Common Misconceptions About the Trinity

[Wgw]

In debates with various members I have noticed, in addition to numerous logical, factual and unreasonable arguments enumerated elsewhere, a disturbing trend by non-Trinitarians to mischaracterize the Trinitarian faith.

Some of these alleged Trinitarian beliefs which we do not in fact profess are as follows:

• That the three prosopa are in all respects equal or the same.
• That coequality implies absolute undifferentiation.
• That Trinitarians deny the Father is the Father of our Lord.
• That the three prosopa are separate deities.
• That God is compounded.
• That each prosopon constitutes a "part" or "division" of God.
• That Jesus Christ is not fully man.
• That God as a whole was crucified.
• That there is not a coherent doctrine of the Trinity held by all Nicene Christians.

Prosopon (plural prosopa) is the Greek word commonly translated as Person in theological discussions of the Trinity. It has the sense of "face" or "personality" as well as of "person."

 

[farout]

In debates with various members I have noticed, in addition to numerous logical, factual and unreasonable arguments enumerated elsewhere, a disturbing tremd by non-Trinitarians to mischaracterize the Trinitarian faith.

Some of these alleged Trinitarian beliefs which we do not in fact profess are as follows:

• That the three prosopa are in all respects equal or the same.
• That God is compounded.
• That each prosopon constitutes a "part" or "division" of God.
• That Jesus Christ is not fully man.
• That God as a whole was crucified.

I have watched a number of your remarks and I have not found anything to disagree with. You are very proficient in English in such a way that I have seldom seen. You appear t me, that you are well educated in theology. Have you done PHD work?

I felt that we need to uplift and praise people that are so well crafted and skilled like you are. You communicate in a very effective way. God bless you Wgw.

 

[Wgw]

I have watched a number of your remarks and I have not found anything to disagree with. You are very proficient in English in such a way that I have seldom seen. You appear t me, that you are well educated in theology. Have you done PHD work?

I felt that we need to uplift and praise people that are so well crafted and skilled like you are. You communicate in a very effective way. God bless you Wgw.

Thank you for that. I am not a PhD in theology; I simply am a layman who enjoys the study of it.

 

[farout]

Thank you for that. I am not a PhD in theology; I simply am a layman who enjoys the study of it.

I amazed ! I have never ever come across a person like you. Your church and pastor must be blessed out of their socks!

 

[Wgw]

I amazed ! I have never ever come across a person like you. Your church and pastor must be blessed out of their socks!

On theological matters, as a general rule, my priest and bishop advise me rather than vice versa.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

On theological matters, as a general rule, my priest and bishop advise me rather than vice versa.

Which is quite proper.

 

[Wgw]

Which is quite proper.

Thank you for that entirely unsolicited validation of my personal orthopraxis. I had been so lacking in confidence on this point until now, that I have been blessed by the assurance of some random bloke over the Internet that it is correct...

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Thank you for that entirely unsolicited validation of my personal orthopraxis. I had been so lacking in confidence on this point until now, that I have been blessed by the assurance of some random bloke over the Internet that it is correct...

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound presumptuous.

 

[Wgw]

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound presumptuous.

No problem. I like your posts in general.

 

[Wgw]

I have updated to address a question posed to me by @mikesdjr, a pious member who I much admire, and also in response to certain misconceptions I had omitted, which were recalled to mind in a debate with @Imagican in another thread.

 

[Imagican]

In debates with various members I have noticed, in addition to numerous logical, factual and unreasonable arguments enumerated elsewhere, a disturbing trend by non-Trinitarians to mischaracterize the Trinitarian faith.

Some of these alleged Trinitarian beliefs which we do not in fact profess are as follows:

• That the three prosopa are in all respects equal or the same.
• That Trinitarians deny the Father is the Father of our Lord.
• That the three prosopa are separate deities.
• That God is compounded.
• That each prosopon constitutes a "part" or "division" of God.
• That Jesus Christ is not fully man.
• That God as a whole was crucified.

Prosopon (plural prosopa) is the Greek word commonly translated as Person in theological discussions of the Trinity. It has the sense of "face" or "personality" as well as of "person."

Having spent years in this exact discussion, what you have offered does 'not' apply to 'all trinitarians'. You know as well as I from just the discussions you and I have participated in that there is 'no' single belief system according to 'trinity'. If there is, then by all means, let's hear it. For what I have heard is quite a few hundred 'different' definitions of 'trinity'. In fact, almost every one that I have ever heard differs from all the rest.

To start with, if Jesus is 'fully God/fully man', did that end upon His physical death? Or does He remain: Fully God/fully man?

Or is Christ able, like a chameleon, to change who or what He is upon command?

Your Church is the 'same Church' that created the doctrine of 'trinity'. It wasn't until hundreds of years after the councils that created 'trinity' that they split into different 'sects'.

I have quoted what the Catholics profess to believe according to the doctrine of 'trinity' and you have more often than not, tried to offer a separation between your 'Church' and the CC. Yet according to the doctrine in discussion, the views should be exactly the same since your Church and the CC were basically the same 'Church' at the time the doctrine of 'trinity' was introduced.

According to the doctrine as defined by the CC, in order for 'trinity' to exist, 'all three persons' are Co equal. They 'must be' in order for Christ to be worshiped 'as God' according to 'trinity'.

Yet you are offering that this is a 'myth' of sorts or misconception placed upon 'trinitarians'.

If it is merely a misconceptions, please explain what parts of the three persons are 'not equal'.

According to scripture, the Father has been God since first introduced to mankind.God is The Father. The words are basically interchangeable. The only significance in using one or the other is to point out that God is the Father of Christ. And 'our' Heavenly Father. Paternity is the only difference in the word used to define the 'same entity'.

Yet the Bible doesn't offer that The Son and God are interchangeable in any such manner. The Son 'never states' that He is God. Nor do we have any words from God offering such. In fact, the Bible states that upon His Baptism, a voice from Heaven was heard to say, "This is 'my' beloved Son in whom "I" am well pleased". I believe that it's pretty safe to assume that 'all' who profess to be 'believers' would agree that this voice was: The voice of God. The voice of the Father. This being obvious by reference to 'The Son'.

So if what was heard was indeed: The voice of God, it is really confusing how God was speaking for the sake of John in a manner contrary to 'trinity' that was formed hundreds of years later. Certainly John the Baptist believed he witnessed the voice of God referring to His Son. Not the Father referring to His Son, but God referring to His Son.

Not only was 'God as a whole' not crucified, but the words of the Son Himself verify that God had 'abandoned' the Son to take on the 'sins of this world' upon Himself. It was 'not God' that 'took on the sins', but the Son. The Son even at a point before the event appealing to God to 'let his cup pass over me...", plainly showing that it took the identity of 'the Son' to accomplish God's will. It was not God, but God's 'will' that the Son suffer the sins of this world. Not God who would suffer the sins, but the Son of God. Not the Son who IS God, but the Son OF God.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

Having spent years in this exact discussion, what you have offered does 'not' apply to 'all trinitarians'.

It certainly does.

You know as well as I from just the discussions you and I have participated in that there is 'no' single belief system according to 'trinity'.

Not true. There are at most, two possibly valid interpretations of the Trinitarian doctrine (with or without the filioque). All Trinitarian churches can be categorized within these two groups.

If there is, then by all means, let's hear it. For what I have heard is quite a few hundred 'different' definitions of 'trinity'. In fact, almost every one that I have ever heard differs from all the rest.

This is untrue; we have been over why it is untrue, but thank you for mentioning it so I can add it to the OP. I will also add this to my "Unreasonable Arguments" thread.

To start with, if Jesus is 'fully God/fully man', did that end upon His physical death?

No.

Or does He remain: Fully God/fully man?

Yes.

Or is Christ able, like a chameleon, to change who or what He is upon command?

There is a subtle distinction between sarcasm and humour.

Your Church is the 'same Church' that created the doctrine of 'trinity'. It wasn't until hundreds of years after the councils that created 'trinity' that they split into different 'sects'.

If you erroneously contend the Trinity was "invented" at Nicea, the first permanent schism occurred 108 years later. Not "hundreds."

I have quoted what the Catholics profess to believe according to the doctrine of 'trinity' and you have more often than not, tried to offer a separation between your 'Church' and the CC.

Not in terms of Trinitarian doctrine; we are historically different and were never a part of the Roman patriarchate, but we share a common faith in the Holy Trinity with RCs, Protestants, other Orthodox and the Assyrians.

Yet according to the doctrine in discussion, the views should be exactly the same since your Church and the CC were basically the same 'Church' at the time the doctrine of 'trinity' was introduced.

They are.

According to the doctrine as defined by the CC, in order for 'trinity' to exist, 'all three persons' are Co equal. They 'must be' in order for Christ to be worshiped 'as God' according to 'trinity'.

Coequality is correct. Absolute equality, or should I say, undifferentiation, is not correct; the Roman church does not deny the sonship of our Lord or the fatherhood of the Father.

Yet you are offering that this is a 'myth' of sorts or misconception placed upon 'trinitarians'. If it is merely a misconceptions, please explain what parts of the three persons are 'not equal'.

The word "parts" is misleading, as we do mot believe in a multipart God.

According to scripture, the Father has been God since first introduced to mankind.God is The Father. The words are basically interchangeable. The only significance in using one or the other is to point out that God is the Father of Christ. And 'our' Heavenly Father. Paternity is the only difference in the word used to define the 'same entity'.

Yet the Bible doesn't offer that The Son and God are interchangeable in any such manner. The Son 'never states' that He is God.

Not true.

Nor do we have any words from God offering such. In fact, the Bible states that upon His Baptism, a voice from Heaven was heard to say, "This is 'my' beloved Son in whom "I" am well pleased". I believe that it's pretty safe to assume that 'all' who profess to be 'believers' would agree that this voice was: The voice of God. The voice of the Father. This being obvious by reference to 'The Son'.

It was God the Father's voice, heard at the descent of God the Holy Spirit onto God the Son. This is why the feast of Epiphany or Theophany is so important: we have all three prosopa manifest concurrenty in a moment of sublime wonder and glory.

So if what was heard was indeed: The voice of God, it is really confusing how God was speaking for the sake of John in a manner contrary to 'trinity' that was formed hundreds of years later.

There is nothing in the Theophany pericope that is contrary to the Trinitarian doctrine.

Certainly John the Baptist believed he witnessed the voice of God referring to His Son. Not the Father referring to His Son, but God referring to His Son.

John the Baptist, as much as you might wish otherwise, never said anything which would contradict the Nicene faith.

Not only was 'God as a whole' not crucified, but the words of the Son Himself verify that God had 'abandoned' the Son to take on the 'sins of this world' upon Himself. It was 'not God' that 'took on the sins', but the Son. The Son even at a point before the event appealing to God to 'let his cup pass over me...", plainly showing that it took the identity of 'the Son' to accomplish God's will. It was not God, but God's 'will' that the Son suffer the sins of this world. Not God who would suffer the sins, but the Son of God. Not the Son who IS God, but the Son OF God.

Blessings,

MEC

Let's see what the Orthodox Study Bible says on the subject:

“Jesus prays Ps 21, which foretold the very details of the Crucifixion. Taken without the rest of the psalm, His cry of “Why have You forsaken me?” could be misinterpreted as a cry of despair. Since He took on our nature, Jesus experiences our alienation from God in His humanity, knowing our suffering and distress, yet He does not despair. He speaks these words in the name of humanity, completely identifying with us in our condition, for in His divinity, He is never forsaken by the Father.”

Excerpt From: St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology. “The Orthodox Study Bible.” Thomas Nelson, 2010-08-19.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

It certainly does.



Not true. There are at most, two possibly valid interpretations of the Trinitarian doctrine (with or without the filioque). All Trinitarian churches can be categorized within these two groups.



This is untrue; we have been over why it is untrue, but thank you for mentioning it so I can add it to the OP. I will also add this to my "Unreasonable Arguments" thread.



No.



Yes.



There is a subtle distinction between sarcasm and humour.



If you erroneously contend the Trinity was "invented" at Nicea, the first permanent schism occurred 108 years later. Not "hundreds."



Not in terms of Trinitarian doctrine; we are historically different and were never a part of the Roman patriarchate, but we share a common faith in the Holy Trinity with RCs, Protestants, other Orthodox and the Assyrians.




They are.



Coequality is correct. Absolute equality, or should I say, undifferentiation, is not correct; the Roman church does not deny the sonship of our Lord or the fatherhood of the Father.



The word "parts" is misleading, as we do mot believe in a multipart God.



Not true.



It was God the Father's voice, heard at the descent of God the Holy Spirit onto God the Son. This is why the feast of Epiphany or Theophany is so important: we have all three prosopa manifest concurrenty in a moment of sublime wonder and glory.



There is nothing in the Theophany pericope that is contrary to the Trinitarian doctrine.



John the Baptist, as much as you might wish otherwise, never said anything which would contradict the Nicene faith.



Let's see what the Orthodox Study Bible says on the subject:

“Jesus prays Ps 21, which foretold the very details of the Crucifixion. Taken without the rest of the psalm, His cry of “Why have You forsaken me?” could be misinterpreted as a cry of despair. Since He took on our nature, Jesus experiences our alienation from God in His humanity, knowing our suffering and distress, yet He does not despair. He speaks these words in the name of humanity, completely identifying with us in our condition, for in His divinity, He is never forsaken by the Father.”

Excerpt From: St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology. “The Orthodox Study Bible.” Thomas Nelson, 2010-08-19.

Good post!

 

[TheNorwegian]

Not true. There are at most, two possibly valid interpretations of the Trinitarian doctrine (with or without the filioque). All Trinitarian churches can be categorized within these two groups.

Agreed! In a sense I come from the 'opposite wing' of Christianity compared to OP, since I have a bachelor in Pentecostal theology. But of course we share the same understanding of the Trinity!

Through church history there have been many heresies, and so it is still today. Therefore, it is possible to find groups claiming to be Christian, while denying the Trinity. However, all major denominations and groups of Christian share the same faith in the Trinity - whether they are Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant

 

[Wgw]

Agreed! In a sense I come from the 'opposite wing' of Christianity compared to OP, since I have a bachelor in Pentecostal theology. But of course we share the same understanding of the Trinity!

Through church history there have been many heresies, and so it is still today. Therefore, it is possible to find groups claiming to be Christian, while denying the Trinity. However, all major denominations and groups of Christian share the same faith in the Trinity - whether they are Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant

Indeed; this is a happy point of unity; and one I believe is soteriologically important and an ideal starting point for ecumenical reconciliation. I consider that it is the sine qua non of the Christian faith.