What!? Not Talk About the Trinity ?

Does the fact God use "We" in Genesis mean there has to be a Trinity?
I believe there could be other reasons.
Some say He could have been talking to the angels, and He may have, but I don't think this was the case.
The usage of "We" has been commonly used through out history. It is called "the plural of majesty", or "plural of emphasis".
Many Hebrew scholars think this is what is meant in Genesis 1:26.

“Given at our palace,” “It is our pleasure,” are common expressions of kings in their proclamations.
The king of France says, “We, Charles the tenth.” The king of Spain says, “We, Ferdinand the seventh.” The Emperor of Russia says “We, Alexander,” or “We, Nicholas”.

There are examples of the plural of majesty in the bible.

Ezra 4:17-18
The king sent an answer:

To Rehum the commander, to Shimshai the scribe, to the rest of their companions who dwell in Samaria, and to the remainder beyond the River:

Peace, and so forth.

18 The letter which you sent to( us ) has been clearly read before me.
NKJV

So, we don't have to immediately jump on the Trinity bandwagon every time we hear a verse like this.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The good works deal, isn't that an attempt to bribe your god? I would think an omniscient being would see through that to the motivation behind it. Of course I am talking theoretically here.

I believe you are correct, relying on good works to get into God's grace actually causes
you to lose out on God's grace. The grace of God is given to us after that we would do
good works, because that is how we should be living not because we are attempting get
in good with God. The grace of God is so good we could never earn it on our own, which
is why it is a gift, but some cannot handle a gift they feel the need to earn it.

Originally posted by Rajk999
A couple points you should consider:

1. Where did you get the idea that those who do good works are on their own? God is with those people. God is working through those people. God is IN THOSE PEOPLE. You think Christians have a monopoly on God .. thats your problem.

2. For Jesus Christ good works are enough. Who are you to say otherwise. Why do yo ...[text shortened]... son why Christians are the most crooked, greedy, selfish, worldly stingy religion on the planet.

Where did I get the idea that those who do good works are on their own, scripture.
Those who do not believe cannot please God, as pointed out by the book of John.
Those that do not have God's Spirit are not His, as pointed out by several books.
The scripture is clear on those two points yet you refuse to except that truth.

Stop lying, I have never said that we can go on sinning after we become a Christian those
are your words not mine. I have been saying we need to live for the Lord, walking in His
Spirit if you are doing that living a life of sin is not your goal or objective.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Where did I get the idea that those who do good works are on their own, scripture.
Those who do not believe cannot please God, as pointed out by the book of John.
Those that do not have God's Spirit are not His, as pointed out by several books.
The scripture is clear on those two points yet you refuse to except that truth.

Stop lying, I have never sai ...[text shortened]... walking in His
Spirit if you are doing that living a life of sin is not your goal or objective.

Well, hang on a moment. You say 'Those who do not believe cannot please God and are not His' but what about God's relationship with the pagan Cyrus (who he calls “My anointed” - There is no textual evidence Cyrus worshiped Yahweh or dropped his national gods).

“This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him . . . ‘I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me’” (Isaiah 45:1, 4). God says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please” (Isaiah 44:28).

So here we have a non believer that does not 'acknowledge' God but nonetheless is His agent and will please him in his accomplishments.

Checkmate. 😉

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Well, hang on a moment. You say 'Those who do not believe cannot please God and are not His' but what about God's relationship with the pagan Cyrus (who he calls “My anointed” - There is no textual evidence Cyrus worshiped Yahweh or dropped his national gods).

“This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of ...[text shortened]... God but nonetheless is His agent and will please him in his accomplishments.

Checkmate. 😉

This was a prophecy 400 years before the event. God can accomplish His will with anyone.
Besides, the bible does not say if Cyrus believed after the prophecy was read to him.
But it does not matter if he did or did not. The point is, God foretold this event and has nothing to do with Cyrus pleasing God or not.

The purpose of Jesus Christ, or one of the reasons, was because mankind was in a rut.
There was no way someone could be good enough to please God through good works.
The only way to please God was to "trust" Him.
Hebrews 11 is all about faith which can and should be rendered "trust".
Jesus Christ paid for the works part, now we just trust in His works on our behalf.
Trust does not just come. "FMF has a good point in saying how does one believe in something he cannot."
We are accustomed to believing what we see. Faith or trust comes by looking at character, faithfulness, trusting God has these characteristics.

“trust.” The Greek is pistis πίστις, a noun. In both ancient secular Greek and in the Bible pistis means “confidence, trust, assurance.” When the Greek New Testament was translated into Latin, fides was the natural choice as a translation of pistis, because fides means “trust, confidence, reliance, belief.” As the English language developed, our English word “faith” came from the Latin word fides. There should be nothing mysterious about pistis, fides, or “faith.” We know what trust is. Merriam-Webster defines it as “assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something.”

It needs to be clearly understood that the ancient and biblical definition of pistis differs from the modern definition of “faith.” If both pistis and fides mean “trust,” how did “faith” come to be defined in our modern culture as “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition)? The actual historical process is long and tedious, but the concept is simple. The Church asked people to trust doctrines that were neither logical nor clearly backed up by Scripture. People were asked to accept “by faith” doctrines for which there was no biblical support. Over time, belief in something for which there is no proof became the most accepted definition of “faith.” This is harmful because people then import that made-up definition of “faith” back into the Bible, although that is not what “faith” means when used in the Bible.

If we put the biblical definition of faith into Hebrews 11:1, and say, “Trust is firm confidence in things hoped for,” the sentence makes perfect sense. Christians should have trust in God’s promises about salvation and everlasting life in new and wonderful bodies because we trust the God who made those promises. Furthermore, based on our trust of God, we should have a firm confidence in those things that we hope for daily.

http://www.revisedenglishversion.com/commentary/Hebrews/11

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Well, hang on a moment. You say 'Those who do not believe cannot please God and are not His' but what about God's relationship with the pagan Cyrus (who he calls “My anointed” - There is no textual evidence Cyrus worshiped Yahweh or dropped his national gods).

“This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of ...[text shortened]... God but nonetheless is His agent and will please him in his accomplishments.

Checkmate. 😉

The whole of creation is God's! The pagan Cyrus can be anointed by God, even a donkey
was anointed by God to rebuke Balaam. Which is why we should not puff ourselves up if
God chooses to use us, He could use an ass for the same thing, and some times when
He uses one of us He is using an ass I'm sorry to say.

You can also look in the NT at Caiaphas who helped get Jesus killed, he was used by
God too.

The point is that God looks on our hearts, while we look at the flesh, the works, God does
see what is real and we assume. Which is why I think the work debate is so scary, we are
going to be doing good works, but it is a cart before the horse type of thing. We need God
and some here reject that idea, they think by doing good we can be good enough.

Always check it maybe mate, this time not so much. 🙂

John 11
49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.



Numbers 22
21 Balaam got up in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the Moabite officials. 22 But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the Lord stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. 23 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand, it turned off the road into a field. Balaam beat it to get it back on the road.

24 Then the angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path through the vineyards, with walls on both sides. 25 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it pressed close to the wall, crushing Balaam’s foot against it. So he beat the donkey again.

26 Then the angel of the Lord moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left. 27 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat it with his staff. 28 Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”

29 Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”

30 The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”

“No,” he said.

31 Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.

32 The angel of the Lord asked him, “Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me.[a] 33 The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If it had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared it.”

34 Balaam said to the angel of the Lord, “I have sinned. I did not realize you were standing in the road to oppose me. Now if you are displeased, I will go back.”

Originally posted by checkbaiter
This was a prophecy 400 years before the event. God can accomplish His will with anyone.
Besides, the bible does not say if Cyrus believed after the prophecy was read to him.
But it does not matter if he did or did not. The point is, God foretold this event and has nothing to do with Cyrus pleasing God or not.

Kelly said 'those who do not believe cannot please God, as pointed out by the book of John.'

Prophecy or not, Cyrus (who did 'not' acknowledge God) was not only to be God's anointed shepherd, he would also accomplish things that would please God. - Does this not contradict Kelly's above assertion?

Cyrus did not believe, and yet was able to please God. From this it can surely be extrapolated that any modern atheist can please God by accomplishing things he approves of, despite his lack of faith?

Originally posted by KellyJay
The whole of creation is God's! The pagan Cyrus can be anointed by God, even a donkey
was anointed by God to rebuke Balaam. Which is why we should not puff ourselves up if
God chooses to use us, He could use an ass for the same thing, and some times when
He uses one of us He is using an ass I'm sorry to say.

You can also look in the NT at Caiaphas who ...[text shortened]... realize you were standing in the road to oppose me. Now if you are displeased, I will go back.”

Balaam was remarkably unimpressed by his talking donkey.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Kelly said 'those who do not believe cannot please God, as pointed out by the book of John.'

Prophecy or not, Cyrus (who did 'not' acknowledge God) was not only to be God's anointed shepherd, he would also accomplish things that would please God. - Does this not contradict Kelly's above assertion?

Cyrus did not believe, and yet was able to plea ...[text shortened]... modern atheist can please God by accomplishing things he approves of, despite his lack of faith?

God promises to work all things to the good that love God and are called according to
God's purposes. Things can be done by people and things that do not please me yet
accomplish something I find pleasing. Are you suggesting this some how means I have
to like all things that occur, even if I'm not happy about how they fell out?

What exactly are you saying?

Another example of this I'd use would be in the OT in the book of Genesis Joseph
brothers sold him into slavery, he was not happy about that yet God used it and turned it
into a good thing that saved his people. God can use the worst things and make
something good of it, that would include people that do not believe in him.

4 Then Joseph said to his brothers, “Come close to me.” When they had done so, he said, “I am your brother Joseph, the one you sold into Egypt! 5 And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you. 6 For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will be no plowing and reaping. 7 But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.

8 “So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt. 9 Now hurry back to my father and say to him, ‘This is what your son Joseph says: God has made me lord of all Egypt. Come down to me; don’t delay. 10 You shall live in the region of Goshen and be near me—you, your children and grandchildren, your flocks and herds, and all you have. 11 I will provide for you there, because five years of famine are still to come. Otherwise you and your household and all who belong to you will become destitute.’

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Balaam was remarkably unimpressed by his talking donkey.

🙂 He did like that his head was not split up by an angel that was about to part his hair
with a sword.

Originally posted by KellyJay
God promises to work all things to the good that love God and are called according to
God's purposes. Things can be done by people and things that do not please me yet
accomplish something I find pleasing. Are you suggesting this some how means I have
to like all things that occur, even if I'm not happy about how they fell out?

What exactly are you sa ...[text shortened]... till to come. Otherwise you and your household and all who belong to you will become destitute.’

'What exactly are you saying?'

🙂 I am challenging your assertion than unbelievers can not please God. Cyrus was an unbeliever and yet managed to do so.

You must therefore either reconsider your assertion or dispute the fact that Cyrus pleased God while being an unbeliever.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Well, hang on a moment. You say 'Those who do not believe cannot please God and are not His' but what about God's relationship with the pagan Cyrus (who he calls “My anointed” - There is no textual evidence Cyrus worshiped Yahweh or dropped his national gods).

“This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of ...[text shortened]... God but nonetheless is His agent and will please him in his accomplishments.

Checkmate. 😉

Good point .. Im waiting to see KJ wriggle out of this one 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have never said that we can go on sinning after we become a Christian ...

I have never said that you said that. Here is what I said and see if you can take your time and read and follow.

If you tell people that good works and living righteously is hopeless or is not good enough, then that is encouraging them continue in evil works and living unrighteously.

You cannot doubt the fact that Jesus never once told anyone that their good works was not good enough. Therefore your doctrine is contrary to Jesus.

Originally posted by checkbaiter

Does the fact God use "We" in Genesis mean there has to be a Trinity?

"We" is not used in Genesis. You should make sure you read verses in the Bible before commenting on them.

I believe there could be other reasons.

I sonship referred to "Us"{/b] which is used by God three times in [b]Genesis.

Chapter 1, chapter 4, and chapter 11.

Of course there COULD be other reasons why God said "Us". The question is "Which is the best reason to think why ?"

Some say He could have been talking to the angels, and He may have, but I don't think this was the case.

I agree with you. So we can probably eliminate that reason for consideration.

Nowhere are we told angels assisted in making man.
Nowhere are we told an angel is the image of God.

But we are told BOTH - the Son is involve in the creation of man and also in being the image of the invisible God.

The usage of "We" has been commonly used through out history. It is called "the plural of majesty", or "plural of emphasis".

Again, "We" is not used in Genesis.

Now in John 14:23 the divine "We" is used to explicitly refer to the Father and the Son.

Many Hebrew scholars think this is what is meant in Genesis 1:26.

Could you possibly name three ? Just curious. Its not mandatory.

I don't think a palace majestic we is a good reason.

1.) God speaks from His authoritative throne hundreds and hundreds of times in the Bible. Why should there only be these few sparse instances of Him referring to all His hosts as "Us" ?

Rather these KEY places touch on something of His eternal plan involving His triune being.

2.) If the majestic "Us" is the God speaking of His will to do things (including all the heavenly hosts) I don't see why it could not be used in any other the other creative acts mentioned in Genesis 1.

How come then there is no "Let Us make light" or "Let Us make the dry land appear" or "Let Us separate the day from the night" or "Let Us make herbs, plants, trees, etc." ?

In chapter one the divine "Us" is reserved for the making of man who concerning it says God created man in His own image. It is no accident then that we are told this image of God is Christ.

This calls for the recognition that God is exceedingly purposeful in His creating work. We are not told about this image of God at that time. But at a most crucial time in His economy we are told that Christ the Lord and Savior is the image of the invisible God.

3.) God says "Who was with Me?" is His creating of all things. (Isaiah 44:24)

Darby Bible Translation
Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb: I [am] Jehovah, the maker of all things; who alone stretched out the heavens, who did spread forth the earth by myself;

English Revised Version
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb: I am the LORD, that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth; who is with me?

The angels may have been present when God did His creating of man. But no credit is given to them in His act of creation. I don't see why He would make an exception in the creating of the crown of creation - man.

Tell me Checkbaiter, why would God make an exception and use a royal we or us in this case ?

“Given at our palace,” “It is our pleasure,” are common expressions of kings in their proclamations.
The king of France says, “We, Charles the tenth.” The king of Spain says, “We, Ferdinand the seventh.” The Emperor of Russia says “We, Alexander,” or “We, Nicholas”.

I am willing to look into this. But that God takes His cues from Charles the tenth or a Russian emperor or a Spanish monarch seems weird.

It is more likely that "Christianized" civilization, enfluenced by the Hebrew Scriptures translated to Latin or English, would have imitators of the God of the Bible rather than the other way around.

But I may get back to you on your "royal we" specimens above.

There are examples of the plural of majesty in the bible.

Below is just a small sample of points from website refuting the Royal We argument used by anti trinitarians and Unitarians

There are no examples in the either the Old or New Testament of Plural of Majesty. At the end of this document, we refute 5 texts that anti-Trinitarian say contain Plural of Majesty.
The earliest we find this poetic device being used in about the 4th century during the Byzantine era.
Other cultures that lived during the time of Moses never used the plural "Elohim", the way the Bible does, but instead used the simple singular "el". This nicely silences two different sets of heretics: First, it silences the Bible trashing liberals, who falsely claim the plural "elohim" is a carry over from a previous polytheistic origin of Judaism. Second, it silences the anti-Trinitarians, who falsely claim "plural of majesty" was widespread in all cultures in history.
The "Royal We" was made most famous by Queen Victoria when a vulgar joke was told in her presence. When she replied, "we are not amused", she clearly intended to speak on behalf of the other ladies whom she knew were equally offended.

For more reading -

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-plural-of-majesty-pluralis-majestaticus-royal-we.htm

sonship here on gswilm's PC.