Download ☆ What Is The Trinity? Crucial uestions #10 By R.C. Sproul – serv3.3pub.co.uk

Download ☆ What Is The Trinity? Crucial uestions #10 By R.C. Sproul – serv3.3pub.co.uk [PDF] ✪ What Is The Trinity? Crucial uestions #10 By R.C. Sproul – Serv3.3pub.co.uk The Trinity is truly a mystery This doctrine teaches that the God of Christianity is one in His essence but three in His persons—the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit Though the word Trinity is not The Trinity The Trinity? PDF Ì is truly a mystery This doctrine teaches that the God of Christianity is one in His essence but three in His persons—the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit Though the word Trinity is not found in the Bible there is no doubt that What Is MOBI :ç the Scriptures teach this triune nature of God Yet the concept still challenges our finite mindsIn this Crucial uestions booklet Dr RC Sproul carefully explains the doctrine of the Trinity stressing that Christians worship one God who manifests Himself in three distinct persons He shows what the Is The Trinity? Epub Û Bible teaches and outlines the chief errors on this doctrine that Is The Trinity? Crucial uestions MOBI :ç have afflicted the church Above all he affirms that while this truth is difficult to understand it is not contradictory Rather it is a beautiful expression of the biblical teaching on the nature of God.


10 thoughts on “What Is The Trinity? Crucial uestions #10

  1. Anthony Anthony says:

    I did not get a ton out of this book Some history and views of the trinity and how they relate to Christian creeds where probably the pluses for this book For a short almost tract like book I was unclear if the target was new believers like myself old believers who just need a refresher on the trinity or Unitarians who need convincing Based on the Unitarians I know they won't be convinced but I think being such a short read its worth a read just to keep some basic concepts fresh in your mind in case you are witnessing to a Muslim or a Unitarian and need to explain the Trinity uickly


  2. K.M. Weiland K.M. Weiland says:

    I love RC Sproul for so many reasons Number one he's just a pleasure to read He has a great way with words and his intelligence oozes up from every page It's so nice to read a book of substance instead of just feel good fluff Here he does a wonderful job of presenting basic theological and historical facts of the doctrine of the Trinity


  3. Ted Ted says:

    While I appreciate the intense philosophical discussion it tends to either omit steps in his reasoning or uickly simplify them which makes following the book a challenge at times My philosophy knowledge is admittedly rusty but nevertheless I wish the author would be methodical and systematic in his advancement of his arguments


  4. Tony Villatoro Tony Villatoro says:

    In this short book Sproul brings the church fathers and the creeds to life as they combat the heretics in the early church on the understanding of the Godhead Based on Scripture as its foundation Sproul helps the reader try to understand the basis of this great doctrine of the Trinity Coming from the Oneness pentecostal movement the oneness view of the Godhead was ingrained in my belief system form early childhood Rejecting the Trinity I preached vehemently against it at a young age It wasn’t until I believed in salvation by grace that I started to really look into who this gracious God was who had saved me really was I then found the beauty of His unity in diversity I discovered the distinctions that Scripture has when it comes to the Father Son and Holy Spirit while still giving us the unity of them never compromising the oneness of God I really wished I had this book in my teens to undo the cobweb of confusion in my theology of God then Concise brief to the point this is a great little theological book on who God isHere are some of my favorite uotesChapter 1 MonotheismWhen we confess our faith in the Trinity we affirm that God is one in essence and three in personThus God is one in A and three in B If we said that He is one in essence and three in essence that would be a contradiction If we said He is one in person and three in person that also would be a contradictionGod is revealed ti us in the opening chapters of Genesis as the one who is sovereign over all things So I think that those who hold that the name Elohim hints at polytheism are jumping to an incorrect conclusionWhen we come to the New Testament we find the church affirming the notion of monotheism but also declaring that God the Father is divine God the Son is divine and God the Holy Spirit is divine We have to understand that the distinctions in the Godhead do not refer to His essence; they do not refer to a fragmentation or compartmentalization of the very being of GodChapter 2 The Biblical Witnessin the Christian faith all diversity finds its ultimate unity in God Himself and it is significant that even in God’s own being we find both unity and diversity intact in Him we find the ultimate ground for unity and diversity In Him we find one being in three personsI believe that the name Elohim is compatible with the doctrine of the Trinity and may be hinting in that direction but the name itself does not demand that we infer that God is trine in His naturein the creation account that we first encounter the Spirit of God Gen 12 By bringing something out of nothing the Spirit meets one of the criteria for deity that are set forth in the New Testament That is another hint as to the multi personal charter of God early on in the ScripturesOn 1 Corinthians 81 6The new element here is that Paul ascribes deity to Christ He distinguishes between the Father and the Son and he notes that all things are “from” the father and “through” Christ and that we exist “for” the Father and “through” the Son Clearly Paul is euating the Father and the Son in terms of Their divinityThe New Testament also states that the Holy Spirit is divine We see this for instance in Jesus’ triune formula for baptism By the command of Christ people are to be baptized in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Matt 2819In these and many other passages in the New Testament the deity of the Father the son and the Holy Spirit is set forth explicitly and implicitly When considered together with the Bible’s clear teaching as to the oneness of God the only conclusion is that there is one God in three persons the doctrine of the TrinityChapter 3 Controversies in the Early ChurchThe first great heresy that the church had to confront with respect to monarchianism was called “modalist monarchianism” or simply “modalismThe idea behind modalism was that all three persons of the Trinity are the same person but that they behave in uniue “modes” at different times Modalists held that God was initially the Creator then became the Redeemer then became the Spirit at Pentecost The divine person who came to earth as the incarnate Jesus was the same person who had created all things When he retuned to heaven he took up His role as the Father again but then returned to earth as the Holy Spirit As you can see the idea here was that there is only one God but that He acts in different modes or different expressions from time to timeA second form of monarchianism was called “dynamic monarchianism” or “adoptionism” This school of though was also committed to preserving monotheism but its adherents wanted to give honor and central importance to the person of Christ Those who propagate this view held that at the time of creation the first thing that God made was the Logos after which the Logos created everything else So the Logos is higher than human beings and even angels He is the Creator and He predates all things except God But He is not eternal because He himself was created by God so He is not eual to GodIn time according to adoptionism the Logos became incarnate in the person of Jesus In His human nature the Logos was one with the Father in terms of carrying out the same mission and working toward the same goals He was obedient to the Father and because of His obedience the Father “adopted” Him Thus it is proper to call the Logos the Son of God However He became the Son of God dynamically There was a change He was not always the Son of God but His sonship was something He earnedThese views prompted the first of the ecumenical councils the Council of Nicea which met in AD 325 This council produced the Council of Nicea which affirms that Christ is “the only begotten Son of god begotten of the Fahter before all worlds” and that He was “begotten not made” It further declares that He is “God of God Light of Light very God of very God being of one substance with the FatherWith these affirmations the church said that scriptural terms such as “firstborn” and “begotten” have to do with Christ’s place of honor not with His biological originThe church declared that Christ is of the same substance being and essence as the father Thus the idea was put forth that God though three in persons is one in essenceThe monophysite heresy taught that Jesus had only one nature Eutyches’ view was manifestly a denial that Christ had two natures the monophysite heresy sees Christ as neither God nor man but as something than man and less than God He represents a kind of deified humanity or a humanized deity So the distinction between humanness and deity was obscured in his thinkingThe church had to resist the twin heresy of Nestorianism named after its founder Nestorius Nestorius basically said that one person cannot have two natures; if there are two natures there must be two persons Therefore since Christ had both a divine nature and human nature He was a divine person and a human person coexisting This was the opposite of the monophysite distortion In the Nestorian heresy the two natures of Christ were not merely distinguished they were totally separatedJesus has two natures a divine nature and a human natures and at times He reveals His human side while at other times He reveals His divine side We can distinguish the two without separating them But when the human nature perspires it is still united to a divine nature that does not perspireWell it is one thing for the divine nature to communicate information to the human nature; however it is another thing entirely for the divine nature to communicate attributes to the human nature because such a communication would deify the human natureThis truth of the separation of Christ’s natures was very important at the cross The human nature died but the divine nature did not die Of course at death the divine nature was united to a human corpse The unity was still there but the change that had taken place was within the human nature not the divine natureOn the Chalcedonian Creed AD 451 First it affirms that Christ is truly God and truly man” Vera Deus vera homoSecond Chalcedon is known perhaps most famously for the so called “four negatives” When the council confessed that there is a perfect unity between the divine and human natures in Christ it said they are united in such a way as to be “without confusion without change without division without separation” In other words the council said that we cannot mix up the two natures of Christ; that was the heresy of the monophysites Neither can we separate them; that was the error of the Nestorians No Jesus’ two natures are perfectly united We can distinguish them but we cannot mix or divide themAs you can see we have to walk a razor’s edge between confusion and separation if we are to gain a sound understanding of the person of ChristThird the Chalcedonian Creed affirms that the distinction of Jesus’ two natures is in no way annulled by the union but rather the characteristics of each natures are preserved and come together to form one person and subsistence” In other words in the incarnation God does not give up any of His attributes and humanity does not give any of His attributes When Jesus came to earth He did not lay aside His divine nature Neither did He assume a human nature that was anything less than fully human Chapter 4 One in Essence Three in PersonThe use of the word “person” to distinguish the Father Son and Holy Ghost from one another can be problematic The early church used the word “person” in a somewhat different manner that it is used today That’s a common problem with language it is dynamic Its nuances change from one generation to the nextIn the Latin language this word was primarily used in relation to two concepts First it could refer to a person’s possessions or estate Second it could refer to the dramatic stage presentations of the period Sometimes actors had multiple roles in a play Whenever an actor changed his role during the play he would put on a different mask and assume a different personaEach role was a persona and collectively they were personae So the early church came to see God as one being with three personae the Father the Son and the Holy Spiritwhen the church articulated the doctrine of the Trinity it did not say that God is one in essence and three in existences Instead it said three in personThe word “person” is euivalent to the term “subsistence” In this word we have the prefix “sub” with the same root word “sisto” so “subsistence” literally means “to stand under” Thus this word gets at the idea that while God is one in essence there are three subsistences three persons that stand under the essence They are part of the essence All three have the essence of deityNevertheless we can make a distinction between the three persons of the Trinity because each member of the godhead has uniue attributes We say that the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God but we don’t say that the Father is the Son the Son is the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit is the FatherThere are distinctions between them but the distinctions are not essential not of the essence They are really but they do not disturb the essence of the deity The distinctions within the Godhead are if you will sub distinctions within the essence of God He is one essence three subsistences That is about as close as we can get to articulating the historic doctrine of the TrinityChapter 5 Objections to the DoctrinePerhaps the most consistent objection to the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is irrational because it involves a contradictionThe doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one in essence and three in person so He is one in one sense and three in another sense and that does not violate the categories of rational thought or the law of non contradiction Nevertheless people continue to charge that the Trinity is irrationalThere are three distinct ideas that we need to understand and differentiate the paradox the contradiction and the mystery Although these concepts are distinctly different they are closely related For this reason they are often confusedA paradox is something that seems contradictory when we first encounter it; however with further scrutiny the tension is resolved The real tension occurs when we encounter mysteries and contradictions We use the term “mystery” to refer to things we do not yet understand We may believe a mystery is true but we do not understand why it is true For instance we know that there is such a thing as gravity but the essence of gravity remains something of a mystery to usIt is true that contradictions cannot be understood because they are inherently unintelligible but not everything that seems to be a contradiction is a contradiction Some apparent contradictions are mysteriesThe fact that Christ has two natures is certainly a mystery to us We cannot grasp how a person can have both a divine nature and a human nature We have no reference point for that in our human experience Every person we have ever met has had only one nature When we affirm the dual natures of Christ we are affirming something that is uniue to Him something that differs from the normal experience of humanity It’s difficult to even describeWhen we come to the doctrine of the Trinity we say based on the revelation of Scripture that there is a sense in which God is one and another sense in which He is three We must be careful to point out that whose two senses are not the same If they were the same we would be espousing a contradiction unworthy of our faith But they are different and so the doctrine of the Trinity is not a contradiction but a mystery for we cannot fully understand how one God can exist in three personsAnother objection that freuently is raised against the doctrine of the Trinity is that the Bible and particularly the New Testament never uses the term “TrinityBut the uestion we must ask is this Does the concept that is represented by the word “Trinity” appear in the Bible? All that the word “Trinity” does is capture linguistically the scriptural teaching on the unity of God and the tri personality of God Seeing these concepts in Scripture we search for a word that accurately communicates them We come up with the idea of “tri unity” three in oneness and so we coin this term “Trinity“Trinity” is perfectly good word that accurately states that which the church has believed and confessed historically We should not hesitate to use it and other such words to set the standards of truth as accurately as possible


  5. Shawn Durham Shawn Durham says:

    This book is simply what you’d expect from a 100 page “booklet” It skims the edges of the trinity from not only a theological point of view but also a philosophical It briefly mentions Plato and others I deeply enjoyed this not only because it was a greateasy read but because it was free on iBooks


  6. Eli Price Eli Price says:

    Great intro to the doctrine of the TrinityThis is a great intro to this doctrine It covers the history of the doctrine and the philosophy and thought behind it It is simple enough for anyone to follow as well The only reason I didn’t give it 5 stars was because I think he could have expounded in a few different sections a little eg the section on Christ’s being truly God and truly man


  7. Ryan Jankowski Ryan Jankowski says:

    This might be a helpful book for those wanting a first encounter with trinitarian theology RC Sproul is a wonderful writer and presents the material concisely It is a uick read and so in that sense it wouldn't hurt as a helpful refresher to seasoned ChristiansRC does come across rather presumptuous at times in this short book as he does elsewhere For instance he writes I once had a conversation with a man who had a PhD in philosophy and he objected to Christianity on the grounds that the doctrine of the Trinity represented a manifest contradiction—the idea that one can also be three—at the heart of the Christian faith Apparently this professor of philosophy was not familiar with the law of non contradictionReally RC? That's the sort of attitude that is entirely destructive Obviously the man with the PhD in philosophy knows the LNC and a multitude of other complex things that would only confuse a non philosopher like RC Despite that sort of silliness this small book would work as a nice gateway to other books Reeves' Delighting in the Trinity might be a helpful next step before moving to in depth writings


  8. Tyler Tyler says:

    uick clarification As an orthodox Christian I am in full agreement with the content of this book; what I object to is its delivery For a book called What Is The Trinity? the author didn't spend a lot of time answering that uestion He responded to objections and traced the history of the doctrine rather than outlining it clearly I think a good half of it was a defense of the hypostatic union rather than the Trinity So no areas of disagreement really it just wasn't a very effective explanation


  9. Josue Manriquez Josue Manriquez says:

    If you're looking for a thorough treatise on the doctrine of the Trinity look elsewhere Nevertheless I highly recommend this little eBook as an excellent—albeit brief—overview of the doctrine of the TrinitySproul does a swell job summarizing some of the key biblical passages from which we gain understanding of the Trinity He also summarizes some historical background ie Nicene Chalcedonian Creeds and provides a great explanation of the meanings of essence and person and existence all of which are important to better understanding the Trinity Finally he concludes by answering some objectionsFor a detailed reading on the doctrine of the Trinity I recommend James White's The Forgotten Trinity


  10. Chris Chris says:

    An interesting book written in the Christian Apologist style designed to explain the meaning of the Holy TrinityThe book made some interesting points and although dry in places is worth picking up especially since it is free on the kindle and readingThe author does say 'the doctrine of the Trinity is not a contradiction but a mystery for we cannot fully understand how one God can exist in three persons'After reading this I thought of the Trade Descriptions Act The book is called 'What is the Trinity' then asserts that we cannot understand as it is a mystery


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *