Is this statement heretical about the trinity?

[marlo]

Hi

I came across this protestant trinity believing person,and said this about the trinity

its about( Acts 20:28)
God the Son had the blood of God the Father in His veins. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit walked this earth incarnate in the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:8).

Is this heretical?

thanks for the (name removed by moderator)uts

rgds
marlo

 

[Sean_O_L]

The difficulty lies in the truths that:

a) The Trinity is One God, possessing the three Divine Persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit;

b) The Second Person of the Holy Trinity is fully God, and possesses the Divine Nature and a human nature;

c) God is everywhere;

d) While only the Son was incarnated - nevertheless, in His possession of His human nature - His “Godly” nature was also present and, as such, included the totality of God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

e) Inasmuch as God is pure Spirit He does not possess flesh and blood; but, inasmuch as the Second Person was incarnated fully as a human being (possessing two natures) - then, God (being One) possessed the flesh and blood of that Second Divine Person, Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

That is the best that I can think of. Hope it helps.

 

[jimmy]

marlo:

Hi

I came across this protestant trinity believing person,and said this about the trinity

its about( Acts 20:28)
God the Son had the blood of God the Father in His veins. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit walked this earth incarnate in the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:8).

Is this heretical?

thanks for the (name removed by moderator)uts

rgds
marlo

It is heretical for several reasons. First, it was only God the Son that was incarnate as Jesus Christ. Christ always calls Himself the Son of the Father or the Son of God, but He never calls Himself the Father or the Spirit. He says I will send the Spirit and He also says the Spirit will recieve of mine. He also says that the Father will send the Spirit. These all indicate that they are not all incarnate in the person of Christ. Only the Son is incarnate as Christ.

Second, what your friend says implies that the Son is not the fullness of the Godhead and that the Father is not the fullness of the Godhead and that the Spirit is not the fullness of the Godhead. He is suggesting that there are parts to God. He suggests that God the Father plus God the Son plus God the Holy Spirit equals the fullness of God. That is false. The truth is, God the Father equals the fullness of God, God the Son equals the fullness of God, and God the Holy Spirit equals the fullness of God. They are all complete by themselves.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Sounds like modalism (one God that operates in different forms or modes like a vampire turning into a bat or a mist) which is indeed a heresy.

Scott

 

[johnshelby]

i think we must be missing something in the conversation.

what are the bible references?

 

[Benadam]

marlo:

Hi

I came across this protestant trinity believing person,and said this about the trinity

its about( Acts 20:28)

God the Son had the blood of God the Father in His veins.

It seems this statement blurs the the trinitarian nature of God by a false emphasis on God’s oneness. It implies that the blood of Jesus pre-existed in the Father.

Christ never ‘had’ blood but has blood and always will. In that light God’s blood is primarily the blood of Jesus Christ the Son.

God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit walked this earth incarnate in the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:8).

Is this heretical?

thanks for the (name removed by moderator)uts

rgds
marlo

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

marlo:

Hi

I came across this protestant trinity believing person,and said this about the trinity

its about( Acts 20:28)
God the Son had the blood of God the Father in His veins.

“God is Spirit” - not man, nor anything corporeal, so He has no blood. Seeing as He was not Incarnate; “the Word was made flesh” - not the Spirit, nor the Father. God is describable as doing and undergoing human or corporeal things, only because of the union of the Divine and human natures in Christ. Because the man who is Jesus of Nazareth is a man Who is God, so we can say both: “Jesus died”, & “God died”. Not because God can die, but because the man can die who is not man only, but God also.​

The human nature of Christ, assumed by the Person of God the Word, is what makes it possible to attribute human things to the Eternal Word. The Word, of course, assumed a nature - not a person: Jesus is not a deified man, but is God in Person, “a man like us in all things - sin alone excepted”.

God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit walked this earth incarnate in the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:8).

There is a confusion here - for the fullness of the Godhead does not require all three Persons to be Incarnate. The reason is, that the Divine Nature is not quantitative: the fullness of the Godhead is as fully present in any one Person, as in all three. It does not come in “amounts”. To be God at all (so to put it), is to be “fully” God. Each Person “real-ises” the Godhead in its fullness - none is more Divine than another, nor than both other Persons together.​

Adding Persons to the number of those incarnate, does not make Jesus any more fully God - the only addition, is of a human nature, to the Nature of God the Word, so that the Incarnate Word subsists in the unity of a single Person, that of the Word, Who to the Divine Nature has added a human nature.

The Father & Spirit are not incarnate, even though they are of one indivisible Divine Nature with the Word; because the nature of the Word is “individuated” by the addition of a human nature; so that they would have to be, not distinct Persons, but, separate Persons from Him, for the writer’s ideas to be realised. IOW, tritheism would have to be true, for all three Persons to be Incarnate. They would have to be three gods. So that they would have to be finite, differing from us only in degree, and not in kind.

The Persons do indwell one another - but do not “cease” to be really distinct.

I hope someone will correct anything in this that needs it. ##

Is this heretical?

As far as the letter goes, yes. That doesn’t mean the person who said it is. The person you quote sounds like a Mormon - that, or a disciple of Benny Hinn​

thanks for the (name removed by moderator)uts

rgds
marlo

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Benadam:

marlo:

Hi

I came across this protestant trinity believing person,and said this about the trinity

its about( Acts 20:28)

It seems this statement blurs the the trinitarian nature of God by a false emphasis on God’s oneness. It implies that the blood of Jesus pre-existed in the Father.

Christ never ‘had’ blood but has blood and always will. In that light God’s blood is primarily the blood of Jesus Christ the Son.

How about His glorified Body ? Blood is an organic compound (IIRC), and nothing organic can enter Heaven -​

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. ##

 

[Benadam]

Gottle of Geer:

Benadam:

How about His glorified Body ? Blood is an organic compound (IIRC), and nothing organic can enter Heaven -​

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. ##

The Flesh of Christ enjoys and IS the union of heaven and earth, or more easily understood, is the union of spiritual and material realities into one. In Christ, God is All in All. In this light Christ’s Holy Blood is a spiritual material reality.
Christ said the flesh has nothing to offer, yet God said all of creation is good. Paul was referencing the physical world in the same way.