What are the reasons behind a person wrongfully rejecting the Trinity? (Trinity Christians Only)

[Albion]

But that is precisely the question. . .what the Trinity is. . .the Godhead. . .you can't avoid it.

Far from avoiding it, I was focusing on it and saying that this is the way we'd have to go when trying to describe the Trinity to a non-Christian.

To then push beyond the basic explanation and take up other matters relating to the Trinity, such as which person proceeds from which other one or two, etc. is to take up an extension of the definition or a fine point that concerns the Trinity in some way.

But what the question that was put to us asked was about how to explain the Trinity to a Moslem or Atheist. Keeping that in mind, the fine points or secondary matters shouldn't come first in our explanation. Not if we want to make any progress!

I continue to think that if the Holy Spirit is operating within them, they will accept that it cannot be completely understood, and if the Holy Spirit is not operating within them, it matters not that they cannot understand it, for they are not candidates for the faith.

The question supposed, I think, that these persons were just interested parties, nothing like what you've just pointed to. Indeed, if it's a Moslem or an Atheist (or some others), they could be critics quizzing the Christian and hoping to show his religion to be illogical or confused.

 

[Clare73]

That doesn't really seem to make it any better.

It seems like there's a drift backwards towards three different beings who cooperate, and we call that combo by the name "God."

It makes for only one God, one being, of whom they are three divine personal agents acting
in the name of God because they are God. . .fits NT terminology.

 

[Clare73]

Far from avoiding it, I was focusing on it and saying that this is the way we'd have to go when trying to describe the Trinity to a non-Christian.
To then push beyond the basic explanation and take up other matters relating to the Trinity, such as which person proceeds from which other one or two, etc. is to take up an extension of the definition or a fine point that concerns the Trinity in some way.

But what the question that was put to us asked was about how to explain the Trinity to a Moslem or Atheist. Keeping that in mind, the fine points or secondary matters shouldn't come first in our explanation. Not if we want to make any progress!
The question supposed, I think, that these persons were just interested parties, nothing like what you've just pointed to. Indeed, if it's a Moslem or an Atheist (or some others), they could be critics quizzing the Christian and hoping to show his religion to be illogical or confused.

I can never agree to error in making Biblical matters easier to understand.

 

[Strong in Him]

However, the concept of three-in-one is not exactly the same, and building on the wrong concept can lead to other errors in understanding Scripture.

It is pretty much the same with the illustration of 1 person; body, mind and spirit. And it would be up to us to explain a) that it is a mystery because God is God, b) that no human illustration can be perfect and c) the teaching is in Scripture even if the word isn't.

Anyone who wanted to know would be open to explanation and further discussion - which is what we are called to do. Peter tells us to always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in us. Paul spent much time reasoning, explaining and debating the faith with Jews; he didn't go along and give them one line, snappy soundbites. Jesus, too, questioned and debated with teachers of the law.

The best way would surely be to show from Scripture that there is one God and yet Father, Son and Spirit are all divine. The clover leaf, music chord or example of one man, 3 roles are only illustrations of the 3 in 1 concept.
The best answer is Scripture - 3 divine beings, yet ONE God.

 

[Clare73]

It is pretty much the same with the illustration of 1 person; body, mind and spirit. And it would be up to us to explain a) that it is a mystery because God is God, b) that no human illustration can be perfect and c) the teaching is in Scripture even if the word isn't.

Agreed. . .or thought (will), speech (Word) and action (power) all being of the same being.

Anyone who wanted to know would be open to explanation and further discussion - which is what we are called to do. Peter tells us to always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in us. Paul spent much time reasoning, explaining and debating the faith with Jews; he didn't go along and give them one line, snappy soundbites. Jesus, too, questioned and debated with teachers of the law.

The best way would surely be to show from Scripture that there is one God and yet Father, Son and Spirit are all divine. The clover leaf, music chord or example of one man, 3 roles are only illustrations of the 3 in 1 concept.
The best answer is Scripture - 3 divine beings, yet ONE God.

Only one being, one God, the Supreme Being (singular), in three divine persons.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Trinity is not really that complicated to understand. Imagine a person who can phase or walk through walls. Now, imagine if they can phase their body in being in partial connection with the wall. They would be one with the wall. Now imagine the three persons of the Trinity as being in phase with one another and connected to each other beyond the limits of time and space. These three persons are connected as one divine being or God. Granted, God does not have to phase to be connected, it is just a natural part of His being or existence. He is one God or divine being and yet He exists also as three distinct persons. Anyone who is somewhat creative or imaginative can figure it out (or they need to have a revelation of such from God to be able to understand it).

Anyways, I mention this example for illustrative purposes only.
It is a crude example to illustrate how God is triune.
Please do not take my example with wooden literalism.
I merely trying to help you to understand the concept of the Trinity.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, but is there an alternative?
We can't say "3 parts of the Trinity", a) because that implies that God is divided into 3 and needs the others to be whole, or complete; and b) because Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all personal. Nor can we ay that the Trinity is made up of 3 gods - clearly that would not then be a Trinity - i.e Tri-unity, 3 in one. I seem to remember someone on this forum saying, "3 somethings of the Trinity" and was shot down in flames.
So the best that we have come up with is "persons" - or maybe, individual beings.



God is not "one of three persons", God IS three persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Father is divine and eternal.
The Son is divine and eternal.
The Spirit is divine and eternal.
Yet there is ONE God.

Indeed, this is correct.

I don't think that "persons" or "individual beings" is wrong, as long as we try to explain and don't just leave it there.

Why not just use “persons” and leave it at that? Individual beings opens up a new can of worms, since depending on how one translates hypostasis, it might be true, but it might be very misleading because on the other hand how can individual beings be coessential?

An illustration I sometimes use is; my oldest brother is one man, yet he is a father, a son and a brother. He doesn't relate to, or treat, his children in the same way that he relates to me, nor does he relate to me in the same way that he relates to our mother. If we were all together in the same room he would behave differently towards all of us - I hope. Yet he is still one man.
I do actually have 3 brothers who are clearly individual people.

Please forgive me, but that is another variant on Modalism.

A friend of mine described the Trinity by playing 3 separate notes on the piano and then altogether as a chord; 3 notes, 1 sound.

That suggests musically that the Trinity is divisible.

This is the one in whom I speak.

In fact, I like this video by him (and the teaching is spot on in this video). But like I said, I disagree with much in Protestant Christianity, and yet they are able to glean some really important and beautiful truths found in the Bible. Now, if we were only to combine the Protestant’s view of the Trinity with this guy’s teaching on salvation, we would have a wonderful minister of the truth.

Take a look at John Wesley, or his source material, the early church fathers and the Orthodox Christians. A genuine Wesleyan Methodism would do what you want, and so will Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy.

 

[The Liturgist]

Agreed. . .or thought (will), speech (Word) and action (power) all being of the same being.

Only one being, one God, the Supreme Being (singular), in three divine persons.

This is correct.

 

[Butch5]

However, the concept of three-in-one is not exactly the same, and building on the wrong concept can lead to other errors in understanding Scripture.

Someone hand Clare a mirror.

 

[Butch5]

It makes for only one God, one being, of whom they are three divine personal agents acting
in the name of God because they are God. . .fits NT terminology.

So, there is one God plus three agents who are acting in the name of that one God and they too are God.

1+1+1+1=4

 

[Butch5]

Why does everyone see "one" numerically instead of in Unity?

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (Lk. 22:42 KJV)

I and my Father are one. (Jn. 10:30 KJV)

If you're one of those who accpept 1 John 5:7 as original,

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
(1 Jn. 5:7-8 KJV)

Its abundantly clear that 1 John 5:7 is speaking of unity, not number. It's saying they agree, not that they are one in number.

For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: (Rom. 12:4 KJV)

What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. (1 Cor. 6:16 KJV)

For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. (1 Cor. 10:17 KJV)

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. (1 Cor. 12:12 KJV)

But now are they many members, yet but one body. (1 Cor. 12:20 KJV)

 

[The Liturgist]

But the Holy Spirit must proceed from both the Father and the Son.

Not the same thing. . .

That’s what we call the filioque and it is rejected by all the Eastern churches (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East, indeed even the majority of Eastern Catholics reject it and the Roman Catholic Church concedes that due to semantic characteristics of the Greek language compared to Latin, the filioque would be an error if it were present on the creed translated into Greek).

The reason why the filioque ticked off the Orthodox is quite legitimate: it has an unintentional but real depersonalizing effect on the Holy Spirit. We need to stress when catechizing Christians how God the Holy Spirit is His own distinct person in the Trinity, the Lord and Giver of Life, who spoke by the prophets, who caused the Virgin Mary to conceive our Christ without losing her virginity, and who our Christ sent back into the world to be our Paraclete indwelling tne faithful. He is not an it. That said, most people who support the filioque agree with filioque opponents on the above.

Indeed, many pious Christians, because our Lord sent the Spirit into the World, and both the filioque and the absence of the filioque are permitted by the CF.com Statement of Faith.

So I am inclined to tolerate both positions while slightly favoring not having it, because it was not in the creed adopted at Constantinople but was added later in Toledo. I am a huge fan of Mozarabic spirituality however and I understand why it was added in Toledo.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Which is the problem with it, and why it should not be used.

Correct since God stands alone as Unique there is nothing within creation that can compare with God. All illustrations and things break down. God tells Job to what will you liken me too ?

God in Job 38-40 is declaring there is nothing . So every analogy breaks down which is why I do not use them. I only use the interrelationships within the Godhead that are disclosed by Jesus and the Apostles.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

It is pretty much the same with the illustration of 1 person; body, mind and spirit. And it would be up to us to explain a) that it is a mystery because God is God, b) that no human illustration can be perfect and c) the teaching is in Scripture even if the word isn't.

Anyone who wanted to know would be open to explanation and further discussion - which is what we are called to do. Peter tells us to always be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in us. Paul spent much time reasoning, explaining and debating the faith with Jews; he didn't go along and give them one line, snappy soundbites. Jesus, too, questioned and debated with teachers of the law.

The best way would surely be to show from Scripture that there is one God and yet Father, Son and Spirit are all divine. The clover leaf, music chord or example of one man, 3 roles are only illustrations of the 3 in 1 concept.
The best answer is Scripture - 3 divine beings, yet ONE God.

Being, nature, essence, substance are all synonyms describing the Oneness of God. The Persons make up that Oneness of God who are Three. One God who is Tri-Personal, Triune, Trinity or Godhead.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

That’s what we call the filioque and it is rejected by all the Eastern churches (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East, indeed even the majority of Eastern Catholics reject it and the Roman Catholic Church concedes that due to semantic characteristics of the Greek language compared to Latin, the filioque would be an error if it were present on the creed translated into Greek).

The reason why the filioque ticked off the Orthodox is quite legitimate: it has an unintentional but real depersonalizing effect on the Holy Spirit. We need to stress when catechizing Christians how God the Holy Spirit is His own distinct person in the Trinity, the Lord and Giver of Life, who spoke by the prophets, who caused the Virgin Mary to conceive our Christ without losing her virginity, and who our Christ sent back into the world to be our Paraclete indwelling tne faithful. He is not an it. That said, most people who support the filioque agree with filioque opponents on the above.

Indeed, many pious Christians, because our Lord sent the Spirit into the World, and both the filioque and the absence of the filioque are permitted by the CF.com Statement of Faith.

So I am inclined to tolerate both positions while slightly favoring not having it, because it was not in the creed adopted at Constantinople but was added later in Toledo. I am a huge fan of Mozarabic spirituality however and I understand why it was added in Toledo.

If God is eternal then there is no origin within the Godhead just different roles each Person has within that relationship. Sending in my estimation has nothing to do with origin. Origin speaks of something that came into existence and personally do not like the term applied to God. God has always existed as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Strong in Him]

Agreed. . .or thought (will), speech (Word) and action (power) all being of the same being.

Only one being, one God, the Supreme Being (singular), in three divine persons.

That's what I meant.
Yet, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father.
It was the Son that was made flesh, not the Spirit. It is the Spirit who changes us into Jesus' likeness, not the Father. Separate roles; one being.

 

[Andrewn]

Er, maybe; not quite sure what modalism is. It's just an illustration that I heard.

I, also, heard this illustration from a lot of preachers. I didn't mean to criticize it or criticize you. I would seriously like to know whether we should take the simplistic approach of Modalism when describing the Trinity to unbelievers.

 

[Horation]

Why does everyone see "one" numerically instead of in Unity?

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (Lk. 22:42 KJV)

I and my Father are one. (Jn. 10:30 KJV)

If you're one of those who accpept 1 John 5:7 as original,

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
(1 Jn. 5:7-8 KJV)

Its abundantly clear that 1 John 5:7 is speaking of unity, not number. It's saying they agree, not that they are one in number.

For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: (Rom. 12:4 KJV)

What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. (1 Cor. 6:16 KJV)

For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. (1 Cor. 10:17 KJV)

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. (1 Cor. 12:12 KJV)

But now are they many members, yet but one body. (1 Cor. 12:20 KJV)

I have given them(disciples) the glory you gave me, that they may be one AS(AS) we are one. I in them and you in me, may they be brough to Complete UNITY. John17.22+23
You are right, being one is speaking of unity. For according to Jesus, believers can be one AS Father and Son are one

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

That's what I meant.
Yet, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father.
It was the Son that was made flesh, not the Spirit. It is the Spirit who changes us into Jesus' likeness, not the Father. Separate roles; one being.

Ditto

 

[Butch5]

I have given them(disciples) the glory you gave me, that they may be one AS(AS) we are one. I in them and you in me, may they be brough to Complete UNITY. John17.22+23
You are right, being one is speaking of unity. For according to Jesus, believers can be one AS Father and Son are one

Exactly. Jesus said, 'that they may be one as we are one'. I don't know any Christian who argues that all Christians are a single being or that there is a single being that consists of all Christians. His prayer is that Christians would be one as He and the Father are one. I don't think Jesus thought that all Christians would morph into a single being. He's praying for unity. So, if He didn't intend for all Christians to be one single being then He's not saying that He and the Father are one single being, thus He's not saying there is a being called God that consist of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It's crystal clear, yet people simply ignore it in favor of some 5th century doctrine that 5th century church leaders told them they have to believe to be saved. They break down the comparison that Jesus made. They say Christians are one in unity, but God is one in number. That's not what Jesus said. He wanted both groups to be one in the same manner. I just don't see how people ignore this.