11,153
edits
William Branham and the Trinity Doctrine: Difference between revisions
William Branham and the Trinity Doctrine (view source)
Revision as of 03:36, 30 May 2013
, 11 years agono edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of continuous exploration by theologians of scripture and philosophy, argued in debate and treatises. In 325 A.D. this doctrine was accepted by the Christian Bishops in attendance at the council of Nicea, under the watchful eye of the pagan Emperor, Constantine I. | The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of continuous exploration by theologians of scripture and philosophy, argued in debate and treatises. In 325 A.D. this doctrine was accepted by the Christian Bishops in attendance at the council of Nicea, under the watchful eye of the pagan Emperor, Constantine I. | ||
Theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very difficult issue: | Theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very difficult issue: | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
=Not Three Gods= | =Not Three Gods= | ||
[[Image:3people.jpg|thumb|150px|A misleading impression of the Trinity (by Fridolin Leiber) as "person" does not mean "individual"]] | |||
John Calvin in addressing this issue stated the following: | |||
:''Sabellius says that the Father, Son, and Spirit, indicate some distinction in God. Say, they are three, and he will bawl out that you are making three Gods. Say, that there is a Trinity of Persons in one Divine essence, you will only express in one word what the Scriptures say, and stop his empty prattle. Should any be so superstitiously precise as not to tolerate these terms, still do their worst, they will not be able to deny that when one is spoken of, a unity of substance must be understood, and when three in one essence, the persons in this Trinity are denoted. When this is confessed without equivocations we dwell not on words. But I was long ago made aware, and, indeed, on more than one occasion, that those who contend pertinaciously about words are tainted with some hidden poison; and, therefore, that it is more expedient to provoke them purposely, than to court their favour by speaking obscurely. | |||
For it is absurd to imagine that our doctrine gives any ground for alleging that we establish a quaternion of gods. They falsely and calumniously ascribe to us the figment of their own brain, as if we virtually held that three persons emanate from one essence,106 whereas it is plain, from our writings, that we do not disjoin the persons from the essence, but interpose a distinction between the persons residing in it. If the persons were separated from the essence, there might be some plausibility in their argument; as in this way there would be a trinity of Gods, not of persons comprehended in one God. This affords an answer to their futile question—whether or not the essence concurs in forming the Trinity; as if we imagined that three Gods were derived from it. Their objection, that there would thus be a Trinity without a God, originates in the same absurdity. Although the essence does not contribute to the distinction, as if it were a part or member, the persons are not without it, or external to it; for the Father, if he were not God, could not be the Father; nor could the Son possibly be Son unless he were God. We say, then, that the Godhead is absolutely of itself. And hence also we hold that the Son, regarded as God, and without reference to person, is also of himself; though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God.<ref>John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 1997).</ref> | |||