Explaining the Trinity

[Kencj]

It's so interesting that people defend the Trinity by saying it's a mystery while giving no scriptural proof of it's existence in the first place -that's the real mystery to me.

Yekcidmij's post makes it very clear that the Trinity doctrine originates in third century neo-platonic philosophy and not in the Bible.

 

[Yekcidmij]

It's so interesting that people defend the Trinity by saying it's a mystery while giving no scriptural proof of it's existence in the first place -that's the real mystery to me.

Yekcidmij's post makes it very clear that the Trinity doctrine originates in third century neo-platonic philosophy and not in the Bible.

I thought I was pretty clear in my last short paragraph. I do think they got these ideas from the bible. I think they came to the Trinitarian formulations by reflecting on what was revealed in scripture; just read what the guys wrote (they obviously got their ideas from scripture)! The difficulty is that you are looking at two different systems of thought between Jewish writers and later western Christians. I don't think there's anything wrong with such a thing either. Just because people think in different categories doesn't necessarily make one of their categories wrong if the other is correct. All of this would be a false dicotomy wrapped up in a genetic fallacy. As far as I can tell, both the biblical writers and the Church Fathers are expressing the same ideas they are just not expressing it the same exact way.

I think the logical end for the Church Fathers reflecting on the biblical text was the Trinity. Hence, I do think you can get Trinitarianism from the bible, it just might be a little more involved and take a little more thinking than pointing to Book-verse 3:16 in the bible and finding some sort of proof text. Heaven help us if we've come to the point where we only accept a sentence proof text.

 

[Yekcidmij]

And I should add Ken that I would be willing to bet that your own thinking is endebted to western thinking. And I say "western thinking" because I don't think this falls into your category of "neo-platonic" (probably a term you use to conjure up all kinds of bad thoughts in people's minds). I think a more accurate term would be "western-christian".

 

[Thekla]

It's so interesting that people defend the Trinity by saying it's a mystery while giving no scriptural proof of it's existence in the first place -that's the real mystery to me.

Yekcidmij's post makes it very clear that the Trinity doctrine originates in third century neo-platonic philosophy and not in the Bible.

Start with the First chapter of Genesis maybe ...

 

[Yekcidmij]

And I should add Ken that I would be willing to bet that your own thinking is endebted to western thinking. And I say "western thinking" because I don't think this falls into your category of "neo-platonic" (probably a term you use to conjure up all kinds of bad thoughts in people's minds). I think a more accurate term would be "western-christian".

Let me give an example.

Ken, I would presume you would believe that the law of noncontradiction is true. Something cannot be true and false at the same time in the same sense: ~(A & ~A). I would also presume you believe in the law of identity: A≡A

You can thank Aristotle for expressing that first.

 

[Kencj]

Oops sorry upload problems!

 

[Kencj]

And I should add Ken that I would be willing to bet that your own thinking is endebted to western thinking. And I say "western thinking" because I don't think this falls into your category of "neo-platonic" (probably a term you use to conjure up all kinds of bad thoughts in people's minds). I think a more accurate term would be "western-christian".

Those philiosophies conjure up all kinds of “bad thoughts” because they contain all kinds of rotten theology –their concept of God in every way contradicts the God of the Bible, with the possible exception of being vaguely monotheist.

Who else was Paul referring to when he wrote:

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form...” Col 2:8-10

Could Paul be more clear that the only "personhood" God has is in Christ, and that philosophy only contradicts that essential truth? The only "mystery" in Christianity is that "God was manifest in the flesh", a concept even children can believe.

Christianity is a branch that grew out of Judaism and not out of Greek and Roman philosophy. When the two contradict, as they do in the “God is three persons” doctrine, we should retain the former and toss the latter in the trash.

The Trinity doctrine, while it may have appealed to "church fathers" who were under the sway of third century philosophy despite Paul's warning, causes only confusion and unnecessary offense and leads people away from Christ, not to him.

 

[Kencj]

Same thing!

 

[Yekcidmij]

Those philiosophies conjure up all kinds of “bad thoughts” because they contain all kinds of rotten theology –their concept of God in every way contradicts the God of the Bible, with the possible exception of being vaguely monotheist.

That sounds like an assertion to me as there is even no explanation as to what you mean. Describe their concept of God and the concept in the bible, then maybe we can see if (1) you are correct in your descriptions and (2) if you are correct in your assertions.

Who else was Paul referring to when he wrote:

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form...” Col 2:8-10

Could Paul be more clear that the only "personhood" God has is in Christ, and that philosophy only contradicts that essential truth? The only "mystery" in Christianity is that "God was manifest in the flesh", a concept even children can believe.

First of all, be careful when talking about "essential truths" lest you tip your hand that you are indeed indebted to western thinking.

I'm not sure that you will find a Trinitarian who thinks that the fullness of God doesn't dwell in Christ. As a Trinitarian, I'm fully aware and fully believe that God is fully expressed in and through Jesus. In fact, this passage from Paul is going to support a Wisdom/Logos Christology from which Trinitarian formulations are indebted. Colassae had a problem with worshiping angels and "elemental forces" of the world (Col 2:6-7, 18). Any role the Colossians were attributing to angels or elemental forces had been conquered by Christ who is the full expression of God in bodily form. Worship of angels and fear/awe of elemental forces is not what the Church Fathers do, unless you consider Gnostics to be part of the church fathers.

Christianity is a branch that grew out of Judaism and not out of Greek and Roman philosophy. When the two contradict, as they do in the “God is three persons” doctrine, we should retain the former and toss the latter in the trash.

Again, this is an assertion on your part. I am well aware that Christianity began as a Jewish sect as I am also aware that many of the earliest christians were Hellenistic. And you have not shown a contradiction in anything yet. And are you really going to use Aristotle's law of non-contradiction to argue against western thinking!? (I tried to tell you that you were indebted to western thinking in your own thinking)

The Trinity doctrine, while it may have appealed to "church fathers" who were under the sway of third century philosophy despite Paul's warning, causes only confusion and unnecessary offense and leads people away from Christ, not to him.

I see we are going to be running into contextual problems. In Colossians, Paul is arguing against the philosophies of people who are worshiping angels, fearing elemental "forces", judging others with respect to food drink and Sabbath days. You really can't argue agaisnt anything distinctly Trinitarian with that passage, unless you want to abuse the context.

There is nothing anti-trinitarian in that passage. In fact, Paul's use of Wisdom/Logos themes are going to weigh in favor Trinitarianism over some form of modalism, tritheism, or denial of Jesus' deity.

 

[Willtor]

That doesn't make sense? Three in one? One in three? Three-ness? One-ness?

I know. It's very difficult because it can't be conceptualized. If you get far enough in math or science, at some point you realize that you can no longer conceive of what you are studying. The ancients called such things "mysteries." I'm afraid I don't have any way around it for you, though. The world is a strange and complicated place. God -- more so, apparently. All I can say is that you're already half a step ahead of most Trinitarians who think they _do_ conceive of the Trinity.

 

[Willtor]

Of course I read the entire thread -the closest anyone came to anything near a proof text was Abraham seeing "three men". Yet the text makes it clear that only one of those persons was God, the one who Abraham addresses as God and prays to for mercy for the sake of Lot.

Ah! I see. But it is not a question of proof-texts. If you never study Holy Writ beyond the stage of proof-texts, you will never proceed beyond a very limited understanding of doctrine. This is enough for some people. But if you're trying to grapple with the doctrine of the Trinity, it is not.

Where is there anything like a "description of the three Divine Persons" that you take as fact?

How is a God made up of three different persons anything but the very definition of a "confused God"?

Do you mean that you think a Trinitarian God is (or would be) confused? Or do you mean that such a God confuses (or would confuse) you?

 

[Kencj]

That sounds like an assertion to me as there is even no explanation as to what you mean. Describe their concept of God and the concept in the bible, then maybe we can see if (1) you are correct in your descriptions and (2) if you are correct in your assertions.

I did originally but I decided that going into the influence of people like Plotinus on Augustine and the "church fathers" was more detail than most people are interested in hearing. The God they present is utterly unconcerned with and uninvolved in human history, which completely contradicts the God of the Bible.

In fact, this passage from Paul is going to support a Wisdom/Logos Christology from which Trinitarian formulations are indebted. Colassae had a problem with worshiping angels and "elemental forces" of the world (Col 2:6-7, 18). Any role the Colossians were attributing to angels or elemental forces had been conquered by Christ who is the full expression of God in bodily form. Worship of angels and fear/awe of elemental forces is not what the Church Fathers do, unless you consider Gnostics to be part of the church fathers.

The reference to angels does not appear until later in the chapter after Paul states "no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" -these relate to ceremonial law and not to philosophy. Observing festivals and new moons and dietary laws does not fall under the heading of philosophy.

Again, this is an assertion on your part.

I had assumed that all Christians are aware of Paul's quote from Romans 11 regarding non-jewish christians debt to judaism: "you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you."
Christianity is rooted in Judaism, not greek philosophy.

I see we are going to be running into contextual problems. In Colossians, Paul is arguing against the philosophies of people who are worshiping angels, fearing elemental "forces", judging others with respect to food drink and Sabbath days. You really can't argue agaisnt anything distinctly Trinitarian with that passage, unless you want to abuse the context.

I think I've already made it clear that I'm not the one who is ignoring the context.

 

[Kencj]

Ah! I see. But it is not a question of proof-texts. If you never study Holy Writ beyond the stage of proof-texts, you will never proceed beyond a very limited understanding of doctrine. This is enough for some people. But if you're trying to grapple with the doctrine of the Trinity, it is not.

The NT is full of chapter after chapter explaining clearly Christ as the personhood, the incarnation, what the KJV calls "the express image of his person" -where do you find the trinity explained?

Do you mean that you think a Trinitarian God is (or would be) confused? Or do you mean that such a God confuses (or would confuse) you?

Such a God confuses everyone, which is why it should be rejected.

Jesus says "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants." Do you think he was referring to the "Triune God" which can only be explained in the context of greek philosophy?

And I suppose a God who consisted of three persons would indeed be confused!

 

[BrendanMark]

The Spirit is, of course, scriptural as is the Incarnation.

The subjects under discussion between 318 and 381 were not, as has sometimes been alleged, those raised by Greek theology or philosophy and such as could only have been raised by a people thinking in Greek terms. It was not simply a quarrel about Greek ideas. In the fourth century there came to a head a crisis . . . which was not raised by either Arius or Athanasius. It was the problem of how to reconcile two factors which were part of the very fabric of Christianity: monotheism, and the worship of Jesus Christ as divine. Neither of these factors is specifically connected with Greek philosophy or thought; both arise directly from the earliest Christian tradition. Indeed . . . it was only by overcoming some tendencies in Greek philosophy which offered too easy an answer to the problem that a solution was reached. Greek philosophy and religion could readily accept a monotheism which included an hierarchically graded God and could easily accord a qualified divinity to the Son. Neither was in the end accepted by the church. But of course it would be absurd to deny that discussion and dispute between 318 and 381 were conducted largely in terms of Greek philosophy. The reason for this was, paradoxically, because the dispute was about the interpretation of the Bible. The theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself. In the course of this search the Church was impelled reluctantly to form dogma. It was the first great and authentic example of the development of doctrine.
Hanson, R.P.C. – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God [Baker 1988, 2005, p. xx-xxi]

The Spirit is God’s way of being present, powerfully present, in our lives and communities as we await the consummation of the kingdom of God. Precisely because he understood the Spirit as God’s personal presence, Paul also understood the Spirit always as an empowering presence; whatever else, for Paul the Spirit was an experienced reality.
Fee, Gordon D. – God’s Empowering Presence—The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul [Hendrickson 1994 p. xxi]

Here was how the early church came to appropriate the salvation that Christ had brought; and here was how believers came to understand their own existence as essentially eschatological, with the Spirit as both the evidence that God’s great future for the people of God had already made its way into the present and the guarantee that God would complete the work he had begun in Christ. Thus the Spirit is absolutely presuppositional to their entire experience and understanding of their present life in Christ; and as often happens with such presuppositional matters, one rarely looks at them reflectively.
Fee, Gordon D. – God’s Empowering Presence—The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul [Hendrickson 1994 p. 2-3]

1 Corinthians 6:11
This is the second of such soteriological moments in Paul (2 Thess 2:13), in which Paul refers to peoples’ conversion in latent Trinitarian language, in which the Father saves, through the work of Christ, effected experientially by the Spirit.
Fee, Gordon – God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul [Hendrickson, 1992, 2004, p. 128]

1 Corinthians 12:4-6
The Trinitarian implications in this set of sentences, the earliest of such texts in the nt, are striking. As Barrett notes, “The Trinitarian formula is much more impressive because it seems to be artless and unconscious” (284). It is not actually a Trinitarian construct per se; i.e., Paul’s interest is not in the unity of the Persons of the Godhead: The relationships are not spoken to at all, nor does he say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one. Nevertheless, passages like this are the “stuff” from which the later theological constructs are correctly derived.
Fee, Gordon – God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul [Hendrickson, 1992, 2004, p. 162-163]

 

[Willtor]

The NT is full of chapter after chapter explaining clearly Christ as the personhood, the incarnation, what the KJV calls "the express image of his person" -where do you find the trinity explained?

It is not explained in the Bible. It is a conclusion drawn from evidences in the Bible.

Such a God confuses everyone, which is why it should be rejected.

That a doctrine should be accepted or rejected based on whether it is confusing is... impious. It might be better to consider whether the evidences do, indeed, point to it (or not). Looking at a conclusion and not liking it is a very poor way to reason.

Jesus says "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants." Do you think he was referring to the "Triune God" which can only be explained in the context of greek philosophy?

No, I do not.

And I suppose a God who consisted of three persons would indeed be confused!

Haha! Because you are confused by the Trinity, therefore if God is Triune, He must be confused, too?

 

[Kencj]

It is not explained in the Bible. It is a conclusion drawn from evidences in the Bible.

It is a conclusion drawn from greek philosophy by "church fathers" centuries after the Bible was written, as has been clearly established in this thread by contributors other than me.

That a doctrine should be accepted or rejected based on whether it is confusing is... impious. It might be better to consider whether the evidences do, indeed, point to it (or not). Looking at a conclusion and not liking it is a very poor way to reason.

I could just as easily argue that creating confusion by making God into three persons is impious. Jesus makes it clear that even little children can grasp the true nature of God.

I can recall being completely confused by the Trinity as a child and becoming an atheist later because of it. What kind of messed up God is that? was my conclusion.
But that's just me, and plenty of others out there.

No, I do not.

Well, that's a start I guess.

Haha! Because you are confused by the Trinity, therefore if God is Triune, He must be confused, too?

No, if I were a God with three persons inside me, I would certainly be confused. Christians don't revere the supposed "God in three persons" (or is it "three persons in God"?) but the God in Christ.

 

[Deut 5:29]

When Jesus came, He revealed the Father.
Jesus prayed to the Father.
Jesus taught us to pray to the Father.
Jesus pointed us to the Father.
Jesus obeyed the Father.
Jesus loved the Father.
Jesus said the Father loved Him.
Jesus always spoke of the Father in personal ways.
Where is the Holy Spirit in all of this?
None of these things can be said about the Holy Spirit.
Is that TMI for some here?

 

[Christos Anesti]

Christianity is a branch that grew out of Judaism and not out of Greek and Roman philosophy. When the two contradict, as they do in the “God is three persons” doctrine, we should retain the former and toss the latter in the trash

The current Greek methods of expression and terminology (borrowed from Platonic, Neo-Platonic, Neo-Pythagorean, Aristotelian, and Stoic philosophy among other sources) may have been used in the theological debates but the Fathers of the Church did not teach Greek philosophy in place of Theology. In fact the same Fathers who fought for the truth of the Trinity themselves warned about the dangers of profane philosophy. Their theology did not arise through mere rational speculation but came from living the life of the Church and gaining experiential gnosis from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Jesus makes it clear that even little children can grasp the true nature of God.

Intellectually?

 

[Christos Anesti]

The book "The Person in the Orthodox Tradition" by Metropolitan Hierotheos does an excellent job explaining the relation of theology to philosophy (and the gulf between the two). In it he states:

"It can readily be seen that the god of the philosophers and philosophy is not the God of the Church, that the god of philosophy is an abstract and non-existent god and that the man of philosophy is not the same as the man of the Church. We shall look at this more analytically further on and see for ourselves the opposition of the Holy Fathers to philosophy and the philosophers.....

..the holy Fathers also rejected the method used by the ancient philosophers, their way of arriving at these conclusions, for it leads to erroneous theories about God, man, and creation. The philosophers philosophized by conjecture, imagination, and having reason at the center, while for the holy the Fathers the nous was the center. They first purified their hearts of passions, and their nous was illuminated. This illumination of the nous is not just knowledge of the archetypes of beings, but the coming of the grace of God into the heart. As a result of this, they attained the vision of God, which is seeing God in the uncreated Light. It is in this way that the holy Prophets, Apostles, and saints received the revelation, the manifestation of God in their hearts.

Therefore theology is not related to philosophy, but more akin to medicine. And indeed we observe that all the heretics through the ages used philosophy, whereas the holy Fathers lived hesychasm. We find this in the whole tradition of the church and in the three Hiearchs, as we shall see in what follows. They followed another method in order to partake of the uncreated grace of God and attain the real knowledge of God. In medical science there is a cure, and through this a person is brought to health. The same is true in orthodox theology. Man cures his organ for knowing, which is the nous, and in this way he attains health and acquires knowledge of God, which also implies salvation."