My take on Trinity

[tonychanyt]

Every time you use English words in your posts, you practice what you condemn.

Sorry that I am slow. Can you detail your logic step by step?

 

[Diamond72]

That's fine with me.

People should be able to function at a kindergarten level. Most people with a PhD in Education would not pass my test to qualify to get into the first grade. My son is very ambitious though. He was taking classes from 4 different universities when he was in High School.

There is nothing wrong with being a child though. Jesus said you have to be as a child to enter in.

 

[Diamond72]

I think it is an absurd viewpoint that doesn't matter in the bigger picture

The Bible is pretty clear that we are not to add to the word of God. Revelation 22 "I testify to the one who hears the words of the prophecy contained in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book."

 

[AV1611VET]

There is nothing wrong with being a child though. Jesus said you have to be as a child to enter in.

Indeed.

There's nothing wrong with being child-like; as long as you're not child-ish.

 

[Diamond72]

Yes Jesus walks through walls in His spiritual body.

We are mostly energy with very little substance. They say you can fit the whole universe into a mustard seed. Even some people say the size of a proton using quantum physics.

 

[Diamond72]

There's nothing wrong with being child-like; as long as you're not child-ish.

Ask a female pastor. They are an expert on people acting child-ish.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ask a female pastor.

Joyce Meyer?

 

[Diamond72]

Joyce Meyer?

There are some on here. Older women are to minister to young women and children.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Following up from OT YHWH = NT Father?

It's certainly good and commendable to want to use Biblical expressions. There's a lot I can say about all of this, but very simply: There's no need to be confused or alarmed by the word "trinity". It's merely a shorthand for the name (singular!) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, as spoken of our Lord in the great commission (Matthew 28).

So, while "trinity" is a made-up word, it's used to summarise what God has revealed about His own nature. The term is artificial but the teaching is not. To make a simple practical example out of this — Instead of asking: "Do you believe in one God? Do you believe that the Father is God? Do you believe that the Son is God? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is God?" We can condense this to: "Do you believe in the Trinity?"

Now, if anyone's offended by the word "trinity", we can simply use YHWH instead, because it's exactly the same, only that "trinity" is a descriptive term and not the actual name of God. However, given that the Church everywhere and throughout history have understood the words "trinity" and "person" in a very particular way, I think many would argue, myself included, that it's more confusing to opt for alternative language when talking about God, especially because that's characteristic of heretics who argue against the divinity of Jesus and/or of the Holy Spirit. Again, to take a practical example — we believe in YHWH, but an Arian heretic may also claim to believe in YHWH. So to make a sharp distinction between the true teachings of God and false teachings, the Church has formulated language to summarise what the Holy Scriptures reveal to us.

So, it's great to not shy away from using Biblical language — we should use the same multifaceted expressions we find in God's Word! At the same time, though, let's be precise in our language and understand what is meant by the expressions commonly used by the Church. That is, instead of challenging the creeds, it's more helpful to ask what is meant by them. Because if we understand what's meant by them, then we can see that they simply echo what Scripture says, only in a condensed way.

God bless!

 

[Stephen Andrew]

Peace to all,

To me the oneness is in union with the Holy Spirit as united with the Father and the Son glorified and transfigured into the image of God.

Peace alwayas,
Stephen

 

[KevinT]

Hey all, I'm jumping into the thread a bit late. And the conversation has drifted a bit from the original post.

I want to ask more about Trinitarian doctrine. There was this post recently by a moderator that stated "Non-Trinitarianism may not be promoted anywhere on this site." I don't really have a dog in this race, but it seems that since this Christian Forums site that has areas are marked "Christian Only", I assumed there were areas for non-Christians to also debate. There are debates as to whether the creation descriptions in Genesis are real or mythical etc etc, and all that is considered appropriate grounds for discussion. But in contrast, this moderator states that discussion about non-Trinity is completely disallowed. Is belief in the Trinity more important, and above any questioning, than a belief that God made the world in 7 days vs over millions of years??

I have reviewed the wikipedia entry on the Trinity, and the doctrine was not formalized for over a hundred years after the death of Jesus. And not all agreed even then. And not every doctrine that was established at that time are believed by all today. Another Wikipedia site on non-trinitarians lists many modern denominations that have alternative views. Some of the founders of the denomination I attend (SDA) had Airianism leanings, though SDA is now formally and officially Trinitarian. So I am sympathetic to those that want to wrestle with this tricky point and come to independent conclusions.

So my takes on the Trinity:

• God has many attributes and features that we don't understand -- can't understand. So trying to pin down exactly how God works is going to end in frustration. In my human body, I have eyes, ears, hands, feet etc. I like to consider that God likewise has various powers that He also uses in various ways. If Jesus is God's "right hand", in my simplistic example, would that make Him the same as God? Or different? Or subordinate? Or Coequal? All these questions seem pointless to me, since I don't really understand God. Does He have a corporal body? Is He bounded by space and time? (I don't think so). A secular concept of our world is to describe "Mother Nature" -- wherein we personify all the laws of nature, and consider her to be peaceful at times or angry during a storm. Mother Nature doesn't exist in any one place and is acting everywhere at once. God is more/greater than nature, as is is nature's creator and author. But this analogy helps me consider that when considering God, I should not just think of a human-like figure sitting on a thrown in one location in heaven.
  
  
• With the vagaries of communication and limited human brainpower, there are going to be many ways to conceptualize things. When we don't understand how something works, we often try to come up with analogies -- though analogies don't completely capture a situation. Jesus used this same technique when teaching, saying "The kingdom of God is like...." The New Testament teaches us that Jesus was the "Son of God." But most don't think that the fact that this means that there is also a corresponding mother. My point is that is seems theologians are trying pin down exact truths based on analogies, which are given because we can't understand the true picture.
  
  
• Restricting dialog seems like a bad thing. Sure, if someone wanted to start discussing human sacrifice to the gods, I would be OK with restricting that. But on points that reasonable people have considered and come to different conclusions, I don't see why there can't be discussion.
  
  
• Some of the key texts in the Bible that support the Trinity may have been added later. Wikipedia discusses this here, quoted below with added emphasis.
  • Regarding 1 John 5:7-8 -- Modern Biblical scholarship largely agrees that 1 John 5:7 seen in Latin and Greek texts after the 4th century and found in later translations such as the King James Translation, cannot be found in the oldest Greek and Latin texts. Verse 7 is known as the Johannine Comma, which most scholars agree to be a later addition by a later copyist or what is termed a textual gloss[31] and not part of the original text.Trinity - Wikipedia This verse reads: "Because there are three in Heaven that testify – the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit – and these three are one."
    
    This verse is absent from the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, early Armenian, Georgian, and Arabic translations of the Greek New Testament. It is primarily found in Latin manuscripts, although a minority of Greek, Slavonic and late Armenian manuscripts contain it.[32][33][34]
    
    
    
• Another Bible text (Matthew 28:19) is asserted by some to have been modified to support a Trinitarian view: See this discussion on Stack Exchange
  
  Matt 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (NIV)

All told, I think this is an iteresting topic to discuss and debate about. But ultimately there will be elements of the nature of God that we don't understand. It seems to be a divisive point. So I wonder if it is important for salvation?

What do you think?

Best wises,

KT

 

[Grip Docility]

Hey all, I'm jumping into the thread a bit late. And the conversation has drifted a bit from the original post.

I want to ask more about Trinitarian doctrine. There was this post recently by a moderator that stated "Non-Trinitarianism may not be promoted anywhere on this site." I don't really have a dog in this race, but it seems that since this Christian Forums site that has areas are marked "Christian Only", I assumed there were areas for non-Christians to also debate. There are debates as to whether the creation descriptions in Genesis are real or mythical etc etc, and all that is considered appropriate grounds for discussion. But in contrast, this moderator states that discussion about non-Trinity is completely disallowed. Is belief in the Trinity more important, and above any questioning, than a belief that God made the world in 7 days vs over millions of years??

I have reviewed the wikipedia entry on the Trinity, and the doctrine was not formalized for over a hundred years after the death of Jesus. And not all agreed even then. And not every doctrine that was established at that time are believed by all today. Another Wikipedia site on non-trinitarians lists many modern denominations that have alternative views. Some of the founders of the denomination I attend (SDA) had Airianism leanings, though SDA is now formally and officially Trinitarian. So I am sympathetic to those that want to wrestle with this tricky point and come to independent conclusions.

So my takes on the Trinity:

• God has many attributes and features that we don't understand -- can't understand. So trying to pin down exactly how God works is going to end in frustration. In my human body, I have eyes, ears, hands, feet etc. I like to consider that God likewise has various powers that He also uses in various ways. If Jesus is God's "right hand", in my simplistic example, would that make Him the same as God? Or different? Or subordinate? Or Coequal? All these questions seem pointless to me, since I don't really understand God. Does He have a corporal body? Is He bounded by space and time? (I don't think so). A secular concept of our world is to describe "Mother Nature" -- wherein we personify all the laws of nature, and consider her to be peaceful at times or angry during a storm. Mother Nature doesn't exist in any one place and is acting everywhere at once. God is more/greater than nature, as is is nature's creator and author. But this analogy helps me consider that when considering God, I should not just think of a human-like figure sitting on a thrown in one location in heaven.
  
  
• With the vagaries of communication and limited human brainpower, there are going to be many ways to conceptualize things. When we don't understand how something works, we often try to come up with analogies -- though analogies don't completely capture a situation. Jesus used this same technique when teaching, saying "The kingdom of God is like...." The New Testament teaches us that Jesus was the "Son of God." But most don't think that the fact that this means that there is also a corresponding mother. My point is that is seems theologians are trying pin down exact truths based on analogies, which are given because we can't understand the true picture.
  
  
• Restricting dialog seems like a bad thing. Sure, if someone wanted to start discussing human sacrifice to the gods, I would be OK with restricting that. But on points that reasonable people have considered and come to different conclusions, I don't see why there can't be discussion.
  
  
• Some of the key texts in the Bible that support the Trinity may have been added later. Wikipedia discusses this here, quoted below with added emphasis.
  • Regarding 1 John 5:7-8 -- Modern Biblical scholarship largely agrees that 1 John 5:7 seen in Latin and Greek texts after the 4th century and found in later translations such as the King James Translation, cannot be found in the oldest Greek and Latin texts. Verse 7 is known as the Johannine Comma, which most scholars agree to be a later addition by a later copyist or what is termed a textual gloss[31] and not part of the original text.Trinity - Wikipedia This verse reads: "Because there are three in Heaven that testify – the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit – and these three are one."
    
    This verse is absent from the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, early Armenian, Georgian, and Arabic translations of the Greek New Testament. It is primarily found in Latin manuscripts, although a minority of Greek, Slavonic and late Armenian manuscripts contain it.[32][33][34]
    
    
• Another Bible text (Matthew 28:19) is asserted by some to have been modified to support a Trinitarian view: See this discussion on Stack Exchange
  
  Matt 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (NIV)

All told, I think this is an iteresting topic to discuss and debate about. But ultimately there will be elements of the nature of God that we don't understand. It seems to be a divisive point. So I wonder if it is important for salvation?

What do you think?

Best wises,

KT

I posted a very specifically ordered set of verses that are some of the most critical verses on this topic, without infusing commentary. If you are interested, here is the post. <- Link here

 

[tonychanyt]

I wonder if it is important for salvation?

No, no one is saved by any kind of doctrine. You are saved when the Paraclete dwells in your spirit. It is a real transcendent event. See What does it mean to be born again?

 

[tampasteve]

I want to ask more about Trinitarian doctrine. There was this post recently by a moderator that stated "Non-Trinitarianism may not be promoted anywhere on this site." I don't really have a dog in this race, but it seems that since this Christian Forums site that has areas are marked "Christian Only", I assumed there were areas for non-Christians to also debate. There are debates as to whether the creation descriptions in Genesis are real or mythical etc etc, and all that is considered appropriate grounds for discussion. But in contrast, this moderator states that discussion about non-Trinity is completely disallowed.

Promotion and discussion are not necessarily the same thing. The Advisor did not say discussion is not allowed, but rather that promotion is not allowed. Unfortunately, discussion often leads to promotion when people that hold opposing views to the Trinity "discuss" their views.

It is perfectly fine to discuss, to question or have questions about the Trinity, but promoting alternatives, such as Arianism, is not allowed. So, someone could ask for more clarity on the Trinity and people can answer or discuss, but someone that believes in Arianism or Modalism would not be allowed to promote those views.

Our "line" of what is a Christian is the Nicene Creed, which is Trinitarian in nature. We have to draw a line somewhere, and that is where the site chose to make the line of what we include as a Christian.

Is belief in the Trinity more important, and above any questioning, than a belief that God made the world in 7 days vs over millions of years??

Yes, it is more important. A six day creation is not salvific and is not a core doctrine about the nature of God.

 

[KevinT]

Promotion and discussion are not necessarily the same thing. The Advisor did not say discussion is not allowed, but rather that promotion is not allowed. Unfortunately, discussion often leads to promotion when people that hold opposing views to the Trinity "discuss" their views.

It is perfectly fine to discuss, to question or have questions about the Trinity, but promoting alternatives, such as Arianism, is not allowed. So, someone could ask for more clarity on the Trinity and people can answer or discuss, but someone that believes in Arianism or Modalism would not be allowed to promote those views.

Can someone promote atheism in the part of this forum that is not marked Christian only? Not that I am wanting this, just trying to understand the boundaries.

Thanks in advance

KT

 

[tampasteve]

Can someone promote atheism in the part of this forum that is not marked Christian only? Not that I am wanting this, just trying to understand the boundaries.

Thanks in advance

KT

No, promoting any religion (or lack of) other than Nicene Christianity is not allowed. Discussion or clarification when asked is OK, but the line between promotion and discussion can be easy to cross.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Disclaimer: I am not against people using the term Trinity. I neither affirm nor deny Trinity.

Who are you? What authority do you represent?

Does the Bible support the concept of the Trinity?

Where does the Bible use the term "Bible"?

Sure. The term was first used by Tertullian around 200 AD. I am not against the concept of the Trinity. I am not even against the word "Trinity". My point is this: I prefer not to use the term Trinity in argumentation.

You know better than the Church Fathers and the Reformers?

Moreover, there is plurality in unity within the divine being.

However, when it comes to doctrines, I prefer to adhere to the wording of Scripture. Trinitarians likely penned the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, yet they did not include the word "Trinity" in their creeds.

So do you use the term "Homoousios" as they did?

Isaiah 9:


Do these titles refer to the same person?

When applied to the Divinity, the term person is loaded too much with anthropomorphism. I prefer to stick to the wording of the Scripture and use the term witness instead.

The Bible uses the term Hypostasis. Do you use it?

 

[tonychanyt]

Who are you? What authority do you represent?

I am a human being. I do not represent any authority.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

I am a human being. I do not represent any authority.

So you do not have authority to decide what terms the Church should use and what terms the Church should not use.

 

[tonychanyt]

So you do not have authority to decide what terms the Church should use and what terms the Church should not use.

Right. Further, I do not have the authority to decide what terms you should use or what terms you should not use.