Five Theories of Salvation in Christianity

[Steve Petersen]

I'll wager most Christians aren't even aware of this fact. Our denominations generally don't teach things that disagree with THEIR view. So, which one is correct?

Salvation in Christianity - Wikipedia

 

[Tree of Life]

These are really theories of the atonement, not of the broader concept of salvation.

As far as the atonement is concerned, PSA is the most developed and best understands the testimony of Scripture.

As far as salvation is concerned, we need to be saved from sin and all its consequences.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I'll wager most Christians aren't even aware of this fact. Our denominations generally don't teach things that disagree with THEIR view. So, which one is correct?

Salvation in Christianity - Wikipedia

I don’t know if I really buy this Wikipedia entry.

As far as I know. Most every Christian denomination depends on Christ blood as atonement for sin.

 

[com7fy8]

Well, it is possible the writer of this article is not totally clear on the subjects. I'll just offer how I am able to understand things.

(1) One idea seems to be that if a person does things like Jesus did, this will make the person acceptable to God.

We do need to follow Jesus. But we need how God effectively changes our character > Hebrews 12:4-14.

(2) We need to be saved by means of how Jesus defeated Satan on the cross and delivers us from the power of Satan.

This is included > Jesus did say He was sending Paul to turn us "from the power of Satan to God", in Acts 26:18. But we can see here, how we are not only taken away from Satan, but brought to God, Himself. And we need how God in us changes us into the image of Jesus > Romans 8:29. So, it is not enough only to be rescued from Satan.

(3) There is the idea, that Satan had us and Jesus traded Himself to Satan, in order to get us, but then God pulled a quick one by raising Jesus from the dead so Satan also could not have him.

I would say God never has had to negotiate with the devil.

(4) There is the idea how Jesus on the cross made up for all our sins, since no way could we suffer and die well enough for our own sins. No way could God be satisfied with how we might suffer, ourselves.

Well, we do have >

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

So, yes Jesus on the cross was sweetly pleasing to our Father - - - pleasing Him, I would say, to forgive us and reconcile with us. We could not so sweetly please God while suffering and dying for our own sins.

In any case, Jesus has done it right, the first time, so efficiently and effectively that Jesus needed to suffer and die only once, for any and all of us. And we are directed to so live and love, sweetly pleasing our Father, also.

And our Apostle Paul speaks of how "we" "first trusted in Christ", in Ephesians 1:12. So, salvation includes trusting in Jesus.

 

[HTacianas]

I'll wager most Christians aren't even aware of this fact. Our denominations generally don't teach things that disagree with THEIR view. So, which one is correct?

Salvation in Christianity - Wikipedia

From reading the article I don't see much difference between the Catholic and Orthodox views of the means of salvation, and they are the original.

 

[food4thought]

I'll wager most Christians aren't even aware of this fact. Our denominations generally don't teach things that disagree with THEIR view. So, which one is correct?

Salvation in Christianity - Wikipedia

Bottom line is, from what I understand, that faith in Christ's life, death, and resurrection are central to all these views. The specifics come from man trying to decipher the inner workings of God's mind with regard to HOW Jesus' life, death and resurrection saved us. These differ as man's philosophies regarding things generally do, yet salvation is not dependent upon having the right view on how salvation works, but on having genuine faith in the correct Christ (the Divine Son of God, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit). To me, the penal substitution theory is the one with the most Biblical support, but that is just what I have been taught, and I understand that it does raise some questions that are hard to answer.

In the end, it is faith in Jesus Christ that saves, not faith in human understandings of the atonement.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Bottom line is, from what I understand, that faith in Christ's life, death, and resurrection are central to all these views. The specifics come from man trying to decipher the inner workings of God's mind with regard to HOW Jesus' life, death and resurrection saved us. These differ as man's philosophies regarding things generally do, yet salvation is not dependent upon having the right view on how salvation works, but on having genuine faith in the correct Christ (the Divine Son of God, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit). To me, the penal substitution theory is the one with the most Biblical support, but that is just what I have been taught, and I understand that it does raise some questions that are hard to answer.

In the end, it is faith in Jesus Christ that saves, not faith in human understandings of the atonement.

Why are those the rules though? Why is it ok to believe in the correct who and the incorrect how, but NOT ok to believe in the incorrect who and the correct how?

 

[Hieronymus]

John 3:16

 

[Silmarien]

I'll wager most Christians aren't even aware of this fact. Our denominations generally don't teach things that disagree with THEIR view. So, which one is correct?

Salvation in Christianity - Wikipedia

I wouldn't say that there are five concrete theories of atonement, but that atonement is a puzzle and the various theories stress different parts of it. The more popular theories in the West focus upon sin as an affront to God that needs to be appeased in some way, but this relies upon a very legalistic understanding of sin and its consequences. Those parts of the Christian world which understand sin as being more along the lines of a spiritual illness will look at atonement differently as well, hence Christus Victor being the traditional understanding in the East.

But Satisfaction and Penal Substitution are not really so different as to be totally separate paradigms, and something like Ransom Theory kind of straddles the divide between Christus Victor and these other, more legalistic approaches. And there are a variety of other theories as well, like Scapegoat Theory. (That might actually be the most biblically sound of the various approaches.)

Of course, they're also not mutually exclusive. I think Moral Exemplar needs to play a role in any theory of atonement, but I'm not sure that it alone tells the full story.

 

[food4thought]

Why are those the rules though? Why is it ok to believe in the correct who and the incorrect how, but NOT ok to believe in the incorrect who and the correct how?

It boils down to how clear Scripture is on an issue. Various Scriptures tell us who Christ is with great clarity (John 1:1-14; etc.), but the Bible is less clear on the issue of how the atonement works. Upon further reflection, though, it is likely that God is not going to hold too tightly to such issues as proper Christology in the judgement... I am not in the position of God, who alone will determine whose faith was genuine. The best way to express what I believe is that I think God is more concerned with who we believe Christ is than in how exactly atonement works, because one issue is about His person and one issue is about things that pertain only to His work. God is relational.

Hope this helps;
Michael

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll wager most Christians aren't even aware of this fact. Our denominations generally don't teach things that disagree with THEIR view. So, which one is correct?

Salvation in Christianity - Wikipedia

Why does anyone need to 'find' the correct teaching when in today's world we can open the New Testament and read it all for ourselves? Wouldn't it just be more helpful to learn how to apply hermeneutics to our reading of the Bible today than to be told what specifics to believe?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It boils down to how clear Scripture is on an issue. Various Scriptures tell us who Christ is with great clarity (John 1:1-14; etc.), but the Bible is less clear on the issue of how the atonement works. Upon further reflection, though, it is likely that God is not going to hold too tightly to such issues as proper Christology in the judgement... I am not in the position of God, who alone will determine whose faith was genuine. The best way to express what I believe is that I think God is more concerned with who we believe Christ is than in how exactly atonement works, because one issue is about His person and one issue is about things that pertain only to His work. God is relational.

Hope this helps;
Michael

But the Bible isn't clear on who Christ is. Something that doesn't make sense (the trinity) was invented to try to understand the issue.

 

[food4thought]

But the Bible isn't clear on who Christ is. Something that doesn't make sense (the trinity) was invented to try to understand the issue.

John 1:1-14 makes it clear that Jesus is God, does it not? Just because we can't wrap our minds around it is insufficient reason to reject something. Is quantum mechanics true?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

John 1:1-14 makes it clear that Jesus is God, does it not? Just because we can't wrap our minds around it is insufficient reason to reject something. Is quantum mechanics true?

That doesn't make it clear that Jesus is Jehovah. It's calling him the word of Jehovah. Meaning that when Jehovah somehow spoke things into existence, the words themselves were another lower god of some kind. This is how Jesus was begotten. Your interpretation seems to be that Jehovah's word is himself, and further, that Jesus was never begotten (due to his eternal coexistence with the father). The standard creed is a less natural and less sensible interpretation.

Also you can't just ignore verses that make Jesus clearly less than the father. That makes it look like you're not engaging this in good faith.

Observations about quantum mechanics are indisputable. The hypostatic union is not analogous to quantum mechanics. An electron is never fully on one side of a barrier and fully on the other side at the same time. It's a probability function. Fundamentally different.

 

[food4thought]

That doesn't make it clear that Jesus is Jehovah. It's calling him the word of Jehovah. Meaning that when Jehovah somehow spoke things into existence, the words themselves were another lower god of some kind. This is how Jesus was begotten. Your interpretation seems to be that Jehovah's word is himself, and further, that Jesus was never begotten (due to his eternal coexistence with the father). The standard creed is a less natural and less sensible interpretation.

"... and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Not a lesser god. Not "a" god. God.

Also you can't just ignore verses that make Jesus clearly less than the father.

I did not bring them up because they were not germane to the discussion. In the Incarnation, yes, Jesus was "a little lower than the angels". He did not know all things. He was not omnipresent. During the Incarnation, He "emptied Himself of His privileges", and was in fact less in glory than the Father.

From all eternity, the Word was God. End of subject. How Christ can be fully God and fully man, and how exactly He relates to the other persons of the God-head, these are different subjects. If you want to discuss Christology in greater detail, I am sure there are others more learned on the topic here, and they would be happy to discuss it with you in another thread; but I do not wish to do so myself, and do not want to further derail Steve's thread.

That makes it look like you're not engaging this in good faith.

Your statement makes me think that you are just here to argue.

Observations about quantum mechanics are indisputable. The hypostatic union is not analogous to quantum mechanics. An electron is never fully on one side of a barrier and fully on the other side at the same time. It's a probability function. Fundamentally different.

The Trinity is like quantum mechanics in two ways: 1) relatively few people really understand it, and even the ones that (at least) claim they do are somewhat uneasy with it. 2) It does not fully explain the reality of what it attempts to describe. God is ultimately incomprehensible, being infinite and eternal. In a somewhat similar way, quantum mechanics cannot explain gravity (yet) at the quantum level. It is not a full explanation of the reality.

Hope this helps;
Michael

 

[Nihilist Virus]

"... and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Not a lesser god. Not "a" god. God.

Greek has no real indefinite article. There are a couple dozen definite articles. And in John 1:1 there's an article appearing before Logos each and every time. It's the masculine/singular article. How do you want to translate that article? "The"? Why not "a"? Seems to be an anachronism to fit your creed.

Also I can't help but notice you flat out ignored my statement about Jesus being begotten. My explanation covers that. Yours doesn't. Simply ignoring direct statements about a perceived flaw in your position is not a genuine way to find the truth. Maybe you think you know it all and I'm just some chump, and it's me who has to learn from you and never the other way.

I did not bring them up because they were not germane to the discussion.

Christ explaining who he is or who he isn't is not relevant to the question of who Christ is?

What!?!?

In the Incarnation, yes, Jesus was "a little lower than the angels". He did not know all things. He was not omnipresent. During the Incarnation, He "emptied Himself of His privileges", and was in fact less in glory than the Father.

So he was not God then? Or was he a distinctly lower god? Or was he God while not fitting the definition of God?

From all eternity, the Word was God. End of subject.

So how was he begotten?

How Christ can be fully God and fully man, and how exactly He relates to the other persons of the God-head, these are different subjects.

No it is NOT. Not if I'm asking who Christ is.

If you want to discuss Christology in greater detail, I am sure there are others more learned on the topic here, and they would be happy to discuss it with you in another thread;

Can they explain how Christ was begotten?

but I do not wish to do so myself, and do not want to further derail Steve's thread.

Our conversation is on topic. The topic is theories of salvation and you're saying that belief in the correct version of Christ is necessary. If you want to back down for personal reasons that's your business.

Your statement makes me think that you are just here to argue.

And yet you prove the statement correct in your response. My complaint is that you're leaving too much unaddressed and you go on to not address my statement about Jesus being begotten.

The Trinity is like quantum mechanics in two ways: 1) relatively few people really understand it, and even the ones that (at least) claim they do are somewhat uneasy with it. 2) It does not fully explain the reality of what it attempts to describe. God is ultimately incomprehensible, being infinite and eternal. In a somewhat similar way, quantum mechanics cannot explain gravity (yet) at the quantum level. It is not a full explanation of the reality.

The first comparison is not a real comparison as it is not comparing intrinsic qualities of the two things being compared. As for the second, we understand infinity. The first order of infinity is derived by the cardinality of a set X for which there exists a function f:X-->X such that f is injective but not surjective. The higher orders of infinity are derived subsequently. This has been known for over a hundred years.

And yes, we need a quantum theory of gravity. Or more likely a theory that replaces both relativity and quantum mechanics.

Hope this helps;
Michael

To be blunt, no it did not.

 

[food4thought]

Greek has no real indefinite article. There are a couple dozen definite articles. And in John 1:1 there's an article appearing before Logos each and every time. It's the masculine/singular article. How do you want to translate that article? "The"? Why not "a"? Seems to be an anachronism to fit your creed.

I am going to go on the assumption here that neither one of us are fluent in Greek... am I right?

Also, I am a bit uncertain what you are asking here. Are you asking about the definite articles before "Logos" or the missing definite article before "Theos" in John 1:1?

Also I can't help but notice you flat out ignored my statement about Jesus being begotten. My explanation covers that. Yours doesn't. Simply ignoring direct statements about a perceived flaw in your position is not a genuine way to find the truth. Maybe you think you know it all and I'm just some chump, and it's me who has to learn from you and never the other way.

I was implying no such thing, I was simply trying to narrow the discussion to avoid taking hours to post. The full Deity of Christ is a different subject than a broader discussion on the full nature of Christ or the Trinity. Since you insist on broadening the discussion here, I will plainly say I am uncertain how exactly Jesus was begotten. One explanation I think holds some water is called Incarnational Sonship. It basically teaches that the Word existed from all eternity, and the Word was begotten at the Incarnation of Christ and He became the Son of God at that point. Thus the eternal Word of John 1:1 was not begotten, only the Incarnation of Christ was begotten. This view has a problem... not with Scripture that I can see, but with an ancient creed of the Church. This is why I am uncertain of Incarnational Sonship, because I hold the ancient creeds in high regard.

Christ explaining who he is or who he isn't is not relevant to the question of who Christ is?

What!?!?

The full nature of Christ is an extremely broad subject. I was simply trying to narrow it down.

So he was not God then? Or was he a distinctly lower god? Or was he God while not fitting the definition of God?

He was fully God, just not expressing all of His attributes. As Philippians explains:

Philippians 2:5-7 NASB Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, (6) who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

So how was he begotten?

It is a mystery to me, and that does not bother me in the least. Incarnational Sonship may hold the answer, but I am not sure. The Bible tells us that Jesus is fully Divine, and it tells us that He was begotten in some way... the answers you're seeking would be deeper than what God has chosen to reveal to us in His word, and are therefore going to mostly be found in the philosophies of men who are fallible.

No it is NOT. Not if I'm asking who Christ is.

Again, this is a tremendously large topic, which I was trying to narrow down to the full Deity of Christ. If we can establish an answer to that question, then we could conceivably move on to another sub-topic if we were both willing.

Our conversation is on topic. The topic is theories of salvation and you're saying that belief in the correct version of Christ is necessary. If you want to back down for personal reasons that's your business.

I said in my response that I don't think God is going to scrutinize one's Christology at the judgment, but I do think He will hold us responsible to believe that Jesus was fully Divine because the Bible makes that clear. Another passage that states this fact is in Colossians:

Colossians 2:8-9 NASB 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. (9) For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

The first comparison is not a real comparison as it is not comparing intrinsic qualities of the two things being compared. As for the second, we understand infinity. The first order of infinity is derived by the cardinality of a set X for which there exists a function f:X-->X such that f is injective but not surjective. The higher orders of infinity are derived subsequently. This has been known for over a hundred years.

You know the science better than I do. I wasn't trying to make a comparison of intrinsic quality. Just trying to show that there are things we take as true that we are uncomfortable with. If my comparison falls flat with you, we can discard it.

And yes, we need a quantum theory of gravity. Or more likely a theory that replaces both relativity and quantum mechanics.

You're probably right, a new theory will have to be found.

To be blunt, no it did not.

Sorry you feel that way. Maybe this will be more helpful.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I am going to go on the assumption here that neither one of us are fluent in Greek... am I right?

Yes.

Also, I am a bit uncertain what you are asking here. Are you asking about the definite articles before "Logos" or the missing definite article before "Theos" in John 1:1?

Good catch. This obviously relates to your point above. I seem to have goofed on this one. I should have been looking at the term for God to make my point instead of the term for word.

Look here though:

John 1:1 Greek Text Analysis

We see articles being inserted into the English translation and articles from the Greek being left out of the translation. So it's not as cut and dry as the English translation. The English translation came over a thousand years after the Council of Nicea which itself was anachronistic. Also, of course, Roman Christianity was an appropriation of a previous culture and religion.

So we have an anachronistic appropriation translated over and over through centuries, and the source documents vary and the original manuscript is lost to history. I think articles can get lost or fabricated quite easily. And an article makes a huge difference, doesn't it? The word was God, or the word was a God.

I was implying no such thing, I was simply trying to narrow the discussion to avoid taking hours to post. The full Deity of Christ is a different subject than a broader discussion on the full nature of Christ or the Trinity.

If I believe in one but reject the other, will I be saved? Salvation is the topic of the thread.

Since you insist on broadening the discussion here, I will plainly say I am uncertain how exactly Jesus was begotten.

Thanks.

So the word was God. What does the word mean? The Bible? Was the Bible "written" before creation? Or is the word God's act of creation, "Let there be light"?

One explanation I think holds some water is called Incarnational Sonship. It basically teaches that the Word existed from all eternity, and the Word was begotten at the Incarnation of Christ and He became the Son of God at that point. Thus the eternal Word of John 1:1 was not begotten, only the Incarnation of Christ was begotten. This view has a problem... not with Scripture that I can see, but with an ancient creed of the Church. This is why I am uncertain of Incarnational Sonship, because I hold the ancient creeds in high regard.

The incarnation of Christ was in a tug-of-war with the deity of Christ. It's been said that he was begotten at the resurrection, and that Jesus was merely a man until that point, then became the adopted son of God. So he was a man while alive, then resurrected as a demigod Then it was pushed back to his baptism. So he was a man until he began his ministry, and this explains how he could suddenly do miracles. Then it was pushed back to his birth, which is what you're advocating here. Then the gospel of John pushes it back to eternity past, so that Christ was never adopted but was begotten at the moment of creation.

But I do think that your view, that Christ was begotten at incarnation, is a heresy, which you seem to somewhat acknowledge.

The full nature of Christ is an extremely broad subject. I was simply trying to narrow it down.

I'm all for focusing the topic into something more narrow, but you cannot exclude aspects that are fundamental to salvation. Is what I'm pushing here not relevant to salvation? You seem to indicate that the issue of how he was begotten is not a salvation issue, but I'm saying that how he was begotten is directly related to who he is, which is a salvation issue. And I would like to think you'd agree. If Christ wasn't the son of God until the resurrection, would he be a different person than whom you currently believe him to be?

He was fully God, just not expressing all of His attributes. As Philippians explains:

Philippians 2:5-7 NASB Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, (6) who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, (7) but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

In the form of God, but not equal with God. In a word, nonsense.

It is a mystery to me, and that does not bother me in the least. Incarnational Sonship may hold the answer, but I am not sure. The Bible tells us that Jesus is fully Divine, and it tells us that He was begotten in some way... the answers you're seeking would be deeper than what God has chosen to reveal to us in His word, and are therefore going to mostly be found in the philosophies of men who are fallible.

So if no one knows, is it safe to assume that it's not a salvation issue? If so, why is deification of Christ a salvation issue? Clearly no one understands that either.

Again, this is a tremendously large topic, which I was trying to narrow down to the full Deity of Christ. If we can establish an answer to that question, then we could conceivably move on to another sub-topic if we were both willing.

I would think that how he was begotten would shed some light on how he is God.

I said in my response that I don't think God is going to scrutinize one's Christology at the judgment, but I do think He will hold us responsible to believe that Jesus was fully Divine because the Bible makes that clear. Another passage that states this fact is in Colossians:

Colossians 2:8-9 NASB 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. (9) For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Right, but the Mormons and JWs can point to a ton of verses that attest the exact opposite.

I'm fully willing to admit when I'm wrong. When you refuse to acknowledge facts that contradict your position, you make it difficult for the rest of us to take you seriously.

I've had an incident here on these forums where I not only admitted I was wrong, but I was the one who discovered how and why I was wrong and I explained it in detail. I also conceded the entire thread. My interlocutor nevertheless continuing arguing with my original point, so he clearly wasn't even listening to me. I then had to point him back in the direction of my mea culpa, and later on another thread he had the audacity to say that I refuse to admit when I'm wrong.

There was another user who corrected me on something, and in my response I argued with him and maintained my position, then he reaffirmed his position. I looked into it and I was wrong, and I admitted it immediately and conceded the entire thread yet again. He, too, had the audacity to say that I was being unreasonable.

So you see my expectations with apologists are quite low due to past experiences. We'll see where you stack up. I hope you acknowledge the wealth of verses in the Bible that contradict your claim about the deity of Christ, and that you are as humble there as you are on your ignorance of how Christ was begotten.

You know the science better than I do. I wasn't trying to make a comparison of intrinsic quality. Just trying to show that there are things we take as true that we are uncomfortable with. If my comparison falls flat with you, we can discard it.

I doubt I know the science better. Math is my field.

I don't believe in things that I'm uncomfortable with. If I find that I do, I look it up. For example, I found I was uncomfortable with belief that organisms could evolve from single-celled to multicellular. Then I looked it up. Obviously the unabridged explanation is beyond me, but I get the gist of it.

I find now I'm also uncomfortable with believing that the first self-replicating RNA-like "organism" somehow obtained the first part, i.e. a cellular boundary. I'll look into that.

You're probably right, a new theory will have to be found.

The analogy is basically that inasmuch as we treat air as a fluid on the large scale, on the smaller scale air is treated like a gas. So space maybe is like a "fluid" on the large scale, and on that model relativity works beautifully; but on the smaller scale it is a "gas", and we have to use a different model.

Incidentally, the Big Bang necessarily requires the use of both incompatible models seeing as how it occurred on a small scale (invoking quantum mechanics), but with all the mass in the universe (invoking relativity). Since we lack the mathematical language to describe this, the simulations of the Big Bang we run seem to indicate fine tuning. But what is really fine tuned is the simulation itself, not the universe, because we are literally fine tuning variables to force the simulation to mimic our universe when in reality the universe likely operates neither under quantum mechanics, relativity, nor some amalgamation thereof.

Sorry you feel that way. Maybe this will be more helpful.

Yes, this post was helpful as it showed a mistake I made.



P.S.

I'm sorry, as I re-read my post it occurred to me that I didn't fully engage this. We understand infinities mathematically, but I suggest that at actual infinite series of numbers is quite beyond a finite mind to fully grasp...

We understand infinite series of numbers. That's what Riemann sums are based on in calculus. Other things like Taylor series also show we understand infinite series of numbers.

If by series you don't mean a sum but rather a set, then again, we already understand this. I gave you the definition. Let me bolster it with an example.

The set of natural numbers, N, equals {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}. The set of integers, Z, equals {..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}. They are not the same set, but they are the same size. I can create a bijection between them. Let f:N-->Z such that f(0)=0, f(2n)=n, f(2n-1)=-n. In other words you map all even whole numbers to the positive integers and all odd whole numbers to the negative whole numbers. The sets are the same size, clearly. And yet the canonical injection, f(n)=n, shows that N is properly contained in Z. Finite sets don't work this way.

There is a limit to human knowledge. Obviously. But infinity simply is not one of those limitations.

and that's just talking about numbers, not an infinite Being, who is also eternal.

Says you. God's existence is a point in question when it comes to apologetics.

You can assume God's existence and then make accurate predictions about reality. That's totally acceptable. What I can't allow is for you to assume his existence and then say, "See, here's stuff we don't understand." If you assume his existence and leverage it to make an accurate, nontrivial prediction about reality, and that prediction then comes true, I have to seriously reconsider my position. If, however, you assume God's existence and then reach nonsensical conclusions, you're doing my job for me. You're showing that it's unreasonable, by definition, to believe in such a God.

God is ultimately incomprehensible to the human mind as it is currently enabled.

The same thing more or less happens in comic books. We have a term for it. Retcon, or retroactive continuity. When several authors write about the same thing, contradictions inevitably follow. A retcon is where we then go back to try to explain the contradiction with some new information, making it more complicated and convoluted than it was before.

The Trinity is the best we have been able to come up with to explain a reality that is currently beyond our grasp, yet most likely falls short of fully describing the reality.

It doesn't explain anything if it doesn't make sense. I reject it as an explanation. If you want to say that the Bible presents it in a way where the trinity "just is" because "the Bible said so" then I'd accept that as an actual Christian position. But the Bible doesn't go out of its way to advocate the trinity. The trinity is a human invention, the purpose of which is to make sense of the assertions of scripture. It fails to fulfill its one and only purpose.

 

[food4thought]

As for the second, we understand infinity. The first order of infinity is derived by the cardinality of a set X for which there exists a function f:X-->X such that f is injective but not surjective. The higher orders of infinity are derived subsequently. This has been known for over a hundred years.

I'm sorry, as I re-read my post it occurred to me that I didn't fully engage this. We understand infinities mathematically, but I suggest that at actual infinite series of numbers is quite beyond a finite mind to fully grasp... and that's just talking about numbers, not an infinite Being, who is also eternal. God is ultimately incomprehensible to the human mind as it is currently enabled. The Trinity is the best we have been able to come up with to explain a reality that is currently beyond our grasp, yet most likely falls short of fully describing the reality.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm sorry, as I re-read my post it occurred to me that I didn't fully engage this. We understand infinities mathematically, but I suggest that at actual infinite series of numbers is quite beyond a finite mind to fully grasp... and that's just talking about numbers, not an infinite Being, who is also eternal. God is ultimately incomprehensible to the human mind as it is currently enabled. The Trinity is the best we have been able to come up with to explain a reality that is currently beyond our grasp, yet most likely falls short of fully describing the reality.

As my previous post has been heavily edited already I'll just tuck this in at the bottom of it.