The Trinity

[Tri Unity]

Tertullian is the first Christian recorded to use the word “Trinity”.


On the distinction of persons:

“The connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, “I and my Father are One,” in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.“ (200 AD - Tertullian – Against Praxeas, chapter 25)

“He also introduces a parable of the mission to the vineyard of the Son (not the Father), who was sent after so many servants, and slain by the husbandmen, and avenged by the Father. He is also ignorant of the last day and hour, which is known to the Father only. He awards the kingdom to His disciples, as He says it had been appointed to Himself by the Father. He has power to ask, if He will, legions of angels from the Father for His help. He exclaims that God had forsaken Him. He commends His spirit into the hands of the Father. After His resurrection He promises in a pledge to His disciples that He will send them the promise of His Father; and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names.” (200 AD - Tertullian – Against Praxeas, chapter 26)

“a plant coming up from a seed or a root was different from that whence it sprang and yet was absolutely of one nature with it: and a river flowing from a source partakes of a different shape and name; for neither is the source called river nor the river source, and both these things exist, and the source is, in a sense, the father and the river is the water from the source.” (250 AD - Dionysius of Alexander to Dionysius of Rome)

The Eternal Son

“Since,therefore, the Father is eternal, the Son also is eternal, Light of Light. For where there is the begetter, there is also the offspring. And if there is no offspring, how and of what can He be the begetter? But both are, and always are. Since, then, God is the Light, Christ is the Brightness.“ (250 AD - Dionysius of Alexander to Dionysius of Rome)

There are dozens of such quotes from the earliest of times. The definition gradually changes and develops by the 4th century. Our modern definition comes from the 4th century.

 

[Mike]

I like the phrase that Hank Hannegraaff uses for this and other difficult doctrines. I can't comprehend it, but I can apprehend it. God manifests Himself in three persons: the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit.

The account of Jesus' baptism is affirmation of His Triune nature for me. While I can accept that some believers don't embrace the Trinity, it's my opinion that they do not experience the Lord in all His fullness. They can say they do, and that's fine. It's only my opinion.

This is a stumbling block for Muslims, JW's, and Mormons. That's sad, because it often stands in the way of them coming to the Truth.

 

[handy]

This view is, as Mark mentioned, Sabellianism (or Modalism). This is how tricky it gets... this view is considered heretical. It was condemned by the councils of the church. That is, one God who "revealed Himself to us as three distinct Persons."

H2o is generally rejected as an analogy too, as it is also a form of Modalism (The one water which is manifested as ice, steam or water). Tricky huh!

No, not really.

The quick definition of Modalism is this:

Modalism teaches that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit identified by the Trinity Doctrine are different modes or aspects of the One God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three coeternal persons in God Himself. (From good old Wikipedia... not the best of references but this is correct enough and understandable enough for our purposes.)

I don't at all believe that.

When I said, "We have one God, and God is three distinct Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three-in-One..." I didn't mean that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were just different aspects or "modes" of the One God. I distinctly said that we have One God and God is three distinct Persons. The Wiki definition includes three coeternal persons and that's really even better, because the Father and the Son and the Spirit are all eternal.

From what I understand of modalism, which admittedly isn't much, modalism puts forth that there is One God and this One God can reveal Himself to believers as any way He likes, as Father, as Son, as Holy Spirit, as an angel, etc. etc. This seems to define God's nature as One Person who can reveal Himself in an infinite number of ways. Burning bush, pillar of fire, a cloud, a still small voice.

But, I believe that the difference between this and the Trinity is that the Trinity teaches something that is really humanly impossible. That we have One God... but that One God is three distinct and coeternal Persons: Father, Son and Spirit.

Modalism really isn't human impossible.... not really. We all sort of do this anyway. Take yours truly for instance... To Steve, I'm Honey, to my kids, I'm Mom, to my boss, I'm a secretary, etc. etc. etc.... Who I am is revealed to all who know me in different ways. The way y'all here at CF.net percieve and interact with me is vastly different from the way Steve, Viola and Tom do.... even though I'm the same person.

However, being a human, I couldn't pull off Trinity. I just couldn't. While everyone in my life might percieve me as being somewhat a different person, I am me and remain me and am just me. There is no Wife, Mother, Friend... just me, who is a wife but also a mother and to still others a friend.

That's where God is so unlike us and in such a way that really, we will never truly comprehend it. He isn't One Being who is percieved differently by different people and reveals Himself in different ways. He truly is One Being who is three distinct Persons... Father, Son and Spirit. In human terms we have to have three different people. But, we don't have three different Gods. Just One, but One who is (not revealed but is) three different Persons.

 

[Tri Unity]

When I said, "We have one God, and God is three distinct Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three-in-One..." I didn't mean that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were just different aspects or "modes" of the One God. I distinctly said that we have One God and God is three distinct Persons.

Don't shoot the messenger.

You actually said both - putting a bet on both horses. I don't care; I'm not saying you are wrong; just that the church officially rejected the notion that "one God who revealed Himself to us AS three distinct Persons." If you said one God IS three, etc., it would be different, but you said AS three.

You must remember that the original debate was over one letter, not one word (homoousios and homoiousios).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiousian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousian

As I said in my earlier post; I think the rigid modern definition is wrong - but it states that if you do not accept it you are considered heretical. This is not my opinion; I am merely stating what the adherents of this doctrine believe.

 

[Mike S]

But Modalism, one God in three manifestations, IS what I was talking about, and it's my firm belief. As a matter of fact, I think God manifests himself to us in an infinite number of ways. Given that God exists outside time and space, and is completely beyond our human ability to understand, and He reveals himself in how interacts with us, how He manifests Himself to His creation.

I think it's silly human arrogance and folly to agonize over whether God is three manifestations of one being, or three distinct beings. It doesn't matter.

 

[handy]

Don't shoot the messenger.

You actually said both - putting a bet on both horses. I don't care; I'm not saying you are wrong; just that the church officially rejected the notion that "one God who revealed Himself to us AS three distinct Persons." If you said one God IS three, etc., it would be different, but you said AS three.

You're right... I started copy/pasting all the times I said and even emphaized "is" and sure enough, in post #11 I did write "as".....

It is tricky talking about this subject when even little things such as "is" vs. "as" become vital to the undertanding.

... Makes me begin to feel more sympathitic for Bill Clinton and that's saying a lot! ;)

 

[Tri Unity]

You're right... I started copy/pasting all the times I said and even emphaized "is" and sure enough, in post #11 I did write "as".....

It is tricky talking about this subject when even little things such as "is" vs. "as" become vital to the undertanding.

... Makes me begin to feel more sympathitic for Bill Clinton and that's saying a lot! ;)

Yes, I feel saddened that so much disunity has come about over how we describe God. Although I love the subject itself; the fruits of it have been devastating. Athanasius was exiled by 4 seperate emperors because of criminal activity due to his insistence that his definition was adhered to. Wow, that's weird.

 

[Danus]

I like the phrase that Hank Hannegraaff uses for this and other difficult doctrines. I can't comprehend it, but I can apprehend it. God manifests Himself in three persons: the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit.

The account of Jesus' baptism is affirmation of His Triune nature for me. While I can accept that some believers don't embrace the Trinity, it's my opinion that they do not experience the Lord in all His fullness. They can say they do, and that's fine. It's only my opinion.

This is a stumbling block for Muslims, JW's, and Mormons. That's sad, because it often stands in the way of them coming to the Truth.

Ah you stole my answer.

 

[Tri Unity]

This is a stumbling block for Muslims, JW's, and Mormons. That's sad, because it often stands in the way of them coming to the Truth.

The definition of the doctrine of the Trinity given at the Council of Constantinople was a travesty. It excludes so many people because it does not make any sense. People cannot comprehend it, but they can hear it. I believe the doctrine will be completely revised during the end-time ministry, which will then be understood and accepted by Jews, Muslims and other sects. The early fathers were under an evil spirit when they devised this doctrine. Just look at the evil that was done to Hypatia - she was hacked to pieces and burnt by "orthodox" Christians in the early 5th century simply because she did not accept the trinity doctrine and preferred to teach philosophy, etc. This was evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

This was the evil spirit that the 4th century church came under, and the current doctrine of the trinity was devised by this evil spirit. Deceit and violence was common place among these Christians. Basil the Great, who became the chief advocate of the doctrine, became bishop through deceit. Other bishops bought their positions. We need to wake up to this and re-examine the definition of this doctrine without this evil spirit lurking over us. It has made us (the church) the queen of blasphemers.

Personally, I think the early church of the 2nd and 3rd century explained this doctrine the best; and when they did there was complete unity among christians. The only disunity that existed was caused by known gnostics. Valentinius, a 2nd century gnostic, preached a version of the Trinity in the 2nd century that is very similar to our modern version. The church allowed gnostics to come into the church and be considered "christians" after pope Stephen (in the 3rd century) sanctioned them. After this the disunity erupted in the 4th century. If we trace our way back to the first definitions we rid ourselves of these problems, IMO.

 

[Free]

The definition of the doctrine of the Trinity given at the Council of Constantinople was a travesty. It excludes so many people because it does not make any sense. People cannot comprehend it, but they can hear it. I believe the doctrine will be completely revised during the end-time ministry, which will then be understood and accepted by Jews, Muslims and other sects.

Are you saying this would be a good thing, that Jews, Muslims and other sects would understand and accept a completely revised understanding of the Trinity? Or are you saying this would perhaps be one of the negative signs of the end-times?

 

[Free]

But Modalism, one God in three manifestations, IS what I was talking about, and it's my firm belief. As a matter of fact, I think God manifests himself to us in an infinite number of ways. Given that God exists outside time and space, and is completely beyond our human ability to understand, and He reveals himself in how interacts with us, how He manifests Himself to His creation.

I think it's silly human arrogance and folly to agonize over whether God is three manifestations of one being, or three distinct beings. It doesn't matter.

I do think it matters. We are to worship God "in spirit and in truth." We are to worship God as he reveals himself to be in Scripture and there is a significant difference between Modalism and Trinitarianism.

 

[Tri Unity]

Are you saying this would be a good thing, that Jews, Muslims and other sects would understand and accept a completely revised understanding of the Trinity? Or are you saying this would perhaps be one of the negative signs of the end-times?

I am saying that the earlier definition of the Trinity kept the order and description of God and the relationship of the His son in such a way that Jews (i.e, the Apostles) were able to comprehend it and teach it without completely disqualifying Jews in the process. They (the Jews) were originally offended simply because Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

John5:18 "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

The implications of Jesus being the Son of God was enough of an offence to the Jews. Jesus did not claim to be part of a Trinity; He claimed to be the Son of God. The Trinity doctrine is arrived at by way of implication. We have made that original offence 10 times worse by how the Constantinople doctrine is worded. Now the Jews (and Muslims) cannot relate Jesus to the OT God at all. This is what I think is a travesty.

The Early Church Fathers managed to explain to Jews that Jesus was in fact the Son of God, and not an emanation of the essence of God the Father. By keeping the sonship of Jesus firmly in focus it made perfect sense. It was after we tried to make 3 = 1 and 1 = 3 that the logic got worse and worse. After Constantinople a Christian had to explain how Jesus was actually God. To the Jews this didn't make any sense. How could the son be the father? A christian still today has trouble explaining this doctrine; whereas the early Church did not have this problem because they focused on the fact that Jesus was the Son of God (the Father); and as such he shared in the glory of the Father as the Son. He can rightly be said to be God for He was with the Father before the beginning of creation, and God (the Father) had made all things through the Son and for the Son. This made more sense to the Jew (and to the Muslim), and it was how the early fathers explained this doctrine. I think this way of explaining the Trinity avoids all of the other subsequent problems that emerged after Nicaea in 325 AD.

Origen probably explained this doctrine the best out of any Christian - before or after. He was later labelled a heretic (and then he was pardoned) because his explanation confuted the doctrine of Constantinople. Up until that time he was considered the greatest theologian of the church. 150 years after he died he was confuted by Jerome. You must remember that Jerome was actually a heretic himself. He was baptised into the sect of Luciferians, he believed that the bible was full of mistakes, and he believed that the apostles were liars. On this man's testimony Origen was deemed "heretical", and Jerome even had the bible changed (Vulgate). Jerome was financed by very powerful Jews and gnostics.

So, I do not think it will be a bad thing when we reconsider how this doctrine is communicated. Not to lesson Christ as being the Son of God, Light from Light, True God from True God - but to lesson the offence that our explanation has to these monotheists. The doctrine of the Church and the doctrine of the Jews has always been Monotheism. That fact does not take away anything from Christ.

Tri

 

[Danus]

..............This made more sense to the Jew (and to the Muslim), and it was how the early fathers explained this doctrine. I think this way of explaining the Trinity avoids all of the other subsequent problems that emerged after Nicaea in 325 AD.

:....Islam was not established until around 750-800. So I'm pretty sure the earliest church fathers where not talking to Muslims, much less having friendly chats about the trinity. I've never known a Jew or a Muslim to say; "Ah now I get it" when discussing Jesus Christ.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

After Constantinople a Christian had to explain how Jesus was actually God. To the Jews this didn't make any sense. How could the son be the father? A christian still today has trouble explaining this doctrine; whereas the early Church did not have this problem because they focused on the fact that Jesus was the Son of God (the Father); and as such he shared in the glory of the Father as the Son. He can rightly be said to be God for He was with the Father before the beginning of creation, and God (the Father) had made all things through the Son and for the Son. This made more sense to the Jew (and to the Muslim), and it was how the early fathers explained this doctrine. I think this way of explaining the Trinity avoids all of the other subsequent problems that emerged after Nicaea in 325 AD.

IOW, it doesn't "go beyond what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6 NIV1984)--at least for us, that is--and is quite satisfied with what is known about Father/ Son/ and Holy Spirit from God's inspired teachers.

 

[Free]

I am saying that the earlier definition of the Trinity kept the order and description of God and the relationship of the His son in such a way that Jews (i.e, the Apostles) were able to comprehend it and teach it without completely disqualifying Jews in the process. They (the Jews) were originally offended simply because Jesus claimed to be the Son of God.

John5:18 "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

The implications of Jesus being the Son of God was enough of an offence to the Jews. Jesus did not claim to be part of a Trinity; He claimed to be the Son of God. The Trinity doctrine is arrived at by way of implication. We have made that original offence 10 times worse by how the Constantinople doctrine is worded. Now the Jews (and Muslims) cannot relate Jesus to the OT God at all. This is what I think is a travesty.
.......
So, I do not think it will be a bad thing when we reconsider how this doctrine is communicated. Not to lesson Christ as being the Son of God, Light from Light, True God from True God - but to lesson the offence that our explanation has to these monotheists. The doctrine of the Church and the doctrine of the Jews has always been Monotheism. That fact does not take away anything from Christ.

Tri

It seems as though you're saying we should accept the Trinity since it is implied but just not mention it out loud lest we offend any Jew or Muslim. However, Jews and Muslims will be offended simply because both deny that God has a Son. Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah and Muslims don't even believe it was Jesus who died, so whether or not they understand the current Trinity or some reformulated one is the least of their problems.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah and Muslims don't even believe it was Jesus who died, so whether or not they understand the current Trinity or some reformulated one is the least of their problems.

But it's one of their weapons to help them keep believing what they want to believe. For now I guess I'm kinda one of those who feels we don't need to give what the Bible speaks about a special name and formulate a special doctrine for. Just accept the facts the way they are taught in the Bible and move on. But, as it is, there probably isn't a Jew or Muslim alive (who knows about Christianity) who hasn't heard about the doctrine of the Trinity as the church teaches that.

 

[Free]

But it's one of their weapons to help them keep believing what they want to believe. For now I guess I'm kinda one of those who feels we don't need to give what the Bible speaks about a special name and formulate a special doctrine for. Just accept the facts the way they are taught in the Bible and move on. But, as it is, there probably isn't a Jew or Muslim alive (who knows about Christianity) who hasn't heard about the doctrine of the Trinity as the church teaches that.

While I agree with the first sentence, I do not see any good or easy way around the rest. Whether or not we say God is a Trinity, the teaching we have in Scripture is that he is triune. Since who Jesus is is central to salvation, the 5 points I gave in post #20 have to be addressed. And of course it is just easier to sum up such points under one doctrine with a name so people know to what one is referring to.

 

[Tri Unity]

:....Islam was not established until around 750-800. So I'm pretty sure the earliest church fathers where not talking to Muslims, much less having friendly chats about the trinity. I've never known a Jew or a Muslim to say; "Ah now I get it" when discussing Jesus Christ.

I am not sure if you are being serious. Comments made to any given audience, such as Jews, share those comments with those who believe the same as them, such as Muslims or JW's. The JW's did not need to have been extant as a sect, nor the Muslims, for the issues with the Jews to be relevant to those who share the same views. Did you not know this? I did state (also) that I was referring to "subsequent problems that emerged after Nicaea in 325 AD."

 

[Tri Unity]

IOW, it doesn't "go beyond what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6 NIV1984)--at least for us, that is--and is quite satisfied with what is known about Father/ Son/ and Holy Spirit from God's inspired teachers.

Absolutely. The earliest fathers did not go beyond what was written; but the later fathers did. We should learn our teachings and methods of explanation from those who were taught by the apostles. They taught on this subject without even mentioning the word "trinity". They conveyed all of the same teachings and doctrines without adding to the confusion with some mystical notion.

When emperor Constantine first heard that Alexander and Arius were discussing this subject; he said to them both that the subject should not have even been brought up. Especially not in front of unbelievers. Now, though, it has been brought up. The 4th century church caught 3 divines and locked them in a cage. We have been restricted from thinking about God outside of this gilded cage from that time until now. I do not think that this honors God.

 

[joethemechanic]

Ok I see I'm not the only one who puts a lot of thought into this. I have to tell you, I have a really hard time accepting The Trinity. It causes me a lot of doubt. Sometimes I read the theories and explanations until my head pounds, and nothing seems to move me closer. In fact, sometimes the more I study it, the farther away it seems to be.