Why Elohim if God is Absolutely One?

[Ben_Masada]

Yeah! We can discuss to our teeth. But let us strive not to “hate” each other. Let our “anger” be directed only to the ideas of the other, not to the person himself.

Come on Aganghern, stop melting down in the sun! To approach a little to
the edge sometimes is very normal. It means nothing. The next day we are all in peace and loving each other again.

Ben:

 

[agangbern]

Sorry, but I was referring to the Bible that Jesus used to handle. Jesus was born, lived his span of life and died, and never had any idea that about 30 years after he had been gone, Paul would show up to compose a different Bible.

How many books did the “bible” that Jesus used contain?

 

[agangbern]

Come on Aganghern, stop melting down in the sun! To approach a little to
the edge sometimes is very normal. It means nothing. The next day we are all in peace and loving each other again.

Ben:

ice? ha ha ha

 

[agangbern]

What difference does it make who wrote the book of Genesis? Jews wrote the book of Genesis; and they wrote it according to Judaism. To me it doesn’t matter, as long as they were Jewish and wrote it according to being Jewish. My issue with the NT is that Gentiles wrote it with the purpose to temper with Judaism. That’s why I have decided to lend my voice in defense of the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism.

Ben:

Obviously, when you use the word “bible” (not in the above quote, but in other posts) you are referring only to the Old Testament, right? Christians use the word “bible” to refer to the OT and NT.

 

[jlhargus]

Sorry, but I was referring to the Bible that Jesus used to handle. Jesus was born, lived his span of life and died, and never had any idea that about 30 years after he had been gone, Paul would show up to compose a different Bible.

JL: So, did Jesus not personally appear, after his resurrection, and chose Paul? Why did Jesus chose Paul? Was it not because he was a Pharisee of Pharisees? Was it not because Paul was well educated whereas the other apostles were not as learned? Was it not because Paul knew the scriptures and law inside and out? Is it not because many of the learned of Judah would have dismissed the others as unlearned in their understanding of the law? Was Paul not able to contend for the faith with the most learned turning their use of the law against them? Did Paul with all his knowledge and understanding of scripture not re-think his understanding of scripture when he was supernaturally born? Did he not spend three years in Arabia after he was born again of water and Spirit? Did Paul not preach the same gospel as the Apostles Fellowship? Did Paul after fourteen years of preaching not go up to Jerusalem, to commuicate the gospel he preached? Did he not do this to verify his preaching was in line with that proclaimed by the Apostles Fellowship? Gal2:1-2

Good question! No, He had not. He must have had a purpose to teach us a lesson on psychological plurality.

JL: So, Why does God want mankind to understand psychological plurality? What is its importance for man? What is its importance, as far as making Abraham the father of many nations? How is Abraham to be the father of many nations? Was it in the fact that Isaac was a child of the promise and born by the supernatural power of God? So would that not make all those born by the supernatural power of God sons of Abraham? How is one born of supernatural power? Would it not be by water and the Spirit as Christ taught?

[But I guess you guys were absolutely unaware of the issue because as I can see, you have built a tower of Babel out of it. Ben: [/COLOR]

JL: So, are all Jewish scholars and people aware, understand and agree on psychological plurality? Are there some, ordinary people like me, who have not even heard there is a psychological plurality? Is it possible that psychological plurality is a theological tower of Babel?

 

[Valke2]

Which Church are you referring? And what commentary does that Church say? Please provide the link.

I was referring to the Catholic Church. I looked at this issue about a year ago. I don’t have the link but it was, i think, the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[w_stewart]

arrogance
One entry found.

Main Entry:
ar•ro•gance
Pronunciation:
\ˈer-ə-gən(t)s, ˈa-rə-\
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century
: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogance

Thank you for that definition. Our task now is to do our best not to qualify to that definition.

 

[Ben_Masada]

JL:

So, did Jesus not personally appear, after his resurrection, and chose Paul? Why did Jesus chose Paul? Was it not because he was a Pharisee of Pharisees? Was it not because Paul was well educated whereas the other apostles were not as learned? Was it not because Paul knew the scriptures and law inside and out? Is it not because many of the learned of Judah would have dismissed the others as unlearned in their understanding of the law? Was Paul not able to contend for the faith with the most learned turning their use of the law against them? Did Paul with all his knowledge and understanding of scripture not re-think his understanding of scripture when he was supernaturally born? Did he not spend three years in Arabia after he was born again of water and Spirit? Did Paul not preach the same gospel as the Apostles Fellowship? Did Paul after fourteen years of preaching not go up to Jerusalem, to commuicate the gospel he preached? Did he not do this to verify his preaching was in line with that proclaimed by the Apostles Fellowship? Gal2:1-2

 

[firstmode]

What is the Trinity?

The word “trinity” is a term used to denote the Christian doctrine that God exists as a unity of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the persons is distinct from the other, yet identical in essence. In other words, each is fully divine in nature, but each is not the totality of the other persons of the Trinity. Each has a will, loves, and says “I”, and “You” when speaking. The Father is not the same person as the Son who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit who is not the same person as the Father. Each is divine, yet there are not three gods, but one God. There are three individual subsistences, or persons. The word “subsistence” means something that has a real existence. The word “person” denotes individuality and self awareness. The Trinity is three of these, though the latter term has become the dominant one used to describe the individual aspects of God known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Included in the doctrine of the Trinity is a strict monotheism which is the teaching that there exists in all the universe a single being known as God who is self-existent and unchangeable (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8). Therefore, it is important to note that the doctrine of the trinity is not polytheistic as some of its critics proclaim. Trinitarianism is monotheistic by definition and those who claim it is polytheistic demonstrate a lack of understanding of what it really is.

* The Trinity
      o God is three persons
      o Each person is divine
      o There is only one God.

**
LINK to rest of the at article:**

 

[firstmode]

Many theologians admit that the term “person” is not a perfect word to describe the three individual aspects/foci found in God. When we normally use the word person, we understand it to mean physical individuals who exist as separate beings from other individuals. But in God there are not three entities, nor three beings. God, is a trinity of persons consisting of one substance and one essence. God is numerically one. Yet, within the single divine essence are three individual subsistences that we call persons.

* Each of the three persons is completely divine in nature though each is not the totality of the Godhead.
* Each of the three persons is not the other two persons.
* Each of the three persons is related to the other two, but are distinct from them.

The word “trinity” is not found in the Bible. But this does not mean that the concept is not taught there. The word “bible” is not found in the Bible either, but we use it anyway. Likewise, the words “omniscience,” which means “all knowing,” “omnipotence,” which means “all powerful,” and “omnipresence,” which means “present everywhere,” are not found in the Bible either. But we use these words to describe the attributes of God. So, to say that the Trinity isn’t true because the word isn’t in the Bible is an invalid argument.
Is there subordination in the Trinity?

There is, apparently, a subordination within the Trinity in regard to order but not substance or essence. We can see that the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third. The Father is not begotten, but the Son is (John 3:16). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 5:26). The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10). The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). The Father creates (Isaiah 44:24), the Son redeems (Gal. 3:13), and the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Rom. 15:16).

This subordination of order does not mean that each of the members of the Godhead are not equal or divine. For example, we see that the Father sent the Son. But this does not mean that the Son is not equal to the Father in essence and divine nature. The Son is equal to the Father in his divinity, but inferior in his humanity. A wife is to be subject to her husband but this does not negate her humanity, essence, or equality. By further analogy, a king and his servant both share human nature. Yet, the king sends the servant to do his will. Jesus said, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38). Of course Jesus already is King, but the analogy shows that because someone is sent, it doesn’t mean they are different than the one who sent him.

Critics of the Trinity will see this subordination as proof that the Trinity is false. They reason that if Jesus were truly God, then He would be completely equal to God the Father in all areas and would not, therefore, be subordinate to the Father in any way. But this objection is not logical. If we look at the analogy of the king and in the servant we certainly would not say that the servant was not human because he was sent. Being sent does not negate sameness in essence. Therefore, the fact that the Son is sent does not mean that He is not divine any more than when my wife sends me to get bread, I am not human.

 

[firstmode]

Is this confusing?

Another important point about the Trinity is that it can be a difficult concept to grasp. But this does not necessitate an argument against its validity. On the contrary, the fact that it is difficult is an argument for its truth. The Bible is the self revelation of an infinite God. Therefore, we are bound to encounter concepts which are difficult to understand – especially when dealing with an incomprehensible God who exists in all places at all times. So, when we view descriptions and attributes of God manifested in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we discover that a completely comprehensible and understandable explanation of God’s essence and nature is not possible. What we have, however, done is derive from the Scripture the truths that we can grasp and combine them into the doctrine we call The Trinity. The Trinity is, to a large extent, a mystery. After all, we are dealing with God Himself.

It is the way of the cults to reduce biblical truth to make God comprehensible and understandable by their minds. To this end, they subject God’s word to their own reasoning and end in error. The following verses are often used to demonstrate that in the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed biblical.

* Matt. 28:18, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
* 1 Cor. 12:4-6, "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons."
* 2 Cor. 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."
* Eph. 4:4-7, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift."
* 1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure."
* Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."

 

[Ben_Masada]

Obviously, when you use the word “bible” (not in the above quote, but in other posts) you are referring only to the Old Testament, right? Christians use the word “bible” to refer to the OT and NT.

My Bible is the very same Bible that it was for Jesus. Does it make sense to you? Jesus did not know any other Bible. We have one Testament, you guys have two, and the Mormons have three. The other day two young Mormon men came to visit me and I was curious for the huge Bible one of them was handling. When I asked about it, they explained to me that the true Bible must contain three covenants: The Old, the New, and the Last. Then, I understood that the Last was the Book of Mormon. Have you ever heard about that?

Ben:

 

[firstmode]

Another Look at The Trinity

The Trinity can be a difficult concept to understand. Some think it is a logical contradiction. Others call it a mystery. Does the Bible teach it? Yes it does, see trinity, but that doesn’t automatically make it easier to comprehend.

The Trinity is defined as one God who exists in three eternal, simultaneous, and distinct persons known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Such a definition may suffice for some, but for others this explanation is insufficient.

Therefore, to help understand the Trinity better, I offer the following analogy that, I think, is hinted at in Rom. 1:20: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.”

Notice that this verse says God’s attributes, power, and nature, can be clearly seen in creation. What does that mean? Should we be able to learn about God’s attributes, power, and nature by looking at what He has made? Apparently, according to the Bible, this is possible.

When a painter paints a picture, what is in him is reflected in the painting he produces. When a sculptor creates a work of art, it is from his heart and mind that the source of the sculpture is born. The work is shaped by his creative ability. The creators of art leave their marks, something that is their own, something that reflects what they are. Is this the same with God? Has God left His fingerprints on creation? Of course He has.
Creation

Another Look at The Trinity (LINK)

 

[firstmode]

Yet another Look at the Trinity: The Plurality Study

The following study is an interesting examination of theophanies. A theophany is an appearance of God. God appears in the Old Testament in different ways: as an angel of the Lord (Acts 7:30-32; Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1), apparently in physical form (Gen. 3:8; Exodus 24:9-11), in visions and dreams (Num. 12:6-8), and in flame (Judges 13:20-21). However, there are verses that say that you can’t see God: Exodus 33:20; John 1:18). If this is so, then is there a contradiction in the Bible? No, there isn’t.

Study the following verses, read them in context in the Bible, and see if you can figure out what is going on. If you can’t, continue reading and you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

These verses are taken from the New American Standard Bible. Please note that “LORD” is equivalent to YHWH, Yahweh, and Jehovah which is the name of God.
Plurality of God:
**[Yet another Look at the Trinity: The Plurality Study (Link)](http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/yet-another-look-trinity-plurality-study)**

 

[firstmode]

It is evident above that God was seen. But, considering the “Can’t-see-God” verses, some would understandably argue that people have not seen God; otherwise, there would be a contradiction in the Bible. A possible explanation for this is that people were seeing visions, or dreams, or the Angel of the LORD (Num. 22:22-26; Judges 13:1-21). But the problem is that the verses cited above do not say vision, dream, or Angel of the LORD. They say that people saw God (Exodus 24:9-11), that God was seen, and that He appeared as God Almighty (Ex. 6:2-3).

At first, this is difficult to understand. God Almighty was seen (Ex. 6:2-3) which means it was not the Angel of the Lord, for an angel is not God Almighty, and at least Moses saw God, not in a vision or dream, as the LORD Himself attests in Num. 12:6-8. If these verses mean what they say, then we naturally assume we have a contradiction. Actually, the contradiction exists in our understanding, not in the Bible–which is always the case with alleged biblical contradictions.

The solution is simple. All you need to do is accept what the Bible says. If the people of the OT were seeing God, the Almighty God, and Jesus said that no one has ever seen the Father (John 6:46), then they were seeing God Almighty, but not the Father. It was someone else in the Godhead. I suggest that they were seeing the Word before He became incarnate. In other words, they were seeing Jesus; compare John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14 above.

If God is a Trinity, then John 1:18 is not a problem either because in John chapter one, John writes about the Word (Jesus) and God (the Father). In verse 14 it says the Word became flesh. In verse 18 it says no one has seen God. Since Jesus is the Word, God then, refers to the Father, and the apparent contradiction is easily resolved, especially when this is examined in the light of Jesus’ words in John 6:46 where He said that no one has ever seen the Father. Therefore, Almighty God was seen, but not the Father. It was Jesus before His incarnation. There is more than one person in the Godhead and the doctrine of the Trinity must be true.

This is an interesting study to present to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Since they deny the Trinity, they have to do a lot of fancy talking to explain away the theophanies. I’ve never yet met a J.W. who could adequately explain these verses.

 

[firstmode]

The Ontological and Economic Trinity

The Trinity is the Christian teaching that God consists of three simultaneous, eternal persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of the three persons are equal in their attributes and nature, but differ in how they relate to the world and to each other. When we say they are equal in nature and attributes, we are speaking of what is called the Ontological Trinity (ontology - study of being and essence). Each of the three persons in the Godhead are divine, have equal attributes (omniscience, omnipresence, holiness, etc.).

When we speak of how they relate to each other and the world, we are speaking of the Economic Trinity (economic - from the Greek oikonomikos which means relating to arrangement of a activities). To be overly simplistic, we could say that the Ontological Trinity deals with what God is and the Economic Trinity deals with what God does.

Within Christianity there is no debate on the Ontological Trinity. It is universally accepted as true that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each divine, holy, unchanging, etc.
The Economic Trinity

The Ontological and Economic Trinity (LINK)

 

[firstmode]

Let’s summarize. We can see that the Father sent the Son (John 6:44; 8:18). The Son came down from heaven not to do his own will (John 6:38). The Father gave the Son (John 3:16), who is the only begotten (John 3:16), to perform the redemptive work (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24). The Father and Son sent the Holy Spirit. The Father, who chose us before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), predestined us (Eph. 1:5; Rom. 8:29), and gave the elect to the Son (John 6:39).

It was not the Son who sent the Father. The Father was not sent to do the will of the Son. The Son did not give the Father, nor was the Father called the only begotten. The Father did not perform the redemptive work. The Holy Spirit did not send the Father and Son. It is not said that the Son or the Holy Spirit chose us, predestined us, and gave us to the Father.

Furthermore, the Father calls Jesus the Son (John 9:35), not the other way around. Jesus is called the Son of Man (Matt. 24:27); the Father is not. Jesus is called the Son of God (Mark 1:1; Luke 1:35); the Father is not called the Son of God. Jesus will sit on the right hand of God (Mark 14:62; Acts 7:56); the Father does not sit on the right hand of the Son. The Father appointed the Son as heir of all things (Heb. 1:1), not the other way around. The Father has fixed the time of the restoring of the kingdom of Israel (Acts 1:7), the Son didn’t. The Holy Spirit gives gifts to the Church (1 Cor. 12:8-11) and produces fruit (Gal. 5:22-23). These are not said of the Father and Son.

So, clearly we see differences in function and roles. The Father sends, directs, and predestines. The Son does the will of the Father, becomes flesh, and accomplishes redemption. The Holy Spirit indwells and sanctifies the Church.

Without these distinctions there can’t be any distinctions between the persons of the Trinity and if there are no distinctions, there is no Trinity.
God does not change

God says, “For I, the Lord, do not change,” (Mal. 3:6). This means that the nature of God is the same from all eternity. Since God is a Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), then God has been a Trinity forever. The Father has always been the Father. The Son has always been the Son. The Holy Spirit has always been the Holy Spirit. This means that the roles expressed by the Father, but not the Son, have always been roles of the Father and not the Son. Likewise, the roles of the Son have always belonged to him and not the Father. And, of course, the roles of the Holy Spirit are not the same roles of the Father or the Son. Remember, we are speaking of roles and function (Economic Trinity), not nature and attributes (Ontological Trinity). Since they have different roles, then the way they relate to each other is also eternal and unchangeable.

Again, without a distinction in rolls in persons within the Trinity, there would be no Trinity.

 

[firstmode]

Economic Subordination

Definitions are incredibly important when discussing theology. This is no exception. Throughout the Christian church there has been an error called subordinationism and, unfortunately, some have confused it with the Economic Trinity. Subordinationism is a heresy concerning the Father and Son – though sometimes the Holy Spirit is included in the discussion. The error has different forms, but it is primarily the teaching that the Son is not eternal and divine (Arian Subordinationism), and is, therefore, not equal to the Father in being and attributes. This is, of course, wrong and it is in contrast to the Economic Trinity which does not deny the equality of nature and attributes.

The misunderstanding often arises from failing to realize that having different roles does not mean a difference in nature. A husband and a wife have different roles in the family (she bears children, he does not, she is the mother, he is the father, etc.), but the fact that they have different roles does not mean they are different in nature. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have different roles, but are all equal in nature and attributes.

Since we see different roles within the Trinity, does this signify a subordination among the three persons? The clear answer seems to be yes. But remember, affirming this is not the same as advocating the heresy of subordinationism. We can say that there is a subordination of the Son to the Father in role (as a father-son relationship would naturally have), but we also say that subordinationism (difference in nature) is wrong. Again, John 6:38, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” From this verse we can conclude, at least, that the Son voluntarily subjected himself to the will of the Father and is doing the Father’s will.

Still, some do not like the idea of any type of subjection among the persons in the Trinity. But, as is said above, if there is no difference in roles among them, there can be no distinction between them. It is only by recognizing and accepting the difference of roles that we can acknowledge the Trinity at all.

 

[firstmode]

Jesus is subjected to the Father.

"For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, 'All things are put in subjection,' it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all," (1 Cor. 15:27-28).

The word for “subjection” and “subjected” in these two verses comes from the Greek hupotasso which occurs 43 times in the New Testament and is rendered as put (5 times), subject (16 times), subjected (7) times, subjecting (1 time), subjection (9 times), submissive (3 times), and submit (2 times).1 For a complete list of each occurrence of the word ‘hupotasso’ so you can see the different senses in which it is used, see All New Testament Verses Listed using the word “Hupotasso”, “subject”.

So, we see that 1 Cor. 15:27 speaks of creation being in subjection to Jesus and then in verse 28, Jesus will be subjected to the Father. The Greek word-form for “will be subjected” is ‘hupotagasetai’ which is the future, passive, indicative. This means that it is a future event where Jesus will be subjected to the Father.

"When this is finally accomplished, Christ will bow the knee to God the Father so that God may be all in all. In so short a passage Paul has traced paradise lost and regained, and the recovery of the submission of all things to God as in the beginning of creation. And it is Christ’s resurrection that guarantees this."2

"Son … himself … subject—not as the creatures are, but as a Son voluntarily subordinate to, though co-equal with, the Father. In the mediatorial kingdom, the Son had been, in a manner, distinct from the Father. Now, His kingdom shall merge in the Father’s, with whom He is one; not that there is thus any derogation from His honor; for the Father Himself wills “that all should honor the Son, as they honor the Father” (Jn 5:22, 23; Heb 1:6). God … all in all—as Christ is all in all (Col 3:11; compare Zec 14:9). Then, and not till then, “all things,” without the least infringement of the divine prerogative, shall be subject to the Son, and the Son subordinate to the Father, while co-equally sharing His glory."3

"In an article in the Westminster Theological Journal, Michael Bauman discusses the different kinds of subordinationism during the Arian controversy. 13 He draws a distinction between what he calls emphatic and economic subordination. The Arian heresy taught emphatic subordination which entails inequality of nature and being. Arians asserted that "a natural inequality existed between the Persons of the Trinity by virtue of their essential differentiation and the temporal derivative character of the Second and Third." This is heretical because it is a subordination of essence or nature. Economic subordination, adopted by the Council of Nicea, means that while all three divine Persons are identical in essence, the Son is economically subordinate to the Father with respect to his eternal mission and function. The Son is no less than the Father, but has voluntarily submitted himself to the will of the Father."4

Objections Answered

1. There is only one will with God. If the Father sent the Son and the Son did not come to do his own will, then is the Son subordinate in that role to the Father? If so, isn’t this a resurrection of the heresy of subordinationism?
   1. This objection fails to recognize the difference between the heresy of subordinationism which teaches a difference in nature among the persons of the Trinity and and subordination which teaches a subordination or roles within the Trinity.
2. Doesn’t the difference of role mean that the Father commands and the Son obeys? But if this is so, how can the Trinity be of one will?
   1. By definition, each person of the Trinity must have his own will, otherwise, they are not persons. The question would then be how does each will relate to the other within the Trinity? The Scriptures don’t tell us that the Son obeyed the Father. We are told that Jesus came down from heaven not to do his own will, but the will of the Father who sent him (John 6:38). It would seem that we could conclude that the Father and the Son either did not have the same will, and/or that the Son voluntarily subjected himself to accomplish the will of the Father. Either way, the members of the Trinity work in perfect harmony in spite of there being three persons.
3. If the Trinity is of one will, how can there be a distinction of wills between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
   1. The question may not be valid. God is a Trinity of three persons and by necessity, each person must have his own will. The Bible does not explain how this inter-Trinitarian relationship of three persons works in order to accomplish the will of the single God. But we see no logical necessity that says the distinction of wills means that the Trinity cannot act with one will.
4. If the Son came down to do the Father’s will and not his own (John 6:38), then does that not imply there are different wills? But, how can that be since God can only have one will?
   1. It would seem that John 6:38 does imply that the father and the son had different wills. We would expect this to be so since the father is not the same person as the son and each person, by definition must have his own will.
   2. Since God is a Trinity of persons, where does it say in Scripture that God (implying a single person), can only have one will?

 

[firstmode]

Early Trinitarian Quotes

There are cult groups (Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Way International, Christadelphians, etc.) who deny the Trinity and state that the doctrine was not mentioned until the 4th Century until after the time of the Council of Nicea (325). This council “was called by Emperor Constantine to deal with the error of Arianism [see page 45] which was threatening the unity of the Christian Church.”

The following quotes show that the doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea.

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.

“O Lord God almighty…I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever” (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Early Trinitarian Quotes (LINK)http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/ontological-and-economic-trinity