"Philosophically speaking, is the Trinity considered polytheism?"

[A Name Is Just A Name]

It's been long said that the Trinity is a mystery in which can never be known. That may be true but I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit can bring revelation at any moment in time because our God is a living God, not a dead one!!!! For The Spirit is always at work. Hints and pieces of the subject are scattered throughout the whole Bible. This writing is just a little thought on an excerpt within the earliest parts of Genesis when God saith, "Let us make man in our image and likeness."

• Think of your inner being (mind) as The Father. Can you and I see the spark in the mind of one another that goes on inside the center of everything in which we do to and for our bodies?

1. When Philip demanded Christ to "show us the Father," Christ saith,

John 14 10 KJV 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.​

• Your bodily shell is as The Son. For it is through our actions that we can percieve/understand what one another is thinking or doing.

1. Just as the Son (Jesus Christ) is the fleshly shell of God in which we can perceive and that which makes known the unseeable spark (The Father). Whatsoever the Father doeth, so to doth the Son in unison.

• Your actions everyday are as the Holy Spirit. If we got into a fight and I left a bruise on you which last the rest of your life and I died tommorow, you'd have that mark left behind even though my physical body is no longer present. It's the same for everything else we say and do to one another.

1. The Son died and it was the Holy Spirit which brought to remembrance everything that was said or done.

Do these three things make ye three different things or still just one person as a whole?

Likewise, how can one consider three supposed “gods” who work in unison at the same time different, if, they all act together and dwell in each other together at one time? It simply means that one being (God) has extended itself further out. How than can one be accused of worshiping three different “gods” if these three all do and mean the same thing?

Consider as well the fact that all of us humans collectively act as one whole on the grand scale. You may think it's all about individuality, but every action we take each day corresponds with the actions of everyone else. For example, someone pulling out infront of you making you miss the green light, while simultaneously saving you from an accident had you passed through that light. Simply smiling/waving at someone stopping that person from committing suicide. People who were told no and ended up doing big things because they were told off at first. These are just a few out of endless examples.

Imagine than why with the total population being 7+ billion dwelling as one whole, vs a mere three dwelling in one whole is it said to be illogical. We act out the Trinity each day whether we choose to see it or not. So to sum up the answer, how can it be Polytheism if said three are all doing and acting out the same thing together at once?

May peace be upon you and God bless you!!

 

[SPF]

It simply means that one being (God) has extended itself further out.

This statement has the potential to be problematic. I think it borderlines on Modalism. Can you flesh this statement out a bit? Great OP by the way.

 

[SPF]

Do these three things make ye three different things or still just one person as a whole?

This statement too, actually. The orthodox view of the Trinity is one in essence, three in person. This I suppose is the problem with analogies, and I why I recommend avoiding them. There's no perfect analogy, and all attempts can usually be shown to be heresy if you analyze them enough.

 

[A Name Is Just A Name]

This statement has the potential to be problematic. I think it borderlines on Modalism. Can you flesh this statement out a bit? Great OP by the way.

Thank you for taking time to read and be responsive to what's been written, it's truly appreciated!!!

I suppose it goes back to the idea that everything formed during Genesis was made to serve as an extension of God The Father as everything was made to worship and bring praise unto God in all things. For it brought God joy to form these things so in response, the formed then gives joy back.

Isaiah 42:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

The tricky part of Modalism to me is that it seems to force one to choose between two things which shouldn't have any conflict. This is what I meant by the lesson Christ showed out of Philip's understanding of who he was following.

Christ told Philip that he hath seen the Father even though he's looking at The Son. It's all about unison when it comes to the The Trinity. Does it truly matter whether one believes they are three different people or one?

Whatever the Father does so to doth The Son and Holy Spirit. Whatever The Son speaks, so to doth The Father and Holy Spirit. Wherever The Holy Spirit moves, so to doth The Father and Son, if that makes any sense to you. Christ was the literal fleshly appearance of The Fathers' Word. Henceforth when Jesus saith

John 3:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Through all the Prophets and Apostles shewn unto us Gods Word in writing, but, through Christ was it seen the Word Of God in the form of flesh, no longer just words written on paper.

By observation, the whole conflict inside of Modalism appears on the surface to troubling, but deep down is a hidden reminder of the trouble that comes with wisdom that stems from the world which God said is "foolishness". One of the lesser talked about things the Pharisees used. Orthodox or not, we must not allow ourselves to be lead in what men say is right/absolute, but, must allow ourselves to be lead by what The Spirit shows is right/truth in all things.

At the end of all the philosophy, the only thing that matters is the Crucifixion of The Son. This is our saving grace, nothing more or less.

1 Corinthians 1:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Peace and blessing unto you!!! Thanks again for reading and interacting!

 

[SPF]

Does it truly matter whether one believes they are three different people or one?

I think there is certainly a lot of room for grace in our attempts at understanding the Trinity. Certainly with the majority of analogies I hear, Christians tend to either sound like modalists, or tri-theists. This is understandable as we are attempting to understand how something beyond our comprehension works.

For me, the biggest point that I try to get across is that while the Trinity is incomprehensible, it is not illogical. That, I think, is the important thing for Christians to convey when speaking to other people about the Trinity.

At the end of all the philosophy, the only thing that matters is the Crucifixion of The Son. This is our saving grace, nothing more or less.

This, I completely agree with, and so did Paul - "...and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith is also in vain."

 

[Amittai]

The Holy Trinity embody making room for the Other Other.

Buber's I & Thou won't cut it.

Share friendships with someone else. Introduce and reintroduce them.

Dickens' goodies go around in groups (except Mr & Mrs to be) (often light heartedly).

The baddies slink in alone.

 

[oldhermit]

This statement too, actually. The orthodox view of the Trinity is one in essence, three in person. This I suppose is the problem with analogies, and I why I recommend avoiding them. There's no perfect analogy, and all attempts can usually be shown to be heresy if you analyze them enough.

I think the use of the word essence as related to God is an interesting one. We must recognize that there is a problem with linguistic valence that, when discussing the nature of God, simply cannot be resolved. Linguistic valence refers to the definitions we attach to words in order to connect language to an idea. The problem that shows up in defining the nature of God is that we connect definitions to human language to help us create a picture of God with which we are comfortable. I offer the following well-known definition as an example.

“God is one single unified essence. Yet, within this single unified essence of God are three separate and distinct persons of deity who are one God, each member having his part in the creation and redemption of man” (unknown source).

Now, I am not at all sure when or where this definition of God originated, but it is one that I have heard from a number of different sources over the years. While this definition may represent a not altogether invalid understand of the Triadic Unity it does present three immediate problems.

1. The definition itself; Man is not prone to accept anything on faith. Man feels that he must be able to define, explain, and classify a thing before he will accept it. This of course, becomes problematic when we think in terms of the nature of God. It is impossible to reduce God to a linguistic formula.

2. The use of the word ‘unified’. We can only comprehend unity as we see it within the confines of our own human experience, not as it applies to God.

3. The use of the word ‘essence’: The word essence is a good enough word I suppose. I am hard pressed to find a better one, but the way in which we have used this word in relationship to God does not seem to fit the profile of God in scripture. Strictly speaking, essence is that which makes a thing what it is. It is the inward nature of a thing underlying its manifestations. Essence refers to the characteristics and relations of a thing.

In his book THE TIMELESS TRINITY, Roy Lanier Jr. assigns this definition to the triadic unity. “God is one ‘being’ consisting of three persons, one essence, one ‘being’; an undivided essence.”

The use of the term "God" in scripture does not seem to describe a single being as expressed by Mr. Lanier, but a single collective of three beings. Not one being made up of three parts but three beings united in one nature. The word "God" itself describes a perfect ontological state or quality of existence. God is not who he is, but what he is. Who he is, is Jehovah; What he is, should be understood as an anthology of perfect attributes represented in three separate individuals.

God has never given us anything by which we could formulate a picture of him as a spiritual being outside of his intrinsic attributes. What he has given us defines certain aspects of his nature, character, and function. When we talk about the nature of anything, it must be understood bi-camerally. The nature of any object or person is always made up of two parts. The first part is essence. Essence refers to those qualities that make a thing what it is. Take for example a flower. The essence of any flower is those traits that classify it as a flower. A flower is a seed producing plant consisting of four sets of organs - carpels, stamens, petals, and sepals. These traits typically classify the object as a flower. The second part is character. Each flower has its own distinguishing characteristics that define it still further. These characteristics separate it from all other flowers and give it individuality. These would be such traits as structure, type, shape, color, fragrance, type of fruit, and the type of climate and soil it requires. These are all qualities that define what kind of flower it is. Now, if we may be permitted to assign this definition to the nature of God, then the essence of God would be those qualities that make God, God. The extended properties of God would be those qualities that describe what kind of God he is. You may prefer to think of them as primary and secondary attributes.

The ‘essence’ of God defines the intrinsic qualities of God. They do not constitute a substance or some type of spiritual equivalent to material form. They represent a quality of existence. This quality of existence is further amplified by what may be regarded as extended attributes that describe what kind of God this is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three persons. While each member of the Triadic Unity seems to constitute some type of spiritual substance, the singularity of the three exists not only in the quality of existence but also in the attributes of their character, not in substance. We can never find a passage that relegates the term God to substance except within the framework of each individual member.

 

[SPF]

Great post oldhermit, and I don't see anything in there I would disagree with.

The use of the term "God" in scripture does not seem to describe a single being as expressed by Mr. Lanier, but a single collective of three beings. Not one being made up of three parts but three beings united in one nature. The word "God" itself describes a perfect ontological state or quality of existence. God is not who he is, but what he is. Who he is, is Jehovah; What he is, should be understood as an anthology of perfect attributes represented in three separate individuals.

I particularly like this. This is why I like talking about God as a Maximally Great Being within the Trinity discussion.

In order for God to be God, then He must possess, to their maximum potential, any and all attributes that a being could possess. For example, what's "greater" a God with limited power, or a God with unlimited power? Certainly unlimited power. For if God's power were limited, it would be possible for another being to have more power. But if another being had more power than God, then by definition, that other being would be God! Thus, whatever attributes God possesses, He necessarily possesses them to their maximum. Hence, God is the Maximally Great Being (MGB).

Without getting into a discussion of what attributes an MGB must have, there are some that we can easily agree on. For example: eternality, omnipotence, omniscience, immutable in character, omni-benevolent, just, fair, etc...

If we say that God is a MGB, and then we say that God is Triune. This must necessarily mean that all members of the Godhead share equally in what it means to be God. Thus, the Holy Spirit must be MGB, Jesus must be MGB, and the Father must be MGB.

What's neat to think about is that if all three members of the Godhead are equally MGB, then that would necessarily mean that all members of the Godhead are always, at all times, in perfect agreement. Their essence, or being, or nature (whatever word you like), is at all times, identical and maximally great. Thus, there is necessarily a perfect relationship among them members of the Godhead. It's not possible to not have the same essence if each member of the Trinity is Maximally Great.

So the way I see it is that God is a MGB. If Scripture declares that God is Triune (which I think it does), then each member of the Godhead must equally be MGB, and therefore, they have the same essence. So they may be their own person, with a different function/role, yet their essence, who they are, is the same.

That's the best way I can make sense of the Trinity. If I was to say what I struggle with though in thinking the way I just said, it would be that I think what I said may unintentionally flirt with Tri-Theism, and so I have to be careful in how I use terms so as to avoid that.