How to bear witness to the truth of the Trinity

[shrinking_violet]

I'd like to make an argument for a good way to bear witness to the truth of the Trinity to nonbelievers who think that all religions are equally true (aka pluralists). I assume that you are either:
a) A Christian who both believes and understands the truth of the Trinity. You may find some nitpicky issues with some of my phrasing even. I ask that you focus on what you agree with or disagree with regarding the general explanation on how to bear witness to pluralist nonbelievers and apply your superior expertise about the Trinity to future evangelism.
b) A Christian who believes in the Trinity by faith, but admittedly doesn't fully understand it. This argument should work without having to defend to people exactly how the Trinity is true. It should provide others better understanding of what you mean when you say, "I just know!" (Nonbelievers don't get it when you say that.)
c) Not a Christian. This means you're not really in my intended audience. Hopefully, this message teaches you something about the truth of the Trinity as a way of exemplifying its own argument.

I feel the need to address that the Trinity, while important, is less core to Christianity than, say, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ or the grace of salvation. It might seem odd to witness to someone using a less foundational belief that one can have without necessarily coming to Christ. I counter that the idea of all religions being equally true is foundational to pluralism, so it's better to reach across the aisle and bring about a shared understanding before jumping to evangelizing about faith in Christ. As Paul does for the new Christians in 1 Corinthians 3:2, you should give people what they can process before moving on to the meat of the matter.

Nonbelievers who misinterpret the 3 Persons of the Trinity as contradictory to the belief in 1 Almighty God do not realize how similar this belief is to the belief that all religions are equally true. Explain to them that your faith in God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as different ways of knowing the same 1 Holy God is similar to the way they believe every religion is a different way of seeing the same truth. In certain contexts, God is the Father who sent His Son to die for our sins and rise again so that the faithful filled with the Holy Spirit will be saved. In other contexts, only 1 all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal Creator of Heaven and Earth exists. Likewise, the pluralist believes that there are certain contexts where Islam and Hinduism and Satanism and Christianity can all have truth to them. Liken the nonbeliever's belief in relative truth to the different ways of perceiving the Trinity.

You might understand their belief in ways of truth if explained through its opposite: a thing can be false in different ways with different meanings. For example, Jesus is not God's Father. Additionally, Jesus is not a homosexual banana. To claim otherwise for either statement would be false but in different ways and to different degrees. One statement is the sort of misunderstanding a child might make, mostly harmless, while the other is deeply offense to Christians, having strong moral implications. The pluralist believes truth to operate in a similar way with different degrees of truth and different connotations for what people understand as true. When they say that reincarnation can be true for a Buddhist and at the same time the Resurrection of Christ is true for a Christian, they are not lifting the degree of truth that reincarnation has to the level of the degree of truth the Resurrection has. Instead they lower the degree of truth the Resurrection has until both ideas are equally distant and harmless to them. The pluralist looks for a meta-level explanation that allows them to believe both concepts are true. On a literal level, reincarnation and Resurrection are incompatible, but the two share meta-beliefs about hope, faith, and life that the pluralist finds more important than the literal belief and holds as more true. In order to dismantle this, you must provide evidence for why the Trinity is literally true.

Unfortunately, you cannot use the Bible alone as evidence to show a nonbeliever because they do not have the belief that the Bible is literally true. Remember that you must meet people where they're at before they can come to faith in the Word of God. Give them the milk before the meat. Ground your witness in righteous works (James 2:17) that can be solidly connected to the literal Truth so important to salvation. Share how the literal belief in the literal Resurrection has a positive effect on your daily life that the nonbeliever cannot easily misattribute to meta-level truths about having a community, meditating routinely, and loving your fellow human beings. Nonbelievers can do these meta things too, so you must show what makes faith in the literal Word of God concretely different.

Saying something like, "You might believe that Jesus was just a good man or a wise prophet but the Bible tells us that God send Him to die for our sins and rise again so that we would have eternal life in heaven with Him," is not sufficient to convince most nonbelievers to come to Christ. While it addresses the meta-truth of Christ being good and wise, it uses the Bible as a foundation for countering that belief. The Bible is your foundation, not the foundation of nonbelievers! Use evidence in your life to show why it is not enough for Jesus just to be a wise teacher. Once they're onboard with that, you can build a foundation on the Word of God.

Full disclosure, I am an atheist. I don't believe in 1 God, I don't believe in 3 Divine Persons, and I don't believe in the Trinity. My credentials on the matter comes from lived experience as a nonbeliever and knowing how I think better than you do. I assume that people who believe similarly to me (i.e. other nonbelievers) are more likely to think how I think than they would think how people who fundamentally disagree with them think (i.e. you Christians). Especially for people who grew up in a Christian household in a community of mostly Christian-identified people in a country that claims Christian values. I figured if your goal of proselytizing people is so important to you, it wouldn't hurt to let you know what might actually ring true.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I'd like to make an argument for a good way to bear witness to the truth of the Trinity to nonbelievers who think that all religions are equally true (aka pluralists). I assume that you are either:
a) A Christian who both believes and understands the truth of the Trinity. You may find some nitpicky issues with some of my phrasing even. I ask that you focus on what you agree with or disagree with regarding the general explanation on how to bear witness to pluralist nonbelievers and apply your superior expertise about the Trinity to future evangelism.
b) A Christian who believes in the Trinity by faith, but admittedly doesn't fully understand it. This argument should work without having to defend to people exactly how the Trinity is true. It should provide others better understanding of what you mean when you say, "I just know!" (Nonbelievers don't get it when you say that.)
c) Not a Christian. This means you're not really in my intended audience. Hopefully, this message teaches you something about the truth of the Trinity as a way of exemplifying its own argument.

I feel the need to address that the Trinity, while important, is less core to Christianity than, say, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ or the grace of salvation. It might seem odd to witness to someone using a less foundational belief that one can have without necessarily coming to Christ. I counter that the idea of all religions being equally true is foundational to pluralism, so it's better to reach across the aisle and bring about a shared understanding before jumping to evangelizing about faith in Christ. As Paul does for the new Christians in 1 Corinthians 3:2, you should give people what they can process before moving on to the meat of the matter.

First of all, how are we processing it without coming to Christ?

Nonbelievers who misinterpret the 3 Persons of the Trinity as contradictory to the belief in 1 Almighty God do not realize how similar this belief is to the belief that all religions are equally true. Explain to them that your faith in God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as different ways of knowing the same 1 Holy God is similar to the way they believe every religion is a different way of seeing the same truth. In certain contexts, God is the Father who sent His Son to die for our sins and rise again so that the faithful filled with the Holy Spirit will be saved. In other contexts, only 1 all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal Creator of Heaven and Earth exists. Likewise, the pluralist believes that there are certain contexts where Islam and Hinduism and Satanism and Christianity can all have truth to them. Liken the nonbeliever's belief in relative truth to the different ways of perceiving the Trinity.

Without coming to Christ ... still listening .....

You might understand their belief in ways of truth if explained through its opposite: a thing can be false in different ways with different meanings. For example, Jesus is not God's Father. Additionally, Jesus is not a homosexual banana. To claim otherwise for either statement would be false but in different ways and to different degrees. One statement is the sort of misunderstanding a child might make, mostly harmless, while the other is deeply offense to Christians, having strong moral implications. The pluralist believes truth to operate in a similar way with different degrees of truth and different connotations for what people understand as true.

Like saying that a charicature of mohamed looks like a monkey ... ok ...

When they say that reincarnation can be true for a Buddhist and at the same time the Resurrection of Christ is true for a Christian, they are not lifting the degree of truth that reincarnation has to the level of the degree of truth the Resurrection has. Instead they lower the degree of truth the Resurrection has until both ideas are equally distant and harmless to them.

Disagree. Reincarnation is earthly return while resurrection is to a much higher plane once and for all.

The pluralist looks for a meta-level explanation that allows them to believe both concepts are true. On a literal level, reincarnation and Resurrection are incompatible, but the two share meta-beliefs about hope, faith, and life that the pluralist finds more important than the literal belief and holds as more true. In order to dismantle this, you must provide evidence for why the Trinity is literally true.

No, the pluralist has to move away from the mirror image that doesn't reflect heavenly truths and move into the image and glory of the mirror of glory getting clearer as the mirror does it mystifying work. Because the mirror image of self can only project self into immensity creating a false image and false god.

Unfortunately, you cannot use the Bible alone as evidence to show a nonbeliever because they do not have the belief that the Bible is literally true. Remember that you must meet people where they're at before they can come to faith in the Word of God. Give them the milk before the meat. Ground your witness in righteous works (James 2:17) that can be solidly connected to the literal Truth so important to salvation. Share how the literal belief in the literal Resurrection has a positive effect on your daily life that the nonbeliever cannot easily misattribute to meta-level truths about having a community, meditating routinely, and loving your fellow human beings. Nonbelievers can do these meta things too, so you must show what makes faith in the literal Word of God concretely different.

Christians can only overcome enimies by making them friends and that can only be done in relationship to what they have in common, as you pointed out. Because that is the bathwater that holds the seed of life to connect with the divine and is the method used by Christ and Paul too. But at least one of them died friendless. Jesus had one who betrayed.

Saying something like, "You might believe that Jesus was just a good man or a wise prophet but the Bible tells us that God send Him to die for our sins and rise again so that we would have eternal life in heaven with Him," is not sufficient to convince most nonbelievers to come to Christ. While it addresses the meta-truth of Christ being good and wise, it uses the Bible as a foundation for countering that belief. The Bible is your foundation, not the foundation of nonbelievers! Use evidence in your life to show why it is not enough for Jesus just to be a wise teacher. Once they're onboard with that, you can build a foundation on the Word of God.

The foundation is the historic death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

Full disclosure, I am an atheist. I don't believe in 1 God, I don't believe in 3 Divine Persons, and I don't believe in the Trinity. My credentials on the matter comes from lived experience as a nonbeliever and knowing how I think better than you do. I assume that people who believe similarly to me (i.e. other nonbelievers) are more likely to think how I think than they would think how people who fundamentally disagree with them think (i.e. you Christians). Especially for people who grew up in a Christian household in a community of mostly Christian-identified people in a country that claims Christian values. I figured if your goal of proselytizing people is so important to you, it wouldn't hurt to let you know what might actually ring true.

Fair enough.

 

[Doug Melven]

Trying to explain the Trinity to an unbeliever is more difficult than explaining a beautiful sunrise to a blind person.
And if you succeed in explaining the Trinity, which even most believers do not understand, you will have gotten nowhere. They will just have something else that needs explaining.
The natural man ( unbeliever) can not understand the things of God. You must be born again.

 

[shrinking_violet]

First of all, how are we processing it without coming to Christ?

The coming to Christ is the step two, the meat if you will. Sorry if I implied you talk about the Trinity to the exclusion of coming to Christ.

When they say that reincarnation can be true for a Buddhist and at the same time the Resurrection of Christ is true for a Christian, they are not lifting the degree of truth that reincarnation has to the level of the degree of truth the Resurrection has. Instead they lower the degree of truth the Resurrection has until both ideas are equally distant and harmless to them.

Disagree. Reincarnation is earthly return while resurrection is to a much higher plane once and for all.

I meant to describe how the pluralist thinks rather than what the actual truth is. Pluralists don't care if one is earthly and the other is heavenly. If they are talking about vague concepts of hope being true and you are countering with specifics about what's literally different between reincarnation and Resurrection, you will be talking past each other. If you show how the literal truth is the important part, you can reach them.

The pluralist looks for a meta-level explanation that allows them to believe both concepts are true. On a literal level, reincarnation and Resurrection are incompatible, but the two share meta-beliefs about hope, faith, and life that the pluralist finds more important than the literal belief and holds as more true. In order to dismantle this, you must provide evidence for why the Trinity is literally true.

No, the pluralist has to move away from the mirror image that doesn't reflect heavenly truths and move into the image and glory of the mirror of glory getting clearer as the mirror does it mystifying work. Because the mirror image of self can only project self into immensity creating a false image and false god.

I will concede that I spoke too strongly. I should've said that a manner of dismantling the pluralist's beliefs is to provide evidence for why the Trinity is literally true. Of course there are other ways to move them away from the mirror of self. Part of the reason why the false image of the false god is so deceptive is because it shares superficial attributes with the Truth. It must, otherwise no one would mistake it for a god.

Saying something like, "You might believe that Jesus was just a good man or a wise prophet but the Bible tells us that God send Him to die for our sins and rise again so that we would have eternal life in heaven with Him," is not sufficient to convince most nonbelievers to come to Christ. While it addresses the meta-truth of Christ being good and wise, it uses the Bible as a foundation for countering that belief. The Bible is your foundation, not the foundation of nonbelievers! Use evidence in your life to show why it is not enough for Jesus just to be a wise teacher. Once they're onboard with that, you can build a foundation on the Word of God.

The foundation is the historic death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

I stand corrected again, the foundation is not the Bible but the historic death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, using the Bible alone as your evidence is not sufficient to convince nonbelievers.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The coming to Christ is the step two, the meat if you will. Sorry if I implied you talk about the Trinity to the exclusion of coming to Christ.

I'd actually call that step one of the milk ... but it's difficult to articulate that because of jargon confusion among tradition and Tradition (a story in itself) because Tradition considers it differently than that of bible as only authority, in which case coming to Christ is relational, subjective rather than objective. (Objective being T rather than t) Therefore I stand corrected in your understanding. That is a final progression to the meat of the word, but elementarily it has come thru the milk which is the law.

I meant to describe how the pluralist thinks rather than what the actual truth is. Pluralists don't care if one is earthly and the other is heavenly. If they are talking about vague concepts of hope being true and you are countering with specifics about what's literally different between reincarnation and Resurrection, you will be talking past each other. If you show how the literal truth is the important part, you can reach them.

They would have to have the hope that you described in an afterlife to start with, then take into consideration the earthly inheritance belonging to the law and the spirit inheritance of the heavenly calling. (Answerable to each) Because there has been a death (thru Christ and self) the inheritance of the spirit is present for this life ( for earthly power to overcome life situations and divine guidance found at the altar of the High Priest available now) That is assuming that one has religious training to understand basic outlines of biblical habitations of God.

I will concede that I spoke too strongly. I should've said that a manner of dismantling the pluralist's beliefs is to provide evidence for why the Trinity is literally true. Of course there are other ways to move them away from the mirror of self. Part of the reason why the false image of the false god is so deceptive is because it shares superficial attributes with the Truth. It must, otherwise no one would mistake it for a god.

I'm not going to try to explain the trinity because it's a table of contention that I have no appetite for. Shadows should never be a satisfactory substitute for the substance. As He is we will one day be.

I stand corrected again, the foundation is not the Bible but the historic death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, using the Bible alone as your evidence is not sufficient to convince nonbelievers.

My objective is not to proselize anyone but to present the truth as I see it. I'm eternally greatful to the bible for supplying the assurance that I need (via the blood of Christ) for peace of mind. And imho that is the highest commodity that there is. Others may find that elsewhere.

Hebrews 7:16
He has become a priest by the power of a life that can’t be destroyed, rather than a legal requirement about physical descent.

 

[shrinking_violet]

Trying to explain the Trinity to an unbeliever is more difficult than explaining a beautiful sunrise to a blind person.
And if you succeed in explaining the Trinity, which even most believers do not understand, you will have gotten nowhere. They will just have something else that needs explaining.
The natural man ( unbeliever) can not understand the things of God. You must be born again.

This analogy stretches where the beauty of the sunrise is subjective when the truth of the Trinity is absolute. The difficulty in explaining a beautiful sunrise lies in being able to convey an experience to another person that you alone have (i.e. your personal feelings on beauty in relation to sunrises). It might even be easier to convince a blind person than a particularly ornery sighted person that a burning sky orb is beautiful. You could go about it by analogizing to another experience the person finds beautiful. (Perhaps your blind person gets a kick out of listening to babbling brooks.)

I think explaining the Trinity is more like trying to convince someone that the sun exists. (The sun existing being an absolute fact independent of whatever beliefs we may have on its relative beauty.) Teaching them that by itself won't prevent skin cancer, but it's an in to getting them to believe in wearing sunscreen. You don't even have to understand every precise detail about the sun to make a solid claim for its existence. Start with what you can agree on, and show them how it relates to what you know to be true.

All who have been born again were once dead in sin (Romans 3:23-24) so at some point they had to understand something. Not trying to contradict that that understanding comes from God, but I don't think it'd hurt a person to learn more of the Truth even if that thing is just the Trinity.

 

[shrinking_violet]

I'd actually call that step one of the milk ... but it's difficult to articulate that because of jargon confusion among tradition and Tradition (a story in itself) because Tradition considers it differently than that of bible as only authority, in which case coming to Christ is relational, subjective rather than objective. (Objective being T rather than t) Therefore I stand corrected in your understanding. That is a final progression to the meat of the word, but elementarily it has come thru the milk which is the law.

You're right, that verse is referring to the law of the Old Testament, not how to bear witness to nonbelievers. I thought I could reuse the analogy in another sense (Paul wasn't referring to literal food, I don't think?) but now that I think about it more it distracts from my point and arguably misquotes the Bible. What I'm trying to say is that teaching people the truth about something easier for them to grasp will not get in the way of them coming to have a close, personal relationship with their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Hope that brings clarity.

They would have to have the hope that you described in an afterlife to start with, then take into consideration the earthly inheritance belonging to the law and the spirit inheritance of the heavenly calling. (Answerable to each) Because there has been a death (thru Christ and self) the inheritance of the spirit is present for this life ( for earthly power to overcome life situations and divine guidance found at the altar of the High Priest available now) That is assuming that one has religious training to understand basic outlines of biblical habitations of God.

Hope in a literal afterlife is not quite as vague as I meant when I was describing the pluralists' belief. They're starting with a vague notion of hope. Just the feeling.

I'm not going to try to explain the trinity because it's a table of contention that I have no appetite for. Shadows should never be a satisfactory substitute for the substance. As He is we will one day be.

If you personally don't feel comfortable explaining the Trinity, I won't fault you. I was more making a point about how Christians might reach a pluralist. Simply stating that their beliefs are shadows is not as effective as explaining what makes it unsatisfactory. Nonbelievers are not coming with the same understanding and background as you have, so plain statements of truth do not have the same power to convince as things backed by concrete evidence.

I stand corrected again, the foundation is not the Bible but the historic death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, using the Bible alone as your evidence is not sufficient to convince nonbelievers.

My objective is not to proselize anyone but to present the truth as I see it. I'm eternally greatful to the bible for supplying the assurance that I need (via the blood of Christ) for peace of mind. And imho that is the highest commodity that there is. Others may find that elsewhere

I might have mistakenly used the wrong term to refer to evangelism, and if so, I apologize for the error. I want to argue for communicating with others in a way that speaks to how they think. Otherwise, we're all just talking at a brick wall. I think the operative word I used was "alone." The Bible alone is insufficient evidence to convince a nonbeliever as it is not even the real foundation (The historic death and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is). I'm not arguing for throwing it out completely.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

... The Bible alone is insufficient evidence to convince a nonbeliever as it is not even the real foundation (The historic death and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is). I'm not arguing for throwing it out completely.

I guess my only answer would be to consider this post that holds to my position of bible authority and hope perhaps you can get better answers from others than what I have provided.

THE BARN

 

[Jane_Doe]

I'd like to make an argument for a good way to bear witness to the truth of the Trinity to nonbelievers who think that all religions are equally true (aka pluralists).

Are you trying to explain it for the purposes of "here Mr pluralists for your FYI, this is what Christians believe" or trying to convince them of the truthfulness of it?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'd like to make an argument for a good way to bear witness to the truth of the Trinity to nonbelievers who think that all religions are equally true (aka pluralists). I assume that you are either:
a) A Christian who both believes and understands the truth of the Trinity. You may find some nitpicky issues with some of my phrasing even. I ask that you focus on what you agree with or disagree with regarding the general explanation on how to bear witness to pluralist nonbelievers and apply your superior expertise about the Trinity to future evangelism.
b) A Christian who believes in the Trinity by faith, but admittedly doesn't fully understand it. This argument should work without having to defend to people exactly how the Trinity is true. It should provide others better understanding of what you mean when you say, "I just know!" (Nonbelievers don't get it when you say that.)
c) Not a Christian. This means you're not really in my intended audience. Hopefully, this message teaches you something about the truth of the Trinity as a way of exemplifying its own argument.

I feel the need to address that the Trinity, while important, is less core to Christianity than, say, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ or the grace of salvation. It might seem odd to witness to someone using a less foundational belief that one can have without necessarily coming to Christ.

From a Lutheran perspective this way of looking at evangelism is odd. Because evangelism isn't about attempting to argue that a particular theological proposition is true through clever rhetoric or even sound argument. Evangelism is nothing other than announcing the Evangel, the Gospel. That's what the word "evangelism" means, it means "Gospel-ing". To proclaim or announce or speak of the good news, the good report, of what God has done for the world by, through, and in the Person of Jesus Christ. Evangelism isn't about convincing another person that this is true, it's simply the proclamation of this which we hold to be true. We don't merely proclaim this Gospel to those who don't believe, but also who believe. When we gather together for worship it is to gather around Word and Sacrament, and these are Gospel. As such Christians don't simply speak Gospel to those who don't believe, we speak Gospel to each other. Because this Gospel is that which creates and sustains faith, in which we have confidence before God on account of His mercy for us in Jesus, and look forward in hope to the resurrection of the dead and renewal of all things.

I counter that the idea of all religions being equally true is foundational to pluralism, so it's better to reach across the aisle and bring about a shared understanding before jumping to evangelizing about faith in Christ. As Paul does for the new Christians in 1 Corinthians 3:2, you should give people what they can process before moving on to the meat of the matter.

I would respond by pointing out that this definition of pluralism isn't accurate. Pluralism simply describes the fact that in secular society we (as a society) accept the plurality of religious and non-religious views--not that we (as individuals) accept all views as equally true. I can hold to my Christian conviction while accepting a pluralistic society.

Nonbelievers who misinterpret the 3 Persons of the Trinity as contradictory to the belief in 1 Almighty God do not realize how similar this belief is to the belief that all religions are equally true. Explain to them that your faith in God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as different ways of knowing the same 1 Holy God is similar to the way they believe every religion is a different way of seeing the same truth. In certain contexts, God is the Father who sent His Son to die for our sins and rise again so that the faithful filled with the Holy Spirit will be saved. In other contexts, only 1 all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal Creator of Heaven and Earth exists. Likewise, the pluralist believes that there are certain contexts where Islam and Hinduism and Satanism and Christianity can all have truth to them. Liken the nonbeliever's belief in relative truth to the different ways of perceiving the Trinity.

The problem is that this is explanation/analogy amounts more to Modalism, a heresy from the orthodox, Trinitarian perspective. The Three Hypostases are not perceptual, but actual. We aren't looking at an actor wearing three different masks, or beholding a diamond from different angles; we are speaking of three real consubsisting, consubstantial, coexisting, and coeternal Hypostases.

Further, the analogy breaks down on account that the sort of relativistic "all is true" perspective really doesn't apply to the vast majority of persons, religious or nonreligious. I sincerely doubt that there are a great many people who insist that mutually contradictory positions are themselves equally true (except, perhaps, in that neither are true). Which is to say, it's very unlikely that there are many people who can say that it is equally true that Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God (Christianity) and that Jesus is not the Son of God because God has no son (Islam). Because, again, that isn't pluralism; pluralism describes the state in which a society is tolerant of many religious (or nonreligious) perspectives and in which people are free to practice or not practice any religion they want. Pluralism describes the state of society in which freedom of religion is the governing principle.

You might understand their belief in ways of truth if explained through its opposite: a thing can be false in different ways with different meanings. For example, Jesus is not God's Father. Additionally, Jesus is not a homosexual banana. To claim otherwise for either statement would be false but in different ways and to different degrees. One statement is the sort of misunderstanding a child might make, mostly harmless, while the other is deeply offense to Christians, having strong moral implications. The pluralist believes truth to operate in a similar way with different degrees of truth and different connotations for what people understand as true. When they say that reincarnation can be true for a Buddhist and at the same time the Resurrection of Christ is true for a Christian, they are not lifting the degree of truth that reincarnation has to the level of the degree of truth the Resurrection has. Instead they lower the degree of truth the Resurrection has until both ideas are equally distant and harmless to them. The pluralist looks for a meta-level explanation that allows them to believe both concepts are true. On a literal level, reincarnation and Resurrection are incompatible, but the two share meta-beliefs about hope, faith, and life that the pluralist finds more important than the literal belief and holds as more true. In order to dismantle this, you must provide evidence for why the Trinity is literally true.

But, ultimately, then such a person is believing in neither--but instead has a belief in hope, faith, and life. Because, obviously, they don't actually believe in either reincarnation or resurrection. And on that level as a Christian, I recognize that people of all religious backgrounds are earnestly desiring to make sense of the world, their place in it, and have some sort of meaningful impact upon the world, and that this is itself laudable.

Unfortunately, you cannot use the Bible alone as evidence to show a nonbeliever because they do not have the belief that the Bible is literally true. Remember that you must meet people where they're at before they can come to faith in the Word of God. Give them the milk before the meat. Ground your witness in righteous works (James 2:17) that can be solidly connected to the literal Truth so important to salvation. Share how the literal belief in the literal Resurrection has a positive effect on your daily life that the nonbeliever cannot easily misattribute to meta-level truths about having a community, meditating routinely, and loving your fellow human beings. Nonbelievers can do these meta things too, so you must show what makes faith in the literal Word of God concretely different.

Saying something like, "You might believe that Jesus was just a good man or a wise prophet but the Bible tells us that God send Him to die for our sins and rise again so that we would have eternal life in heaven with Him," is not sufficient to convince most nonbelievers to come to Christ. While it addresses the meta-truth of Christ being good and wise, it uses the Bible as a foundation for countering that belief. The Bible is your foundation, not the foundation of nonbelievers! Use evidence in your life to show why it is not enough for Jesus just to be a wise teacher. Once they're onboard with that, you can build a foundation on the Word of God.

Full disclosure, I am an atheist. I don't believe in 1 God, I don't believe in 3 Divine Persons, and I don't believe in the Trinity. My credentials on the matter comes from lived experience as a nonbeliever and knowing how I think better than you do. I assume that people who believe similarly to me (i.e. other nonbelievers) are more likely to think how I think than they would think how people who fundamentally disagree with them think (i.e. you Christians). Especially for people who grew up in a Christian household in a community of mostly Christian-identified people in a country that claims Christian values. I figured if your goal of proselytizing people is so important to you, it wouldn't hurt to let you know what might actually ring true.

The overall premise of encountering people where they are is fine enough. Though I'm also uncomfortable with what I see as bait-and-switch proselytizing. When people are curious about my religious beliefs, I prefer to be honest about them--from the simple to the complicated. I've seen "evangelism" attempts many times that largely amounts to a soft hand, or carrot on a stick, simply for the purpose of getting someone "in". Except that, as a Christian, it's simply not my job (or any Christian's job) to get someone "in".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

From a Lutheran perspective this way of looking at evangelism is odd. Because evangelism isn't about attempting to argue that a particular theological proposition is true through clever rhetoric or even sound argument. Evangelism is nothing other than announcing the Evangel, the Gospel. That's what the word "evangelism" means, it means "Gospel-ing". To proclaim or announce or speak of the good news, the good report, of what God has done for the world by, through, and in the Person of Jesus Christ. Evangelism isn't about convincing another person that this is true, it's simply the proclamation of this which we hold to be true. We don't merely proclaim this Gospel to those who don't believe, but also who believe. When we gather together for worship it is to gather around Word and Sacrament, and these are Gospel. As such Christians don't simply speak Gospel to those who don't believe, we speak Gospel to each other. Because this Gospel is that which creates and sustains faith, in which we have confidence before God on account of His mercy for us in Jesus, and look forward in hope to the resurrection of the dead and renewal of all things.

1 Corinthians 3:2, you should give people what they can process before moving on to the meat of the matter.
I would respond by pointing out that this definition of pluralism isn't accurate. Pluralism simply describes the fact that in secular society we (as a society) accept the plurality of religious and non-religious views--not that we (as individuals) accept all views as equally true. I can hold to my Christian conviction while accepting a pluralistic society.

I'm probably less aware of the political side in the position that your providing so pluralism to me is relational to religion and leaves one looking at the mirrored effect of Buddhism that is just a reflection of self. My statements are never aimed at secular because that is where those who are the legalistics of humanity are not included in law so lawlessness is very ambiguious.

The problem is that this is explanation/analogy amounts more to Modalism, a heresy from the orthodox, Trinitarian perspective. The Three Hypostases are not perceptual, but actual. We aren't looking at an actor wearing three different masks, or beholding a diamond from different angles; we are speaking of three real consubsisting, consubstantial, coexisting, and coeternal Hypostases.

You've gone modulistic ? Where in scripture is the text of 'persons?' Please elaborate ...

Further, the analogy breaks down on account that the sort of relativistic "all is true" perspective really doesn't apply to the vast majority of persons, religious or nonreligious. I sincerely doubt that there are a great many people who insist that mutually contradictory positions are themselves equally true (except, perhaps, in that neither are true). Which is to say, it's very unlikely that there are many people who can say that it is equally true that Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God (Christianity) and that Jesus is not the Son of God because God has no son (Islam). Because, again, that isn't pluralism; pluralism describes the state in which a society is tolerant of many religious (or nonreligious) perspectives and in which people are free to practice or not practice any religion they want. Pluralism describes the state of society in which freedom of religion is the governing principle.



But, ultimately, then such a person is believing in neither--but instead has a belief in hope, faith, and life. Because, obviously, they don't actually believe in either reincarnation or resurrection. And on that level as a Christian, I recognize that people of all religious backgrounds are earnestly desiring to make sense of the world, their place in it, and have some sort of meaningful impact upon the world, and that this is itself laudable.



The overall premise of encountering people where they are is fine enough. Though I'm also uncomfortable with what I see as bait-and-switch proselytizing. When people are curious about my religious beliefs, I prefer to be honest about them--from the simple to the complicated. I've seen "evangelism" attempts many times that largely amounts to a soft hand, or carrot on a stick, simply for the purpose of getting someone "in". Except that, as a Christian, it's simply not my job (or any Christian's job) to get someone "in".

-CryptoLutheran

Reality bites.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You've gone modulistic ? Where in scripture is the text of 'persons?' Please elaborate ...

Modalism, more technically Modalistic Monarchianism, also known as Sabellianism, is the teaching that God is one Hypostasis (Subsistance or "Person") who expresses Himself through three prosopa ("faces" or "masks") or "modes". As such (according to Modalism) when we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we are merely speaking of three faces, sides, or expressions of the single divine agent: God. When we speak of God in heaven, we speak of the Father, when we speak of God in the Incarnation we speak of the Son, etc. But there's no actual distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit--it is merely what we perceive.

This is heretical.

The dogma of the Trinity asserts that there are three Hypostases (Subsistances, Persons) who are of one Ousia (Substance, Being, or Essence). To speak of the Father is not to speak of merely a mask God puts on for our benefit, we are speaking of the One who from all eternity has begotten His only-begotten Son and Word. The Father never became Father, the Son never became Son; there has always been Father and there has always been Son, there has always been the Holy Spirit. Three consubsisting, coeternal, consubstantial Persons.

TL;DR version:

Modalism would suggest that there is no actual distinction between the Father and the Son, but that Jesus is His own Father.

Trinitarianism, however, states that there is a real distinction between the Father and the Son, because Jesus is the only-begotten Son of the Father, eternally begotten, and uncreated. The Son is therefore God, because His Father is God.

I'm not being modalistic, I'm saying that Modalism is heretical and contrary to the historic teaching on the Holy Trinity.

These things have already been well established in the receiving teaching and historic creeds of the Church catholic.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Modalism, more technically Modalistic Monarchianism, also known as Sabellianism, is the teaching that God is one Hypostasis (Subsistance or "Person") who expresses Himself through three prosopa ("faces" or "masks") or "modes". As such (according to Modalism) when we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we are merely speaking of three faces, sides, or expressions of the single divine agent: God. When we speak of God in heaven, we speak of the Father, when we speak of God in the Incarnation we speak of the Son, etc. But there's no actual distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit--it is merely what we perceive.

This is heretical.

The dogma of the Trinity asserts that there are three Hypostases (Subsistances, Persons) who are of one Ousia (Substance, Being, or Essence). To speak of the Father is not to speak of merely a mask God puts on for our benefit, we are speaking of the One who from all eternity has begotten His only-begotten Son and Word. The Father never became Father, the Son never became Son; there has always been Father and there has always been Son, there has always been the Holy Spirit. Three consubsisting, coeternal, consubstantial Persons.

TL;DR version:

Modalism would suggest that there is no actual distinction between the Father and the Son, but that Jesus is His own Father.

Trinitarianism, however, states that there is a real distinction between the Father and the Son, because Jesus is the only-begotten Son of the Father, eternally begotten, and uncreated. The Son is therefore God, because His Father is God.

I'm not being modalistic, I'm saying that Modalism is heretical and contrary to the historic teaching on the Holy Trinity.

These things have already been well established in the receiving teaching and historic creeds of the Church catholic.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't claim to be modulistic as that contains the germ of many ill conceived things. But when I think of God the Father that encompasses everything about the Father, when I think of the Son I think about everything about Him, when I think (or speak of all three) but when I think of the Holy Spirit it is about all the attributes thereof, and when I think of God it entails all of the above. But persons they are not. Jesus yes, but Spirit is spirit and God is spirit, no matters what labels you try to stick on them, persons don't stick.

 

[Doug Melven]

But persons they are not. Jesus yes, but Spirit is spirit and God is spirit, no matters what labels you try to stick on them, persons don't stick.

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

I wouldn't disagree with Scripture if I were you.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

I wouldn't disagree with Scripture if I were you.

Hebrews 1:3
Who, being the effulgence of His glory and the impress of His substance and upholding and bearing all things by the word of His power, having made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Colossians 1:17
And He is before all things, and all things cohere in Him;

 

[Doug Melven]

no matters what labels you try to stick on them, persons don't stick.

What it is about persons that doesn't stick?
Person - Wikipedia
Person - Wikipedia
A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hebrews 1:3
Who, being the effulgence of His glory and the impress of His substance and upholding and bearing all things by the word of His power, having made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Colossians 1:17
And He is before all things, and all things cohere in Him;

In Hebrews 1:3 the word translated as "person" in Doug Melvin's post, and as "substance" in yours is the word hypostasis. Which if you see above, that's the word used in reference to the threeness of the Trinity, three Hypostases of one Ousia.

Generally the word hypostasis is translated as "subsistence" in English, through the Latin subsistencia, but often becomes "person". The use of the word "person" is a complicated one in discussing the Trinity because we don't mean "person" here the same way as we might describe human persons. The use of the word "person" is made more complicated because it, too, comes to us from Greek and Latin use, from Greek prosopon which is translated into Latin as persona. The reason for this complication is because Modalism taught that God was one hypostasis with three prosopa; by which was meant three "faces" or "masks"; that's what both prosopon and persona mean, "face" or "mask" as in the masks worn by actors in a play. As such many theologians were uncomfortable with this language because of its association with Modalism. However, its usage remains accepted when it is used not to refer to a mask, but to further describe hypostasis. That is, we can speak of the Hypostasis and Prosopon of the Father, in order to speak of the reality of the Father as a discrete, distinct, actual this which is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Father is a "Person" because He has actual existence. "Father" isn't simply a manufactured concept that we throw upon the nameless, faceless Deity to describe certain attributes about Him; we mean that there is actually a THIS of which to speak in a meaningful way, a WHO which relates distinctly and actually. Which means that the Father actually has a relationship with the Son and the Holy Spirit, as the One from Whom the Son has His generation and the Spirit His procession.

We aren't speaking of an imaginary Three, but of actually Three. There really are Three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These aren't merely terms we use to describe divine attributes or functions or expressions of God, but refer to actual, real, distinct Someones.

That is what is meant by "Person" and Hypostasis here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

In Hebrews 1:3 the word translated as "person" in Doug Melvin's post, and as "substance" in yours is the word hypostasis. Which if you see above, that's the word used in reference to the threeness of the Trinity, three Hypostases of one Ousia.

Generally the word hypostasis is translated as "subsistence" in English, through the Latin subsistencia, but often becomes "person". The use of the word "person" is a complicated one in discussing the Trinity because we don't mean "person" here the same way as we might describe human persons. The use of the word "person" is made more complicated because it, too, comes to us from Greek and Latin use, from Greek prosopon which is translated into Latin as persona. The reason for this complication is because Modalism taught that God was one hypostasis with three prosopa; by which was meant three "faces" or "masks"; that's what both prosopon and persona mean, "face" or "mask" as in the masks worn by actors in a play. As such many theologians were uncomfortable with this language because of its association with Modalism. However, its usage remains accepted when it is used not to refer to a mask, but to further describe hypostasis. That is, we can speak of the Hypostasis and Prosopon of the Father, in order to speak of the reality of the Father as a discrete, distinct, actual this which is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Father is a "Person" because He has actual existence. "Father" isn't simply a manufactured concept that we throw upon the nameless, faceless Deity to describe certain attributes about Him; we mean that there is actually a THIS of which to speak in a meaningful way, a WHO which relates distinctly and actually. Which means that the Father actually has a relationship with the Son and the Holy Spirit, as the One from Whom the Son has His generation and the Spirit His procession.

We aren't speaking of an imaginary Three, but of actually Three. There really are Three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These aren't merely terms we use to describe divine attributes or functions or expressions of God, but refer to actual, real, distinct Someones.

That is what is meant by "Person" and Hypostasis here.

-CryptoLutheran

That essence (hypostasis) of the 3 God-heads(Godhead being of the mind of both Father and Son carried thru the Hs) is that which is shared by all 3 but the son has that essence plus humanity and it's that essence that is not shared by humanity. Persona is an act like hypocracy.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That essence (hypostasis) of the 3 God-heads(Godhead being of the mind of both Father and Son carried thru the Hs) is that which is shared by all 3 but the son has that essence plus humanity and it's that essence that is not shared by humanity. Persona is an act like hypocracy.

The ousia--substance, essence, being--is what all Three are: God. The Hypostasis of the Father is not the Hypostasis of the Son, or the Hypostasis of the Spirit. The Hypostasis of the Father is just that, the Father.

The one Person or Hypostasis of the Son has two natures (physeon), God and man.

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us." - Definition of Chalcedon, 451 AD

The underlined in Greek: εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπὸστασιν (eis en prosopon kai mian hypostasin), in one Person and one Hypostasis.

The one Person, Hypostasis, of Jesus Christ, the eternal Son and Word of God, is of two natures, both God and man. One in being (homoousios) with the Father, because He is God; and of one being with us, because He is human. That's why it is called the Hypostatic Union, it is the union of two natures in the one Hypostasis of the Son.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[awitch]

Just out of curiosity, how important is it to believe the right thing about the nature of trinity? Does getting it wrong affect your salvation?

We have triple deities in our little Pagan world and it doesn't seem to be the big deal that it appears to be in the Christian world.