Doctrine of the Trinity – Is it Fundamental to the Christian Faith

[Free]

If Jesus were God, then why would he say "the words that I speak, they are not mine"?

John 14:24
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

To take a different approach than chessman , if we agree that all Jesus's words were not his, and that somehow means he is not God, then we have a dilemma.

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, Isay to you, before Abraham was, I am." (ESV)

Here we have Jesus claiming to be the I Am, the same as Yahweh referring to himself as the I Am. If these are the Father's words, then the Father is telling Jesus to claim to be Yahweh. If one then wants to say that they were not the Father's words, then we have Jesus himself claiming to be Yahweh, which if he wasn't, is utterly blasphemous.

Notice that the Jews then pick up stones to stone him. That is the penalty for blasphemy.

The only alternative you have is to change the understanding of what Jesus said, but anything else rather goes against the context. And that is not the only place Jesus uses the name I Am of himself.

 

[ezrider]

Here we have Jesus claiming to be the I Am, the same as Yahweh referring to himself as the I Am. If these are the Father's words, then the Father is telling Jesus to claim to be Yahweh.

The words that Jesus spake were not his, but the Father who sent him. So when Jesus says before Abraham was, I Am, why can't you just accept that it was the Father's word that said I Am? The Father is not telling Jesus to claim to be Yahweh, he is speaking the Father's words. The Father thru Jesus by the Spirit said before Abraham was, I AM.

The words of God are veiled, and are only revealed in Christ. But the veil that blinds them is the flesh of Christ.

 

[ezrider]

If Jesus were God, then why would he say "the words that I speak, they are not mine"?

John 14:24
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Deuteronomy 18:15-19
The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

The glory of the Lord appeared as a great fire over Mt Sinai, and the children would not hear his voice. So the Father raised of Christ, and put HIS words in Jesus's mouth. When you were hearing Jesus speak, you were hearing the Father.


But they did not want the hear the voice nor see the great fire any more. For those who will not hear the words of the Father that were spoken by Christ, then they shall see this great fire once again as they face the second death. The Lake of Fire is this great fire that descended upon the mountain in a cloud. It is the glory of the Lord. But for some, they have turned the glory of the Lord made into the image of a man.

 

[WIP]

Reminder from SoF:
We believe that there is only one God, who is eternal and immutable, and manifests Himself in three distinct Persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, born of a virgin, totally without sin, God in human flesh, the One Who died on the cross for our sins, was buried, rose again from the dead on the third day, and ascended to the right hand of the Father in heaven, where He now intercedes for us who believe in Him.

Reminder from ToS:
2.1: This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity (or declare that it is false) and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Please read: Statement of Faith

 

[Papa Zoom]

If Jesus were God, then why would he say "the words that I speak, they are not mine"?

John 14:24
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Because the Father is not the Son.

 

[Christ_empowered]

yeah...it reminds me of diagrams of The Trinity I've seen...The Father is interrelated to The Holy Spirit and God the Son...but they all somehow remain distinct.

I don't "get it" fully, but...it seems fairly central to Christian understandings of God.

 

[Runner]

OK, the site's Statement of Faith and most Christians affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. But surely it is fair to ask whether this doctrine is fundamental or essential to being a Christian? This is the same point I have been attempting to get at with my thread on the Apologetics forum, "Give us your absolute bottom-line Christian essentials." So far, no one there has suggested that the Trinity is an absolute bottom-line essential, even though I have expressly invited them to do so.

While I accept the doctrine of the Trinity, it’s difficult for me to see it as essential for a variety of reasons:

1. The Old Testament Jews had utterly no concept of a triune God. It seems odd that God would not have clearly revealed this core fact about His nature. Christians can convince themselves they see hints of the Trinity in the OT, but the Jews certainly didn't.
2. The doctrine is not explicitly stated in the Bible. No serious scholar tries to argue that it is. This likewise seems odd if it is an essential doctrine.
3. The most explicit indications of Jesus as divine are found in the Gospel of John, which is very different from the Synoptic Gospels and has Jesus making claims He makes nowhere else. (On the other hand, scholars have shown that Jesus’ divinity was indeed one of the core beliefs of the earliest Christian community.)
4. Scholars accept that the first use of the term Trinity was by Tertullian, who lived circa 145-200 A.D. As stated by the New Catholic Encyclopedia, “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established into Christian life prior to the 4th Century. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”
5. If you read the history of the events leading to the Fourth Century creeds, the deity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity were hotly debated and negotiated - it wasn't just a matter of extinguishing obvious heresies.
6. The doctrine itself is fundamentally unintelligible even if one fully accepts it. I question whether it really adds anything to the depth of one’s faith.
7. And, of course, we have the troubling verses on which non-Trinitarians rely – for example, Luke 18:19 (And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.”) and Colossians 1:15 (“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”). (Both verses from the NASB.)

You certainly can derive the doctrine of the Trinity from the Bible, and I accept it as probably the best understanding without viewing it as essential. What I see as essential is an acceptance that Jesus is the one and only Son of God, had and has a unique relationship with the Father, was and is the Father’s chosen means for reconciling the world to himself, and is our means of salvation. As summarized in my thread about absolute bottom-line Christian essentials, I believe the essentials are “You are a created being in a created universe, wholly dependent on the creator God” (not necessarily or essentially on a triune God) and “God offers forgiveness and reconciliation through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus” (not necessarily or essentially through the Third Person of the Trinity Jesus).

 

[GodsGrace]

The Holy Spirit is a person, for example see Rom.8:27: the Holy Spirit has a mind. There are about 16 more passages proving the Spirit IS a personality.

BB
I know about the Holy Spirit !

I just don't understand what 24HourJesus is saying.
It makes no sense to me.
Of courses, when we discuss the Trinity, or Triune Godhead, things could get muddled by Language.

 

[GodsGrace]

yeah...it reminds me of diagrams of The Trinity I've seen...The Father is interrelated to The Holy Spirit and God the Son...but they all somehow remain distinct.

I don't "get it" fully, but...it seems fairly central to Christian understandings of God.

Don't worry CE,
NOBODY gets it fully!

This is your diagram...

 

[jaybird]

does anyone know when the trinity "officially" became a church doctrine?

 

[GodsGrace]

OK, the site's Statement of Faith and most Christians affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. But surely it is fair to ask whether this doctrine is fundamental or essential to being a Christian? This is the same point I have been attempting to get at with my thread on the Apologetics forum, "Give us your absolute bottom-line Christian essentials." So far, no one there has suggested that the Trinity is an absolute bottom-line essential, even though I have expressly invited them to do so.

While I accept the doctrine of the Trinity, it’s difficult for me to see it as essential for a variety of reasons:

1. The Old Testament Jews had utterly no concept of a triune God. It seems odd that God would not have clearly revealed this core fact about His nature. Christians can convince themselves they see hints of the Trinity in the OT, but the Jews certainly didn't.
2. The doctrine is not explicitly stated in the Bible. No serious scholar tries to argue that it is. This likewise seems odd if it is an essential doctrine.
3. The most explicit indications of Jesus as divine are found in the Gospel of John, which is very different from the Synoptic Gospels and has Jesus making claims He makes nowhere else. (On the other hand, scholars have shown that Jesus’ divinity was indeed one of the core beliefs of the earliest Christian community.)
4. Scholars accept that the first use of the term Trinity was by Tertullian, who lived circa 145-200 A.D. As stated by the New Catholic Encyclopedia, “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established into Christian life prior to the 4th Century. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”
5. If you read the history of the events leading to the Fourth Century creeds, the deity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity were hotly debated and negotiated - it wasn't just a matter of extinguishing obvious heresies.
6. The doctrine itself is fundamentally unintelligible even if one fully accepts it. I question whether it really adds anything to the depth of one’s faith.
7. And, of course, we have the troubling verses on which non-Trinitarians rely – for example, Luke 18:19 (And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.”) and Colossians 1:15 (“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”). (Both verses from the NASB.)

You certainly can derive the doctrine of the Trinity from the Bible, and I accept it as probably the best understanding without viewing it as essential. What I see as essential is an acceptance that Jesus is the one and only Son of God, had and has a unique relationship with the Father, was and is the Father’s chosen means for reconciling the world to himself, and is our means of salvation. As summarized in my thread about absolute bottom-line Christian essentials, I believe the essentials are “You are a created being in a created universe, wholly dependent on the creator God” (not necessarily or essentially on a triune God) and “God offers forgiveness and reconciliation through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus” (not necessarily or essentially through the Third Person of the Trinity Jesus).

Very well thought out post Runner.

I'd like to be the first to say that the understanding of the Trinity is not essential to salvation IMHO, except that however we can understand it, we MUST believe Jesus is God to be Christian.

I doubt God would hold us responsible for not understanding something that REALLY cannot be understood.

I accept that GOD IS ONE, but with 3 distinct attributes and persons.
I believe in the traditiona Triune Godhead or Trinity.

Not easy to explain, and I've had to with kids.
The closest I could get to it is water:
Liquid
Solid
Gas

We have fnite minds and God is infinite.

 

[GodsGrace]

OK, the site's Statement of Faith and most Christians affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. But surely it is fair to ask whether this doctrine is fundamental or essential to being a Christian? This is the same point I have been attempting to get at with my thread on the Apologetics forum, "Give us your absolute bottom-line Christian essentials." So far, no one there has suggested that the Trinity is an absolute bottom-line essential, even though I have expressly invited them to do so.

While I accept the doctrine of the Trinity, it’s difficult for me to see it as essential for a variety of reasons:

1. The Old Testament Jews had utterly no concept of a triune God. It seems odd that God would not have clearly revealed this core fact about His nature. Christians can convince themselves they see hints of the Trinity in the OT, but the Jews certainly didn't.
2. The doctrine is not explicitly stated in the Bible. No serious scholar tries to argue that it is. This likewise seems odd if it is an essential doctrine.
3. The most explicit indications of Jesus as divine are found in the Gospel of John, which is very different from the Synoptic Gospels and has Jesus making claims He makes nowhere else. (On the other hand, scholars have shown that Jesus’ divinity was indeed one of the core beliefs of the earliest Christian community.)
4. Scholars accept that the first use of the term Trinity was by Tertullian, who lived circa 145-200 A.D. As stated by the New Catholic Encyclopedia, “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established into Christian life prior to the 4th Century. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there has been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”
5. If you read the history of the events leading to the Fourth Century creeds, the deity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity were hotly debated and negotiated - it wasn't just a matter of extinguishing obvious heresies.
6. The doctrine itself is fundamentally unintelligible even if one fully accepts it. I question whether it really adds anything to the depth of one’s faith.
7. And, of course, we have the troubling verses on which non-Trinitarians rely – for example, Luke 18:19 (And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.”) and Colossians 1:15 (“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”). (Both verses from the NASB.)

You certainly can derive the doctrine of the Trinity from the Bible, and I accept it as probably the best understanding without viewing it as essential. What I see as essential is an acceptance that Jesus is the one and only Son of God, had and has a unique relationship with the Father, was and is the Father’s chosen means for reconciling the world to himself, and is our means of salvation. As summarized in my thread about absolute bottom-line Christian essentials, I believe the essentials are “You are a created being in a created universe, wholly dependent on the creator God” (not necessarily or essentially on a triune God) and “God offers forgiveness and reconciliation through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus” (not necessarily or essentially through the Third Person of the Trinity Jesus).

P.S.

Please read your number 4...

Did you mean One God in 3 persons OR
3 persons in One God?

I agree with the second.
AND your last paragraph.

 

[Windsong]

7) Do not post opinions of another member's claim of Christian faith. (ToS 2.4)
Publicly judging someone as not being a Christian and/or not following Christ unless they themselves claim not be a Christian is disallowed. That's between them and the Lord. This includes judgments against collective beliefs or groups in general.



2.14: 1.3: If you feel that any action taken was unfair, it can be appealed. To appeal an action taken against you by CF.net staff, you are advised to start a new thread in the ‘Talk With the Staff’ forum area. Threads in this forum are viewable only by the person initiating the thread and CF.net staff. In this private venue, anyone on the CF.net staff may respond, and the OP can address his/her concerns with regard to the action taken. This forum is primarily intended for appeals to actions by CF.net staff. TWTS area may also be used, according to Staff discretion, for other expedient purpose of communication. If a member agrees or disagrees with a Moderator's decision, they are not to make their opinion public.(see 1.3)


Edited reba

 

[Runner]

P.S.

Please read your number 4...

Did you mean One God in 3 persons OR
3 persons in One God?

I agree with the second.
AND your last paragraph.

That statement in number 4 is a quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Yes, three persons in one God would probably be closer to my understanding. As opposed to charts, formulations, creeds, etc., I've always thought of the Trinity more as an attempt to express in human language a mystery that cannot be expressed in human language. It "suggests" the mysterious nature of God without "describing" it. As the Tao Te Ching puts it, "The name that can be named is not the eternal name." "The Trinity" is a label we attach to something we cannot fully understand.

 

[chessman]

The most explicit indications of Jesus as divine are found in the Gospel of John,

It's more than an indication. He stated His claim multiple times and in multiple Gospels directly. So directly that those Jews who didn't believe His claims immediately picked up stones to stone Him for claiming to be God. There can be no doubt that He said what He meant and meant what He said. Plus, you included everything He taught in your essentials in #6. You may have had other reasons for including all of Jesus' teachings from the four Gospels, but nonetheless it's in your essentials.

 

[Runner]

It's more than an indication. He stated His claim multiple times and in multiple Gospels directly. So directly that those Jews who didn't believe His claims immediately picked up stones to stone Him for claiming to be God. There can be no doubt that He said what He meant and meant what He said. Plus, you included everything He taught in your essentials in #6. You may have had other reasons for including all of Jesus' teachings from the four Gospels, but nonetheless it's in your essentials.

I'm not distancing myself in any way from my understanding of the Christian essentials as stated in the other thread. In #6, I included "prayerfully doing your best to follow the teachings of Jesus as set forth in the four gospels." By this, I simply meant, "living your life as Jesus tells us to live our lives in the four gospels, which are the only record we have of His teachings."

I happen to have re-read just last night the chapter entitled "The Self-Understanding of Jesus" (Chapter 7) in the excellent book Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by renowned scholar William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig surveys all the various theories as to who Jesus thought He was and concludes that Jesus did indeed think He was divine. This is an excellent survey and well worth reading. (Interestingly, Dr. Craig barely mentions the Trinity at all in the entire book - the word appears only 5 times according to my Kindle search and not at all in Chapter 7.)

The mere fact that Dr. Craig must devote so much attention and space to this question shows that the answer isn't a slam-dunk. I think one can have a very high Christology, even to the extent of Jesus being divine and worthy of worship, without necessarily believing He is the second person of a Trinity. Thus, I don't see the Trinity as an absolute bottom-line essential.

 

[MarkT]

Very well thought out post Runner.

I'd like to be the first to say that the understanding of the Trinity is not essential to salvation IMHO, except that however we can understand it, we MUST believe Jesus is God to be Christian.

I doubt God would hold us responsible for not understanding something that REALLY cannot be understood.

I accept that GOD IS ONE, but with 3 distinct attributes and persons.
I believe in the traditiona Triune Godhead or Trinity.

Not easy to explain, and I've had to with kids.
The closest I could get to it is water:
Liquid
Solid
Gas

We have fnite minds and God is infinite.

P.S.

Please read your number 4...

Did you mean One God in 3 persons OR
3 persons in One God?

I agree with the second.
AND your last paragraph.

Well Jesus didn't say it so that settles it for me.

There's no equal or coequal with God; God has no equal.

The truth is the Son inherited all power and authority because he was the heir, Mt. 21:38, Luke 20:14, not because he was God. If that were not so, how could we even hope to be fellow heirs with Christ and inherit eternal?
Romans 8:17
and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

 

[chessman]

The mere fact that Dr. Craig must devote so much attention and space to this question shows that the answer isn't a slam-dunk.

I've never understood why people would think the study of God's nature should be simple. After all, we have a sample size of One. And to make matters even more complex, we cannot actually see God without knowing The Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit.

But the fact that Dr. Craig included a whole chapter in Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics on the subject of who Jesus thought and taught He is, must mean he felt it's a "Christian Truth", right? I think so.

And that chapter's conclusions can be reasoned, correct? I think so.

"...within twenty years of the crucifixion a full-blown Christology proclaiming Jesus as God incarnate existed."​

Pg 300

Now that's prayfully following the teachings of the four gospels!

 

[Windsong]

If Jesus were God, then why would he say "the words that I speak, they are not mine"?

John 14:24
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Because God, as Jesus, appeared to those to whom he delivered the good news as one of them. Flesh and bone. Male, human.
His entire ministry was to deliver the good news. The Father which sent God with us, is delivering the new covenant to the Jews. Not what appears to the Jews as a mere man before them.
Jesus was God. Which is why the angel told his mother Mary that she would to name him Immanuel or Emmanuel. Meaning, God with us. A name that all Jews who heard his name would know. Jesus is the Greek translation . He was known as Yeshua or Emmanuel to his people at the time.

John 1:1. Remember? "In the beginning was The Word and The Word was with God and The Word was God." Journey just 13 verses to John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

 

[chessman]

Deuteronomy 18:15-19
The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Are those Ezrider's words, Moses' words our God's words?