and a Son. Why should Jesus play the role of the Son, why not
the other way round?

Thanks for the link and pray.

God bless

Cam






--- In reformeddoctrineforum@..., ernbaxter
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> 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