Augustine was definitely not a Behavioralist

"And if love is a substance, it is certainly not body, but spirit; and the mind also is not body, but spirit." -Augustine, On The Trinity, 9.2.2

St. Augustine on the Son in the Form of God and the Form of a servant

I am reading St. Augustine On the Holy Trinity. Augustine does not define his terms. But I do like what he says here:

 "The Son of God is both understood to be equal to the Father according to the form of God in which He is, and less than the Father according to the form of a servant which He took; in which form He was found to be not only less than the Father, but also less than the Holy Spirit; and not only so, but less even than Himself...." - St. Augustine, 2.1.2

The God of the Bible is sovereign over all things

Plato in the Timaeus taught that his god made order out of chaos and then he (like Zeus?) made divine children that created mortal man. In this, Plato taught that his god was not in control of all things. Bible declares however that God created the heavens and the earth. He was before all things. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness wasupon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." - Genesis 1

Not only do we have God before all things but also shaping and forming all things in seven literal days.


Gordon H. Clark says, "It is at about this stage that Mackay begins to discuss the relation between the world and God. His view of creation is not clear. 'Chance in the sense of chaos is indeed recognized (Gen. 1:2), but only as something banished from the world by God's creative word' (p. 49). This seems to say that there was a physical world of chaos before God created the cosmos. This is similar to the work of Plato's demiurge. Yet two pages later he says, 'God has conceived and made our world out of nothing.' Then later he says, 'Creation . . . . is not just a single datable event which happened at a particular time; it is rather a continuing relationship of dependence between us and God' (p. 69). How does this fit in with 'Let there be light, and there was light'? How also does a continuing relationship between God and man fit in with 'And on the seventh day God ended his work . . . and rested . . . from all his work which he had made'? Has not Mackay again contradicted himself? That the world is now upheld by the power of God is undeniable; but creation out of nothing must be instantaneous." - Beahaviorism and Christianity, Pg. 93

God is one and three in different senses

Van Til has said in his writings that Scripture is made up of paradoxes. One instance where he affirms this diabolical teaching is founs in his doctrine of what he would say is the Trinitarian view. Van Til says that God is one and three in the same sense. God is, for Van Til, one person and three persons at the same time. How he is able to say such things and with a straight face confounds me. However, the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity doesnt purport such nonsense. God is one and three in two different senses. God is one in essence but three in Persons. These things are not paradoxical. God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent in essence but three in persons. What God is the three persons is. The three are co-eternal but not confused or confounded.

God is simple or one in essence

"Therefore, let such as love sobriety, and will be contented with the measure of faith, briefly attend to what is useful to be known, which is, that, when we profess to believe in one God, the word God denotes a single and simple essence, in which we comprehend three Persons, or hypostases; and that, therefore, whenever the word God is used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit are intended as much as the Father; but when the Son is associated with the Father, that introduces the reciprocal relation of one to the other; and thus we distinguish between the Persons." - John Calvin, The Institutes, 1. 8. 20. Pg. 136

"The nature of God is his most lively and most perfect essence. The perfection of the nature of God is his absolute constitution by the which he is wholly complete within himself. (Exodus 3:14) . . . . (Acts 17:24,25) . . . . The perfection of his nature is either simpleness, or the infiniteness thereof. The simpleness of his nature is that by which he is void of all logical relation. He hath not in him subject or adjunct. (John 5:26) . . . . Conferred with John 14:6 . . . . (1 John 1:7) . . . . Conferred with 1 John 1:5 . . . . Hence it is manifest that to have life and to be life, to be in light and to be light, in God are all one. Neither is God subject to generality or speciality, whole or parts, matter or that which is made of matter, for so there should be in God divera things, and one more perfect than another. Therefore, whatsoever is in God is his essence, and all that he is, he is by essence. The saying of Augustine in his sixth book and fourth chapter of The Trinity, is fit to prove this, 'In God (saith he) to be, and to be just and mighty are all one: but in the mind of man it is not all one to be, and to be mighty or just: for the mind may be destitute of these virtues, and yet a mind.' Hence it is manifest that the nature of God is immutable and spiritual." - William Perkins, The Golden Chain, pg. 2

Christ professes to be God

In Matthew 4:7 it is said that Jesus is being tempted by Satan to fall off the cliff. The response of Jesus shows not only that he relied and correctly applied the word of God; but, that He Himself is God in the flesh - Emmanuel - God with us.

Jesus is God in the flesh

In John 10,

22And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. 24Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30I and my Father are one.

31Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

 Jesus was in fact calling himself God when he quoted Psalm 82. Jesus sits amongst the mighty and judges among them.

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Shedd's view presents changes in the Trinity?

"Shedd's material begins on page 278 of volume two. There he says, 'The God-man was a new person.' since Shedd will deny that the man Jesus was a person, this assertion implies certain changes and alterations in the Second Person of the Trinity. Indeed he is a very specific, for on page 281 he adds, 'The Trinity itself is not altered or modified by the Incarnation. Only the Second Person is modified.' Coming from an intelligent and well-educated Christian, this is amazing. The Second Person of the Trinity is as immutable as the other two. Furthermore, if the Second Person suffered alteration, it would modify the Trinity as whole. The Trinity, if I may use the language, is a complex of three Persons. Clearly if one changes, the complex changes. It will have different constituents. Certainly this violates the basic Christian doctrine and destroys all confidence in what may be said of the Incarnation." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 47


John Gill kind of reiterates this fact of the incarnation:


"Nor is the unchangeableness of the divine nature to be disproved by the incarnation of Christ; for though he, a divine Person, possessed of the divine nature, was made flesh, or became man; the divine nature in him was not changed into the human nature, nor the human nature into the divine, nor a third nature made out of them both; was this the case, the divine nature would have been changeable; but so it was not; for as it has been commonly said, 'Christ remained what he was, and assumed what he was not;' and what he assumed added nothing to his divine person; he was only manifested in the flesh; he neither received any perfection, nor imperfection, from the human nature; though that received dignity and honour by its union to him, and was adorned with the gifts and graces of the Spirit without measure, and is now advanced at the right hand of God." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 37

The incarnation did not change the Son of God. Nothing was added to Him when he assumed the nature of man.

On the Trinity

The doctrine of the Holy trinity simply stated is that God is one in essence but three in person. These persons are completely God, coeternal, coexisting. The Father never became the Father nor did the Son ever become the Son likewise the Spirit... Neither of them became what or who they are as the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses teaches.


17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. -2 Corinthians 3


To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. - Romans 9

What does the Scripture mean?

"Now, though heretics rail at the word person, or some morose and obstinate men clamorously refuse to admit a name of human invention; since they cannot make us assert that there are three, each of whom is entirely God, nor yet that there are more gods than one, how very unreasonable is it to reprobate words which express nothing but what is testified and recorded in the Scriptures! It were better, say they, to restrain not only our thoughts, but our expressions also, within the limits of the Scripture, than to introduce exotic words, which may generate future dissensions and disputes, for thus we weary ourselves with verbal controversies; thus the truth is lost in altercation; thus charity expires in odious contention. If they call every word exotic, which cannot be found in the Scriptures in so many syllables, they impose on us a law which is very unreasonable, and which condemns all interpretation, but what is composed of detached texts of Scripture connected together. But if by exotic they mean that which is curiously contrived, and superstitiously defended, which tends to contention more than to edification, the use of which is either unseasonable or unprofitable, which offends pious ears with its harshness, and seduces person from the simplicity of the Divine word, I most cordially embrace their modest opinion. For I think that we ought to speak of God with the same religious caution, which should govern our thoughts of him, since all thoughts that we entertain concerning him merely from ourselves, are foolish, and all our expressions absurd. But there is a proper medium to be observed we should seek in the Scriptures a certain rule, both for thinking and for speaking by which we may regulate all the thoughts of our minds, and all the words of our mouths. But what forbids our expressing in plainer words, those things which, in the Scriptures, are, to our understanding, intricate and obscure, provided our expressions religiously and faithfully convey the true sense of the Scripture, and are used with modest caution, and not without sufficient occasion? Of this, examples sufficiently numerous are not wanting. But, when it shall have been proved, that the Church was absolutely necessitated to use the terms Trinity and Persons, if any one then censures the novelty of the words may he not be justly considered as offended at the light of the truth? As having no other cause of censure, but that the truth is explained and elucidated?" -John Calvin, The Institutes, I. XIII. III. (Emphasis is mine)




"It does not appear that those men who are so strenuous for the use of Scripture phrases only in articles of religion, have a greater value for the Scriptures than others; nay, not so much; for if we are to form a judgment of them by their sermons and writings, one would think they never read the Scriptures at all, or very little, since they make such an infrequent use of them; you shall scarcely hear a passage of Scripture quoted by them in a sermon, or produced by them in their writings; more frequently Seneca, Cicero, and others; and it looks as if they thought it very unpolite, and what might serve to disgrace their more refined writings, to fill their performances and the Socinians more lately, carry on their cause, and endeavor to support it by making use of unscriptural words and phrases; and therefore it is not with a very good grace that such men, or those of the same cast with them, object to the use of words and phrases not syllabically expressed in Scripture; and the rather since the Arians were the first that began to make use of unscriptural phrases, as Athanasius affirms." - John Gill, Introduction to Divinity of God, Pg. xxix

A person is what he thinks

"Aside from whatever objections will be immediately raised against this uncommon conclusions, theologians will complain that this reduces the Trinity to one Person because, being omniscient, they all have, or are, the same complex. This objection is based on a blindness toward certain definite Scriptural information. I am not at the moment referring only to the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit. I am referring to the complex of truths that form the Three Persons. Though they are equally omniscient, they do not all know the same truths. Neither the complex of truths we call the Father nor those we call the Spirit has the proposition, 'I was incarnated.' This proposition occurs only in the Son's complex. Other examples are implied. The Father cannot say, 'I walked from Jerusalem to Jericho.' Nor can the Spirit say, 'I begot the Son.' Hence the Godhead consists of three Persons, each omniscient without having precisely the same content. If this be so, no difficulty can arise as to the distinctiveness of human persons. Each one is an individual complex. Each one is his mind or soul. Whether the propositions be true or false, a person is the propositions he thinks. I hope that some think substance to be a subterfuge." -Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 54-55

The Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son

"As for Romans 8:26, 27 we see that the Spirit helps us by teaching us how to pray. He himself also prays for us, and this indicates the address of one person to another. The Spirit is not  the Father: He speaks to the Father. The point is important because someone, willing to grant that the Spirit is personal, may wish to identify the Spirit with the Father so as to have only one person. This verse, along with others, keeps the two persons distinct." - Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit, Pg. 18

God is sufficient in and of Himself

"God is a knowing God. He is not a cold, abstract power, but he is the absolute, perfectly self conscious, infinite being, who is in himself the implication of all perfections. When we say that he is a knowing God, we mean that he is the self-sufficient one even in his knowledge. He has no need of anyone, of any being outside of himself, to be a knowing God. He is not in need of an object of knowledge outside of his own infinite fullness. In himself he is subject and object of all knowledge. he is the perfect subject as well as the infinitely perfect object of his own knowledge. When we say that God is the principle of all knowledge of God, we mean thereby that in the deepest sense he is also the principle of all knowledge of him that is found in the creature." - Herman Hoeksema in Reformed Dogmatics

God speaks only truth

"From eternity to eternity, God expresses the entire fullness of his infinite mind and hears his own word. It is undoubtedly this truth that underlies the conception of the divine Wisdom in the Old Testament and the divine Word (Logos) in the New Testament. The Word which God addresses to himself from eternity to eternity is the Son, who is always 'with God' and essentially is God (John 1:1). Now it pleased God according to his eternal good pleasure to speak concerning himself outside of himself, to let his word proceed outside of himself (ad extra). It should be emphasized that this is not an act of necessity, but of sovereignty, of sovereign freedom, determined by his sovereign eternal counsel." - Herman Hoeksema in Reformed Dogmatics

The Spirit's personality

". . . The baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19: '. . . baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' If we wished to press the matter, we could point out that though the word name occurs only once, the grammatical construction indicates three names: not the name of Father, Son, and Spirit, but the name of the Father and [the name] of the Son, and [the name] of the Holy Ghost. The three of's indicates three names. If, however, grammar is no...t one's favorite subject, the major point is that the three names are in one category. If the Father is a person, and if the Son is a person, how could anything impersonal be the thrid member? No one with any intelligence would write, 'In the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Father's power, influence, or mentality.'" - Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit

The Spirit who makes doctors of his Word

"But be assured that no man can make a Doctor of Holy Scripture except the Holy Spirit from heaven. As Christ says in John 6:[45], 'They must all be taught by God himself.' Now the Holy Spirit does not ask for red or brown birettas or other decorations. Nor does he ask whether a person is young or old, lay or cleric, monk or secular, unmarried or married. In fact, in ancient times he actually spoke through an ass against the prophet who was riding it [Num. 22:28]. Would to God that we were worthy to have such doctors given to us, regardless of whether they were lay or cleric, married or single! They now try to force the Holy Spirit into pope, bishops, and doctors, although there is not the slightest sign or indication whatever that he is in them." Martin Luther, To the Christian Nobility

Gordon Clark on the Trinity

"One substance or essence means that neither the Father nor the Son is an 'essence.' Each is a 'person.' Only the Trinity as such is an 'essence.' The confusion here and in the footnote above disappears, or at least is alleviated, by using the word definition instead of essence; and also by remembering that the Son has an 'essence' that is different from the 'essence' of the Father, but which in both cases contains the 'essence' of Deity. The definition of Deity does not define the Son; nor can the definition of the Son apply to Deity. A succulent does not have all the qualities of a cactus, but the latter has all of the characteristics of the former. That is to say, the Trinity or Godhead, absolutely and as such, does not have the characteristics of any one Person, absolutely and as such; but each Person has all the predicates of Deity. Note that the word here is Deity, not Father." - Gordon Clark, The Trinity

What the Bible says:

There are a few misconceptions the Arminian heretics seem to carry. First, God is one. This means that God's sovereignty does not override his other attributes but qualifies them. Also it means that God who is the sufficient one is in and of Himself first and foremost these qualities within Himself as the divine trinity. What I mean is that what God does outside of Himself is based upon who He is inside of Himself.  (Therefore I am not focusing too much on God's sovereignty as you are accusing me of missing the forest for the trees - this I will accuse you all of doing).

 

Romans 5:8 speaks of us (the Church, The elect, called out ones). As for John 1:29 - you must take Scripture as a whole and not impute meaning on a word that is foreign to the whole of Scripture. John is a theologian. When John says world he means that Christ is given to the elect who are dispersed not only amongst the Jews, but also the Gentiles. This is what made the "Love" of God so significant that no longer is it Jew and Gentile. This is the mystery revealed according to Paul.

 

The word "ALL" is an elastic term. It does not have to mean all people who ever existed universally, but it can also mean all the people who are part of a group. Say you have a class of students in a particular class the teacher ask - ok are we all here?

 

As for John 3:18 - the antithesis of this is given in John 3:16. Fortunately John limits the atonement even here to those who do believe. So who is it that God loves, who God gave the atonement to? those who do believe (who we later know as the Elect of God, the Sheep). The fact that John says these men are already condemned gives credence to the fact that God did not love these men at all.

 

Romans 6:23 - shows us the fact that Immortality is conditioned upon those being in Christ alone (Covenant language right here).

 

God I said sovereignly uses secondary causes (in a sense) to bring about His purposes. What this means is that God the immediate actor who controls all things (He alone has free will). But even if He controls all things directly, he is still not to be one who is responsible for the actions themselves. For one thing it is not God who does the acts. These men whom God causes to do the act does them. Unfortunately the evil act is a sign of God's hardening, whereas the good act (in some cases) is a sign of softening - like for the elect of God whom God softens.

 

The Gospel is proclaimed Christ alone did in fact in an act of imputation (not from us - but from God) took upon Himself the sins of His people. It is because Christ died for His people that by the grace of God these people are made new and given light to see. The Gospel is about God's Justice.

John 1:1 and The Deity of Christ

"Some have claimed that 'the Word was God' merely identifies Jesus as a god rather than identifying Jesus as God, because the Greek word for God, Theos, is not preceded by a definite article. However, in Greek grammar, Colwell's Rule indicatesthat the translation 'a god' is not required, for lack of an article does not necessarilyindicate indefiniteness ('a god') but rather specifies that a given term ('God') is the predicate nominative of a definite subject ('The Word'). This means that the context must determine the meaning of Theos here, and the context indicates that this 'God' that John is talking about ('the Word') is the one true God who created all things . . . "