The Trinity

[Karen]

[alecto]

I'm not convinced that the Trinity exists the way it is imagined by the church, and it is un-Biblical (which does not necessarily make it incorrect), and debating about it may be the source of actual intentional tampering with the Bible. (See ) It is also not defended using scripture in ways that would seem obvious to a person versed in ancient texts. For example, the first line of Genesis reads literally "in the beginning, the gods were creating the heavens and the earth" but I have never seen or heard Trinitarians mention that Trinity is a solution to the appearance of multiple gods.

Nevertheless, there are perfectly good ways to imagine how a single God could appear to us as separate beings. The best use ideas from quantum mechanics or from Hinduism, which both deal with objects having multiple "projections", but I will use dimension and geometry which is more familiar. Imagine if you will a cone. If we are stuck only able to view the cone from the side or from below, it will appear to be a two-dimensional triangle or circle - two different simple figures. When viewing God we are in the place of the person who is stuck - our limited psychology cannot view God in the entire. Jesus, the Spirit, and the Father are four dimensional (secular) relatively simple representations of an extratemporal being who is invisible to us. Christian and Jewish mystics (who I believe get this idea better than most) use the tetragrammaton IHVH to refer to the eternal being, the One. Thus God is a single being but appears to be three.

But this may be a fantasy. The Bible contains hundreds of references to relationship terms (son, father, etc) that imply separateness. Some ancients considered ordinary children to be of one substance with their fathers through the sperm, etc. The whole business is cluttered with misunderstandings about substance and position and nature. No first century Christians ever mentioned the Trinity. It is a theoretical construct.

[contra mundum]

The two best examinations--I do not say explanations, because they are not and do not pretend to be--of the Trinity I have seen are Jonathan Edwards's Essay on the Trinity (which is available at www.ccel.org) and the chapter "Good Infection" in Mere Christianity. Both lean heavily on Augustine's view that the Son is divine manifestation of the Father's perfect idea of himself, which he has always had, and the Spirit proceeds eternally from the love which has always existed between the Father and Son. So our Eastern Orthodox friends would likely take exception to at least some, and perhaps most, of what Edwards and Lewis say about the Trinity. I, however, find their expositions both conceptually helpful and consistent with the scriptures.

[Adam]

[*~Diamond in the Rough~*]

First, I apologize if some of this is repeated as I do not have time to read over the entirety of everyone's posts.

One the most difficult things about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it. God is infinitely greater than we are, therefore we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, it doesn't mean it is not true or not based on the teachings of the Bible.

The word "Trinity" is not used in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God, the fact that there are 3 coexistent, co-eternal persons that make up God. This is NOT in any way suggesting 3 Gods. The Trinity is 1 God made up of 3 persons. The word grandfather is not used in the Bible either. Yet, we know there were grandfathers in the Bible. Abraham was the grandfather of Jacob. So don't get hung up on the term "Trinity" itself. The importance is that the concept that is REPRESENTED by the word "Trinity" does exist in Scripture.

None of the popular illustrations are completely accurate descriptions of the Trinity. The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not parts of God, each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better but still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration. Instead of focusing on the Trinity, try to focus on the fact of God's greatness and infinitely higher nature than our own. "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?"(Romans 11:33-34)

1) There is ONE God ( Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5.)

2)The Trinity consists of three Persons: Genesis 1:1; 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; 48:16; 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17; Matt 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14. In the passages in the Old Testament, a knowledge of Hebrew is helpful. In Genesis 1:1, the plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for "us" is used. That "Elohim" and "us" refer to more than two is WITHOUT question. In English, you only have two forms, singular and plural. In Hebrew, you have three forms: singular, dual, and plural. Dual is for two ONLY. In Hebrew, the dual form is used for things that come in pairs like eyes, ears, and hands. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun "us" are plural forms - definitely more than two - and must be referring to three or more (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages: In the Old Testament, "LORD" is distinguished from "Lord" (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The "LORD" has a "Son" (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). Spirit is distinguished from the "LORD" (Numbers 27:18) and from "God" (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, John 14:16-17 is where Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit. This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit.

4) The subordination within the Trinity: Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship, and does not deny the deity of any person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God.

5) The tasks of the individual members of the Trinity: The Father is the ultimate source or cause of: 1) the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); 2) divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); 3) salvation (John 3:16-17); and 4) Jesus' human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father INITIATES all of these things.

The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: 1) the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); 2) divine revelation (John 1:1; Matthew 11:27; John 16:12-15; Revelation 1:1); and 3) salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.

The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: 1) creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); 2) divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); 3) salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and 4) Jesus' works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Still...it is important to remember that we are not saved by having perfect doctrine. We are saved by trusting in our perfect Savior (John 3:16-"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life").

[Adam]

::4) The subordination within the Trinity: Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship, and does not deny the deity of any person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God.

This I found to be very strange. One of the divisive issues between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church was whether certain Trinitarian doctrine as expressed in the Creeds gave the mere impression that it was subordinating the Spirit to the Father and the Son; both sides agreed, however, that this subordination would be error.

Perhaps you use the word subordination with a different meaning, and certainly if you confess a different creed or are a member of a distinct denomination then you are not automatically wrong just because you depart from Orthodoxy, but I wanted to note, at the very least, that if you mean this word as you do traditionally, that it is a clear departure from Orthodoxy, and, I would assert with certainty, a violation of the common Creeds.

[Karen]

Thanks, Adam, I was just going to ask about that, as the word 'subordination' sent up a red flag for me. And I'm digesting your earlier post. :)

[postodave]

(A distinction is sometimes made between ontological and functional subordination. I'm not sure these are the best terms but the idea is that the Son is not subordinate in being less God than the Father but is subordinate in his activities in creation, and that somehow there is an eternal subordination of function apart from creation - apparently Bath held this view. There is something similar in Karl Rahner's writing on the trinity which is an interesting combination of Eastern and Western ideas. Rahner agrees with the Eastern writers that the word God means the Father not the Godhead or nature that is common to the persons, but sees a much closer relationship, in fact an identity, between immanent and ontological trinity; which the Eastern Church would deny)

I apologise for the bracketed comment above. Rather than getting technical I want to point out an analogy that really does work. This is the one derived from the writing of Dorothy sayers. What I give below is my version of this which is a bit influenced by Rahner:

Imagine you are writing a letter. The actual letter the thing which is on paper exists concretely in a particular place, and this corresponds to the incarnate Son. But this incarnation is the expression of an idea which existed before ever you put pen to paper: the idea you were trying to express corresponds to the Father. But even as you are thinking of this idea you are thinking how to express it, and this mentally expressed idea corresponds to the preincarnate word. This expressed word is distinct from the idea but inseperable from it. Finally when the letter is received the person it is sent to will respond in some way. If the channels of communication are clear and the response is as you desired this corresponds to the coming of the spirit at pentecost. But this desired response always existed in your intention along with the idea and its expression, and that correspond to the spirit.

[Kolbitar]

[JRosemary]

[John Anthony]

[Stanley Anderson]

[Adam]

[Karen]

[postodave]

Stanley thats very intriguing but you probably need a good grasp of the maths to feel the parallels.

I am not convinced by the approaches like Chesterton's that say in order to Love God had to be a trinity (or atv least a duality). By the same logic in order for God to express anger the Father would have to be angry with the Son for all eternity. When the Bible says God is love surely it is talking about his relationship with his creation not his essential nature. I am not sure we can prove that God had to be a trinity though we can demonstrate that this is appropriate. I think one of the Cappadocians did this but can't remember which.