Should disbelief in the Trinity be considered heresy?
There is abundant scripture describing actions and character of the Holy Spirit leading us to believe he is a person or being. There are a few scriptures equating the Holy Spirit to God. Jesus is equated to God.
There is not a single verse that explicitly states the Holy Spirit is a person, nor that God is a person. There is not a verse that explicitly states that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three persons in one entity. Why doesn't scripture command us to worship the Spirit if he is God?
Personally, I believe the Trinity doctrine is the closest we can come to understanding the identity of God. I believe the doctrine, but I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of three persons sharing one entity. It seems contradictory. It's a concept humans can't fully understand, and I accept that.
Here's my problem: even though I believe in the Trinity, I don't know if it should be considered a heresy to reject it. If it is such an important issue, why didn't God make it crystal clear for us to understand?
I appreciate all thoughts and responses--thank you.
Last edited by curious-one; 27th October 2009 at 11:48 AM.
There is abundant scripture describing actions and character of the Holy Spirit leading us to believe he is a person or being. There are a few scriptures equating the Holy Spirit to God. Jesus is equated to God.
Firstly, the Scriptures clearly declare the Holy Spirit to Exist as both Personal and Divine.
Secondly, the Scriptures never declare the human incarnation (Jesus of Nazareth) to be Divine. What they declare is that Jesus of Nazareth is the human incarnation of the Divine Creator, YHWH (which is not the same thing).
Originally Posted by curious-one
There is not a single verse that explicitly states the Holy Spirit is a person, nor that God is a person.
That's because the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are not intended to be a theological treatise but rather the revelation of the Divine Creator to His human creatures.
There is more than enough evidence throughout the Scriptures to unequivocally and emphatically reveal that God Exists, not only as Personal but as Tri-Personal.
Originally Posted by curious-one
There is not a verse that explicitly states that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three persons in one entity.
That's because Jesus of Nazareth is a finite human creature and therefore cannot possibly be part of the Infinite Divine Creator (though He IS the human incarnation of the Infinite Divine Creator (Matt.1:23; 1Jn.4:1-3))?!
The Scriptures reveal that the one Divine Creator (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13) simultaneously exists as Father, Son/Word(Logos)/Memre and Holy Spirit
Originally Posted by curious-one
Why doesn't scripture command us to worship the Spirit if he is God?
The Scriptures command us to worship God Who Exists as Tri-Personal. In worshipping the one Tri-Personal God we are worshipping God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Originally Posted by curious-one
Personally, I believe the Trinity doctrine is the closest we can come to understanding the identity of God.
Agreed.
Originally Posted by curious-one
I believe the doctrine, but I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of three persons sharing one entity. It seems contradictory. It's a concept humans can't fully understand, and I accept that.
Your problem lies in the fact that you are starting from the Three Persons and then trying to work back to the One Being. You should start from the One Being (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13) and then work toward the Three Persons. YHWH is a single Entity Who Exists as Tri-Personal (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) rather than Mono-Personal like His finite human creatures. Since He is also both Eternal and Immutable then that means that YHWH ALWAYS Exists as Tri-Personal and NEVER Exists as anything other than Tri-Personal.
Originally Posted by curious-one
Here's my problem: even though I believe in the Trinity, I don't know if it should be considered a heresy to reject it. If it is such an important issue, why didn't God make it crystal clear for us to understand?
I appreciate all thoughts and responses--thank you.
Since YHWH Exists as Tri-Personal then to deny that He Exists as Tri-Personal by insisting that He Exists as either Mono-Personal or even Non-Personal is to suppress the truth that God has revealed through His revelation that is Scripture (Rom.1:18). That, by definition, is heresy and any and all who espouse such heresy should be ostracised from the Body of Christ and regarded/treated as unbelievers. Only then might they come to realize that there is such a thing as absolute truth and that truth is not simply a matter of subjective opinion (everyone's subjective opinion being equally valid?!) which in the real world that the real God has really created is sheer nonsense.
The whole purpose of ostracizing someone from the Body of Christ is to shock them back into reality so that they come to their senses about what is true, their sin in relation to that truth, and then repent in the hope of being restored back into communal fellowship with the rest of the Body (including the head).
God has revealed Himself as Tri-Personal and we need to believe what God has revealed about Himself (including the fact that He Exists as Tri-Personal). Understanding God as Tri-Personal is not really that difficult.
Firstly, YHWH has revealed Himself to be but One God (Deut.6:4; Isa.43:10-13).
Secondly, YHWH has revealed Himself as Father.
Thirdly, YHWH has revealed Himself as Son.
Fourthly, YHWH has revealed Himself as Holy Spirit.
Fifthly, the Scriptures do NOT declare that YHWH Exists as the Father alone (though many read this idea into the Scriptures on the wrong assumption that because we exist as mono-personal then God must Exist as Mono-Personal...this is to re-define the Creator in the image of the creature, which is heresy).
Sixthly, the Scriptures do NOT declare that YHWH Exists as the Son alone.
Seventhly, the Scriptures do NOT declare that YHWH Exists as the Holy Spirit alone.
This means that YHWH is One God Who does NOT Exist as Mono-Personal but rather Exists as Tri-Personal.
Simonline.
__________________ THE MESSIAH IS ONEPERSON SIMULTANEOUSLY EXISTING IN TWO (DISTINCT BUT NOT SEPARATE) WAYS AS TWO (MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE) NATURES - DIVINE [YHWH] AND HUMAN [JESUS OF NAZARETH]. THE MESSIAH EXISTS FIRST AND FOREMOST AS THE DIVINE CREATOR AND ONLY IN A SECONDARY SENSE AS THE HUMAN CREATURE.
God did make it crystal clear, but you'd need to acknowledge Sacred Tradition for it to be.
No! You do not need to acknowledge 'sacred tradition' in order that the reality of the Tri-Personal Nature of YHWH might be 'crystal clear'. As long as the Scriptures are honestly and correctly interpreted then one can arrive at the Tri-Personal understanding of the Divine Creator.
I am not saying that 'sacred tradition' should be ignored or trashed, far from it. There is nothing wrong with human tradition per se. It is only when it contradicts Divine Revelation that it is to be challenged/ignored as appropriate. All I am saying is that the true basis of the doctrine of the Tri-Personal Nature of God is the Divine Revelation itself (i.e. the Judeo-Christian Scriptures) and not 'the traditions of men' (which is how the heretics try and justify their heresy).
Simonline.
__________________ THE MESSIAH IS ONEPERSON SIMULTANEOUSLY EXISTING IN TWO (DISTINCT BUT NOT SEPARATE) WAYS AS TWO (MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE) NATURES - DIVINE [YHWH] AND HUMAN [JESUS OF NAZARETH]. THE MESSIAH EXISTS FIRST AND FOREMOST AS THE DIVINE CREATOR AND ONLY IN A SECONDARY SENSE AS THE HUMAN CREATURE.
No! You do not need to acknowledge 'sacred tradition' in order that the reality of the Tri-Personal Nature of YHWH might be 'crystal clear'. As long as the Scriptures are honestly and correctly interpreted then one can arrive at the Tri-Personal understanding of the Divine Creator.
Well, what I was kinda pointing to is the fact that Gnosticism, Arianism, and Nestorianism were the first major heresies in the Church, and they all call the Trinity into question. They had plenty of theology and scripture to back up their claims, which is why the Councils of Nicea (325) and Ephesus (431) were held, and the Church worked hard to refute gnosticism from the 1st century until well into the 4th century AD.
The way I see it, Sacred Tradition (btw, I'm not talking about 'man-made traditions', but a belief that the Sacred Tradition is a part of Divine Revelation) was necesary to diferentiate between what is orthodox (the Trinity), verses what is un-orthodox (Jesus is a created being). Otherwise, I can find Scripture that will support any view of God I want, making it all very unclear what the Truth about God is.[/quote]
Well, what I was kinda pointing to is the fact that Gnosticism, Arianism, and Nestorianism were the first major heresies in the Church, and they all call the Trinity into question. They had plenty of theology and scripture to back up their claims, which is why the Councils of Nicea (325) and Ephesus (431) were held, and the Church worked hard to refute gnosticism from the 1st century until well into the 4th century AD.
The way I see it, Sacred Tradition (btw, I'm not talking about 'man-made traditions', but a belief that the Sacred Tradition is a part of Divine Revelation) was necesary to diferentiate between what is orthodox (the Trinity), verses what is un-orthodox (Jesus is a created being). Otherwise, I can find Scripture that will support any view of God I want, making it all very unclear what the Truth about God is.
Your argument presupposes that any and all 'interpretations' of Scripture are, like subjective opinions, equally valid...nothing could be further from the truth.
There is a correct way to interpret the Scriptures according to the tried and tested principles of hermeneutics and an incorrect way to interpret the Scriptures according to one's own (or someone else's) theological presuppositions...especially when it comes to what has commonly come to be known as 'indisputable matters', i.e. that which defines and deliniates one as Judeo-Christian as distinct from an adherent of a different [false] faith/religion (including all forms of Unitarianism).
Wait a minute?!...the Messiah IS a finite human creature since that is a prerequisite of existing as human (Gen.1:26-27; Heb.2:14-17) and to try and argue that He isn't a finite creature is a fundamental denial of the Incarnation (i.e. that the Divine Creator has incarnated as a human creature rather than as the Divine Creator (which would defeat the whole object of incarnating in the first place (i.e. that the Divine Creator CAN achieve as a finite human creature that which He CANNOT achieve as the Infinite Divine Creator - the redemption of His Creation through His own sacrifice of Himself - the supreme manifestation of Love (1Jn.4:8,16))))?! Of course, this does NOT deny the fact that the Messiah Exists first and foremost (i.e. Eternally and Immutably) as the Divine Creator , YHWH and only in a secondary sense does He exist (i.e. temporally and mutably) as the finite human creature, Jesus of Nazareth.
Simonline.
__________________ THE MESSIAH IS ONEPERSON SIMULTANEOUSLY EXISTING IN TWO (DISTINCT BUT NOT SEPARATE) WAYS AS TWO (MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE) NATURES - DIVINE [YHWH] AND HUMAN [JESUS OF NAZARETH]. THE MESSIAH EXISTS FIRST AND FOREMOST AS THE DIVINE CREATOR AND ONLY IN A SECONDARY SENSE AS THE HUMAN CREATURE.
Your argument presupposes that any and all 'interpretations' of Scripture are, like subjective opinions, equally valid...nothing could be further from the truth.
Pardon? Where did I imply that all interpretations of scripture are equally valid? My entire point is that the correct view of scripture is not based on a person's personal feelings; the exact opposite. Please post where I gave the impression that all interpretations are valid.
There is a correct way to interpret the Scriptures according to the tried and tested principles of hermeneutics and an incorrect way to interpret the Scriptures according to one's own (or someone else's) theological presuppositions...especially when it comes to what has commonly come to be known as 'indisputable matters', i.e. that which defines and deliniates one as Judeo-Christian as distinct from an adherent of a different [false] faith/religion (including all forms of Unitarianism).
Who gets to say what the "tried and tested principles of hermeneutics" are? I'm easily decieved; how do I know if Jesus is a co-existant reality, or not, if not by the authority of Sacred Tradition? Again, I'd like to point to Arianism, Nestorianism, and Gnosticism, and state that it was through Church councils, and the development of docrine that refuted them. If the Trinity was so clear from the outset, sir, why was there so much uncertainty about it?
Judechild is correct. The consubstantiality of the Trinity is understood once the Council of Nicea occurs. Without this understanding of Sacred Tradition, one may also fall into the heresies of modalism, for instance, where you know from Scripture the triune nature of God, but mistakenly think He switches between modes.
Pardon? Where did I imply that all interpretations of scripture are equally valid? My entire point is that the correct view of scripture is not based on a person's personal feelings; the exact opposite. Please post where I gave the impression that all interpretations are valid.
Only one who believed that the theology of those heretical groups (i.e. Arianism, Nestorianism and Gnosticism) were equally valid with authentic orthodox theology would claim that 'They had plenty of theology and scripture to back up their claims...'(?!) since, in Truth, the canon of Scripture does not substantiate or endorse heresy (which is why orthodoxy opposed and continues to oppose such heresy virulently).
Originally Posted by judechild
Who gets to say what the "tried and tested principles of hermeneutics" are?
Those who do not have a vested interest in 'interpreting' whichever given text in such a way as to produce a specific pre-determined outcome (since the discipline of hermeneutics has a much wider application than just religious scriptures).
Originally Posted by judechild
I'm easily decieved; how do I know if Jesus is a co-existant reality, or not, if not by the authority of Sacred Tradition? Again, I'd like to point to Arianism, Nestorianism, and Gnosticism, and state that it was through Church councils, and the development of docrine that refuted them.
I concur. I also reject the Roman charge against Protestantism that when it comes to Biblical interpretation, Protestantism effectively makes every man his own pope. The Scriptures are clear that only collectively, as a corporate Body, do we have 'the mind of Christ' (2Cor.2:6-16).
Originally Posted by judechild
If the Trinity was so clear from the outset, sir, why was there so much uncertainty about it?
For the same reason that there was uncertainty about whether or not it was OK for Adam and Eve to eat fruit from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, especially after God had given Adam explicit and unequivocal instructions that it wasn't?!
Simonline.
__________________ THE MESSIAH IS ONEPERSON SIMULTANEOUSLY EXISTING IN TWO (DISTINCT BUT NOT SEPARATE) WAYS AS TWO (MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE) NATURES - DIVINE [YHWH] AND HUMAN [JESUS OF NAZARETH]. THE MESSIAH EXISTS FIRST AND FOREMOST AS THE DIVINE CREATOR AND ONLY IN A SECONDARY SENSE AS THE HUMAN CREATURE.
Linear Mode
