Islam vs Trinity

[com7fy8]

I have somewhat of a latent interest in debating Muslims on topics related to christianity, and if you've ever watched some of these debates in places like speaker's corner, you'll know what I'm talking about when I say they can be a challenge.

It is possibly not really a challenge. Because ones arguing against Christianity can make up their own definitions for words we use, then say we are wrong . . . when we don't even mean what they claim we are saying. That is not being challenging, but just being dishonest or incompetent at understanding what you mean before answering to it.

For one thing, it is simple: we do not teach polytheism. But ones playing their game of "word chess" can take our words, such as "Person", and give them different meanings than what we are saying. By doing this, they are not being challenging, I would say.

"Father" is the name of a "Person". And "Son" is the name of a "Person". Note how these are names of family Persons. God is love . . . family caring and sharing love. And the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God's own love "in our hearts" > Romans 5:5. So, the Holy Spirit is this personal, "in our hearts", sharing God's own love with us. So, if the Holy Spirit is personal in love, and is spoken of with a distinct name, "Holy Spirit", then I would say He is a Person.

But there is a difference between how humans can be persons, and how our Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are Persons. They are not totally distinct from one another, because God is Their being and connection among Them. They all are Persons of love, love who is God. And They do all things in perfect union and communion and coordination with one another . . . which is not how gods of polytheism function and relate, that I know of.

Plus > hierarchy and position of power can not effect how love is; so it does not matter if Jesus obeys our Father and is under our Father. Jesus is the same love as our Father is; but worldly people can feel unloved if they are lower than someone else. So, that is their problem, not God's

 

[Andrewn]

I'm not saying there is a separate Ousia.

Very good. We agree here.

The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Likewise, as I have stated earlier, the Father in some places speaks as the one God, as does the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The concept, as illustrated by scripture is that God transcends distinction between the Persons.

The Nicene Creed is the standard. It says:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

You're starting to lose me here, but this is typically where it breaks down. Three humans fail the test: not three humans. I don't believe in three Gods. Trinitarianism is a kind of monotheism.

What I will suggest is mind-glowingly simple. Brother Rachid is a former Muslim who evangelizes among Muslims. You can google his name and check his website. Here is his explanation of the Trinity:

"The Trinity is simple: God, His Word, and His Spirit. Unless you believe in a god without a word and without a spirit, which means he is a dead god."

This summarizes the Nicene Creed. It is extremely simple but not simplistic. This is quite profound and it is all that you, I, and everyone need to know. Forget all theology articles and stick to the Bible.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I cant remember the church father who describes it this way. If there was only a monad, all love would be self directed. If there was a duality, that love has no room for the other. Therefore a Trinity is needed because now love is shared in a a relationship.

 

[Andrewn]

You can always use the actual Greek terms such as ousia and hypostasis, that way you don't lose the philosophical background.

Yes, this is true, but the listener may inquire about the meaning.

I have a question, the word γεννηθέντα in the Nicene Creed, can it be translated "generated"? It sounds like generated. I read ECF's that used the word "generated" and was wondering about the Greek behind it.

 

[Clare73]

Is that not odd that when God had fingers, he didn't write scripture?
Everyone keeps pointing to scripture as the only source of God's word
but He wrote in the sand when He had the opportunity.

Certainly no more "odd" than God letting himself be crucified.

Your point?

 

[Clare73]

Well, yes, but I find it helps to first establish that trinitarians are, in fact, monotheists, but we have different spirituality. Then it is helpful to "attack," in not such a hostile way, their conception of prophet. But, I hold back because to date I have never seem to be able to reach complete agreement or approval of christians over my conception of Trinity as derived from scripture, which is the only thing that Muslims will respect.



Yes I agree here.




I am agreeing with the creed, as far as I'm aware. By saying the one Ousia that is God transcends distinction between the Persons, I am not trying to formulate a new creed, but I have no other way to describe the Being in relation to the distinction between Persons, who are of one Being.

Perhaps "transcends" is suspect, but, there is no other word that I am aware of to describe the relation of the one Ousia that is God, to the distinction between Persons. Note that I am not saying Persons only, as there is no distinction between any one Person and the Ousia. I am saying the Ousia transcends the distinction between Persons only. If there is a better word than "transcends" as in "lies beyond the scope of", I would like to know it, but it is the only word I have available.

Would a simple "will, word, action" serve to demonstrate that while the three are different functions, they are the same deity executing the transaction?

Or is that some form of heresy?

 

[Der Alte]

Is that not odd that when God had fingers, he didn't write scripture?
Everyone keeps pointing to scripture as the only source of God's word
but He wrote in the sand when He had the opportunity.

Exodus 31:18
18 When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.

 

[TheWhat?]

Would a simple "will, word, action" serve to demonstrate that while the three are different functions, they are the same person executing the transaction?

Or is that some form of heresy?

It would confuse the persons.

This is the subject of the debate but I find that the concept of Being (Ousia) transcending the distinction between coequal, coeternal Persons to:

• Agree with at least the first creed of Nicaea
• Agree with the Athanasian creed, avoiding non-monotheistic belief
• Be in part supported by a derivation of the name "I AM" from the Gospel of John showing a relation with the word "ousia" and thus, homoousianism, before it would have been translated into substantia or essentia -- this is extracted information that supports and does not contradict monotheistic trinitarianism and is a potential source for early homoousian beliefs.
  
• Be demonstrated by a passage historically interpreted to be a typological portrait/icon of the trinity in Genesis 18 -- wherein we see three distinct persons, and one God speaks to Abraham.
  

 

[Clare73]

It would confuse the persons.

This is the subject of the debate but I find that the concept of Being (Ousia) transcending the distinction between coequal, coeternal Persons to:

• Agree with at least the first creed of Nicaea
• Agree with the Athanasian creed, avoiding non-monotheistic belief
• Be in part supported by a derivation of the name "I AM" from the Gospel of John showing a relation with the word "ousia" and thus, homoousianism, before it would have been translated into substantia or essentia -- this is extracted information that supports and does not contradict monotheistic trinitarianism and is a potential source for early homoousian beliefs.
  
• Be demonstrated by a passage historically interpreted to be a typological portrait/icon of the trinity in Genesis 18 -- wherein we see three distinct persons, and one God speaks to Abraham.
  

But does not the NT present three distinct and separate personhoods and their distinct relationships to one another?

 

[TheWhat?]

Does that preserve the three distinct and separte personhoods and their distinct relationships to one another presented in the NT?

Not as much as a non-monothestic tritheism. But it also does not eliminate or confuse the persons. It is, exactly what trinitarians confess: three Persons and one God, except it stops me from going off in the trail of: "well, essence isn't really Being, it isn't God, so, three gods that share the same divine essence or substance."

 

[TheWhat?]

But does not the NT present three distinct and separate personhoods and their distinct relationships to one another?

I must have missed your edit.

It does present distinct Persons (e.g. Jesus' baptism). I don't know about "separate" (John 10:38).

 

[TheWhat?]

Separate persons, in my view, would imply non-unified persons and a divided essence.

 

[Clare73]

I must have missed your edit.

It does present distinct Persons (e.g. Jesus' baptism). I don't know about "separate"
(John 10:38).

Christ is in me (Colossians 1:27), and I am in Christ (Romans 8:1), and we are separate.

 

[Clare73]

Separate persons, in my view, would imply non-unified persons and a divided essence.

Do we not have separate persons (divine agents) in the work of salvation?

Father, Son and Holy Spirit at its beginning (Luke 1:35), at the inauguration of Jesus' public ministry (Matthew 3:16-17) and in the work of atonement (Hebrews 9:14)?

The Holy Spirit completing the work (salvation) of the Father through the Son (Acts 2:38-39; Romans 8:26; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 1:3-14, Ephesians 2:13-22; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2)?

The only way to enter the kingdom of the Father is through faith in the Son and regeneration by the Holy Spirit (John 3:1-15)?

 

[Clare73]

Separate persons, in my view, would imply non-unified persons and a divided essence.

Question:

What does it matter regarding the Trinity when a Muslim is not going to agree that Jesus is the only way to the Father (John 14:6), that any and all other ways leave you in your sin and condemned (Romans 5:18)?
That is the issue, not the Trinity.

Are you sure you want to redefine the Trinity to suit Muslims?
I'm thinking Muslims need to suit the Trinity, not the Trinity suit the Muslims.

 

[TheWhat?]

Do we not have separate persons (divine agents) in the work of salvation?

Father, Son and Holy Spirit at its beginning (Luke 1:35), at the inauguration of Jesus' public ministry (Matthew 3:16-17) and in the work of atonement (Hebrews 9:14)?

The Holy Spirit completing the work (salvation) of the Father through the Son (Acts 2:38-39; Romans 8:26; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 1:3-14, Ephesians 2:13-22; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2)?

The only way to enter the kingdom of the Father is through faith in the Son and regeneration by the Holy Spirit (John 3:1-15)?

There's a difference between distinct and separate. The latter would seem to me to divide the essence and disrupt the unity of the Persons, so I don't take that view.

 

[TheWhat?]

Question:

What does it matter regarding the Trinity when a Muslim is not going to agree that Jesus is the only way to the Father (John 14:6), that any and all other ways leave you in your sin and condemned (Romans 5:18)?
That is the issue, not the Trinity.

Sometimes there is theological and philosophical baggage that needs to be cleared out of the way.

Are you sure you want to redefine the Trinity to suit Muslims?
I'm thinking Muslims need to suit the Trinity, not the Trinity suit the Muslims.

There is nothing intentionally invented by myself personally which I brought up in this thread.

There is no redefinition.

Three Persons, one God is exactly what is confessed by the creeds I mentioned earlier.

 

[Andrewn]

Be demonstrated by a passage historically interpreted to be a typological portrait/icon of the trinity in Genesis 18 -- wherein we see three distinct persons, and one God speaks to Abraham.

I realize that that is a not uncommon interpretation of Abraham's visitors. But there are many verses in the Bible indicating that no one can see God the Father and live. Here is one example:

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

So, the better interpretation of Abraham's theophany is that the visitors were the pre-incarnate Christ and two angels. Then the 2 angels proceeded to meet his nephew Lot in Sodom.

I find that the concept of Being (Ousia) transcending the distinction between coequal, coeternal Persons to: . . . Agree with the Athanasian creed, avoiding non-monotheistic belief

It may be fair to say that that the concept of Being (Ousia) transcending the distinction between coequal, coeternal Persons agrees with the Pseudo-Athanasian creed. My understanding is that that has been a point of discrepancy between Eastern and Western understanding of the Trinity. EO believe that an essence is not something that exists independently. God the Father is the Being or the essence from whom the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.

The issue can be looked at as follows: Does the transcendent God become immanent in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Or does the transcendent Father become immanent in the Son and the Holy Spirit? I think the correct position is that Christ and the Holy Spirit immanently reveal themselves; God the Father only reveals himself immanently vicariously through the Son and Spirit.

And the other important question is: which of these models can be better understood by a Muslim? This is the subject of the OP.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Yes, this is true, but the listener may inquire about the meaning.

I have a question, the word γεννηθέντα in the Nicene Creed, can it be translated "generated"? It sounds like generated. I read ECF's that used the word "generated" and was wondering about the Greek behind it.

It means born or begotten in archaic English. John uses Μονογενῆ in his prologue to his Gospel. In seminary we used begotten when defining the Trinity, that the Son was begotten of the Father and the Spirit processes from the Father. It kept us from using modern English connotations of words..

τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Μονογενῆ,
τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων,

Literally:
the Son of God the Only-begotten
the out of the Father, begotten before all the ages (my own loose translation)

the only begotten Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,

 

[Clare73]

Do we not have separate persons (divine agents) in the work of salvation?

Father, Son and Holy Spirit at its beginning (Luke 1:35), at the inauguration of Jesus' public ministry (Matthew 3:16-17) and in the work of atonement (Hebrews 9:14)?

The Holy Spirit completing the work (salvation) of the Father through the Son (Acts 2:38-39; Romans 8:26; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 1:3-14, Ephesians 2:13-22; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2)?

The only way to enter the kingdom of the Father is through faith in the Son and regeneration by the Holy Spirit (John 3:1-15)?

There's a difference between distinct and separate. The latter would seem to me to divide the essence and disrupt the unity of the Persons, so I don't take that view.

Nevertheless, is that not what the NT presents in the above Scriptures?

Likewise, is lack of conflict with the creeds enough? They are simply statements of Scripture.
Is it not the Scriptures which are the authority and with which we must agree regarding the nature of the Trinity, which Scriptures present the personhoods of three distinct and separate divine agents?

The Son is sent by the Father, in the Father's name (John 5:23, 36, 43).

The Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (John 14:26).

THe Spirit is subject to the Son as well as to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, 16:7, 14:26)

Again, Jesus shows three distinct and separate persons in the Trinity. . .one doesn't send oneself, one sends another who is separate from oneself.

And again, do you really think theological baggage is the real hindrance to Christianity with Muslims?
I say it's just a distraction, and the real issue is Jesus being the one and only way to the Father, all other ways leaving one in the sin and condemnation into which all are born (Romans 5:18).