The Trinity - an explanation

jpr7 · Jan 12, 2010

wayseer said:
An explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity is called for. While there have been numerous threads on CF concerning the Trinity I have not read of any concise explanation. Indeed, I have not heard of any such explanation forthcoming from a pulpit - something is wrong. Yet the Trinity stands at the heart of Christianity.

This is my attempt at explaining the Trinity - not defending its doctrinal based. (For those who are interested in arguing about the doctrine you might like to look at Matt 18:19 and Acts 2:38).

In trying to explain the Trinity we are anchored, more by habit I suggest, to think about the Trinity in the form of 'persons'. Perhaps there is another way that bypasses this post-modern world and its focus on the individual.

At the outset any explanation of the Trinity suffers from its source - that of a theist God looking down on humanity. Here we append such images as omnipresence, omnipotent, immutable and unknowing and perhaps, in the mystery of it all, unknowable - one beyond our earthly existence and largely beyond our understanding - incommunicable. With big words like that being thrown about like than it is little wonder we have difficult with explaining the Trinity.

If we leave it there, captured by big words, we suffering from pushing God to the margins of existence. No wonder Israel had problems in approaching God at all. So, we need another way of thinking.

Here I utilize the thoughts of Daniel L. Migliore (2004), Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. Migliore suggests, urges, us to consider the use such 'big words' centered within the person and work of Jesus Christ rather than using them independently to explain the Trinity.

If we focus on the life of Jesus we gain as sense of balance. Words associated with Jesus tend to be small and concrete. Words like, humility, poor, suffering, grace, freedom, grace, glory, abound in the NT. These are words that reflect our humanity rather then the theist's God holy other. The words of Jesus are close to us not far away - they have an immediacy rather than vague ethereal indirectness.

To marry the two - God (far) and Jesus (near) - we need to set these groups of words in a dialectic relation according to Migilore which I rework into concepts of 'near' and 'far'.

You've hit upon the biggest problem: limited language to convey an unlimited God. I don't think, however, than an explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity is called for - rather a restating. The theologian Karl Barth, for instance, preferred to use the term "modes of being" instead of "persons." This did not mean Barth was a modalist - that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were simply manifestations or appearances of a unipersonal God - but that he felt the term "persons" could be misleading.

wayseer said:
For example ...

Grace (near) might be better represented by Jesus while holiness (far) better represents God.

Immutable (far) might best portray God while faithfully and steadfast (near) might better portray Jesus.

Omnipotent (far) surely represents God while vulnerable (near) might better portray Jesus.

Jesus certainly talks about freedom (near) while God is sovereign (far).

There are any number of other arranged pairs that you might like to consider. My point is that within the Trinity we generate a spatial distance between Father (far), Son (near) and Holy Spirit (present) rather than remain with the image of 'persons'. In this way we can shorten the distance between a sovereign God and the presence of the Holy Spirt through the medium of Jesus Christ. By using common day words like 'present', 'near' and 'far', which have more meaning to us in our every day life, we include ourselves within a time/space image which embraces all three points of reference - and space, unlike 'persons,' does not provoke images of separate entities somehow squashed into one.

Well, there it is. Comments and critique are welcome. But please remember - this thread is NOT about defending the doctrine of the Trinity - it is about trying for a better explanation.

The problem with your reworking of the Trinity that I see is that the terms "far," "near," and "present" can't fully account for things like the Son praying to the Father - or the Father loving the Son - as the word "persons" do. While the language of "persons" is a human and limited attempt at trying to explain the biblical data, the spacial terms as you have posed them here are even more inadequate.

Another inadequacy I can spot off first reading would be the way terms are applied to each person. For instance, "grace" in your first example is applied to Jesus Christ. But "grace" is also applied to God as well, as in Paul's customary greetings: "Grace and peace to you from God the Father . . ." Not only that, but God is also portrayed as near: "Draw near to God and He shall draw near to You" (James 4:8).

While I appreciate you approach what is probably the heart of the issue of the Trinity, I believe the term "persons" expresses best what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in the Trinity.

Zeena · Jan 12, 2010

The term Persons is not AT ALL misleading.

jpr7 · Jan 12, 2010

Zeena said:
The term Persons is not AT ALL misleading.

I'm not sure I understand your response, so let me ask for clarification. Are you saying the term "persons" is misleading in some degree? And if so, to what degree would you say it is misleading?

wayseer · Jan 13, 2010

jpr7 said:
You've hit upon the biggest problem: limited language to convey an unlimited God. I don't think, however, than an explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity is called for - rather a restating. The theologian Karl Barth, for instance, preferred to use the term "modes of being" instead of "persons." This did not mean Barth was a modalist - that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were simply manifestations or appearances of a unipersonal God - but that he felt the term "persons" could be misleading.

The problem with your reworking of the Trinity that I see is that the terms "far," "near," and "present" can't fully account for things like the Son praying to the Father - or the Father loving the Son - as the word "persons" do. While the language of "persons" is a human and limited attempt at trying to explain the biblical data, the spacial terms as you have posed them here are even more inadequate.

Another inadequacy I can spot off first reading would be the way terms are applied to each person. For instance, "grace" in your first example is applied to Jesus Christ. But "grace" is also applied to God as well, as in Paul's customary greetings: "Grace and peace to you from God the Father . . ." Not only that, but God is also portrayed as near: "Draw near to God and He shall draw near to You" (James 4:8).

While I appreciate you approach what is probably the heart of the issue of the Trinity, I believe the term "persons" expresses best what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in the Trinity.

Thank you for your considered comments. I appreciate your critique.

Certainly Barth's views are to be considered but I still think his 'language' is the language of academia which becomes, well for me, almost unhuman. In this respect 'persons' is very human. But in today's post-modernistic society where the 'person' of the person is essential divorced from 'community' I find the image stilted and constrained.

Your comment concerning where one might place 'grace' is a good example of what I am endeavouring to accomplish - it is very much up to our own decisions where to locate these attributes. This allows flexibility. Grace might be an image of God (far) at one point but very much an experience of the Holy Spirit (now) at another moment in time. These are not set in concrete and are personally arbitrary.

Thank you.

dana b · Jan 13, 2010

Gen.1;26 - AND GOD SAID, LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE, AFTER OUR LIKENESS;.......So God created man in his OWN image, in the image of God created he him,.....Gen.1;27 ( 27= 3 times 3 times 3 = perfect trinity)

.....FATHER...........................SON........................HOLY SPIRIT.......
.......GOD...........................THE WORD................UNDERSTANDING

.....Mankind.........................3000 AD........................CHRIST......

......P..C...............................H..C..............................D..C......
......h..h................................i...i...............................e..o......
......y..e................................s..v..............................v..n......
......s..m................................t..i...............................e..s......
......i...i.................................o..l...............................l...c.....
......c..s................................r...i...............................o...i.....
......a..t................................i...z ..............................p...o....
......l...r................................c..a...............................m..u.....
.........y................................a..t................................e...s....
...........................................l...i................................n...n....
..............................................o................................t...e....
..............................................n....................................s....
................................................................................o..s....
................................................................................f.........
..EARTH.............................4000 BC.........................ADAM/EVE
PHYSICAL........................E-MOTIONAL.......................MENTAL
EXISTENCE.........................ACTIVITY.......................THOUGHT

1. God the Creator, the Father, created this physical world of elements, forces and life forms. Earth, Water, Air and Fire are the elements, Plants, Animals and Mankind are the lifeforms. The Sun is the attracting force that draws everything up with the power of light. The Earth pulls everything down by it's weight. This is the physical manifestation and it was created by God over 6 days. Gen.1 This is the " Father perspective."

2. The Human historical perspective lies in Mankind's ability to conceptualize his life as part of a long drawn out series called the generations of Mankind. It is also his ability to conceive and imagine his own 70 or so years of life. Animals can't do this. They are not made in " God's image."

3. The perspective of Mental understanding called the Holy Spirit is attained only after humanity, or each person individually, experiences living in this physically created world. Only then does he attain a full human consciousness and understanding. This is indicated in the Bible by the fact that the "Holy Spirit" did not become manifest untill after the coming of God's Son who was Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ arrived to mankind only after 40 centuries after the beginning with Adam and Eve. He arrived on the 4th day just as the Sun was created on the 4th day.(1 day=1000years 2Pet.3;8) So to a person cannot really understand his life before the age of 40. This is what is meant by the "Holy Trinity." How dare we human beings attempt to discuss the nature of our Lord God! The Nicean Creed was a hoax to hold power by the church elite when the new Christians, after reading the gospels of Jesus for themselves in the Greek, began to become disaffected with the church hierarchy.

Zeena · Jan 13, 2010

jpr7 said:
The theologian Karl Barth, for instance, preferred to use the term "modes of being" instead of "persons."

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your response, so let me ask for clarification. Are you saying the term "persons" is misleading in some degree? And if so, to what degree would you say it is misleading?

No, I don't think it's at all misleading to refer to each Person of the Trinty as Person.

The Person of the Father, the Person of the Son as well as the Person of the Holy Spirit.

ACTUALLY, I believe what Karl Barth [above] recommended would, indeed, retract from that reality.

Zeena · Jan 13, 2010

dana b said:
Gen.1;26 - AND GOD SAID, LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE, AFTER OUR LIKENESS;.......So God created man in his OWN image, in the image of God created he him,.....Gen.1;27 ( 27= 3 times 3 times 3 = perfect trinity)

.....FATHER...........................SON........................HOLY SPIRIT.......
.......GOD...........................THE WORD................UNDERSTANDING

.....Mankind.........................3000 AD........................CHRIST......

......P..C...............................H..C..............................D..C......
......h..h................................i...i...............................e..o......
......y..e................................s..v..............................v..n......
......s..m................................t..i...............................e..s......
......i...i.................................o..l...............................l...c.....
......c..s................................r...i...............................o...i.....
......a..t................................i...z ..............................p...o....
......l...r................................c..a...............................m..u.....
.........y................................a..t................................e...s....
...........................................l...i................................n...n....
..............................................o................................t...e....
..............................................n....................................s....
................................................................................o..s....
................................................................................f.........
..EARTH.............................4000 BC.........................ADAM/EVE
PHYSICAL........................E-MOTIONAL.......................MENTAL
EXISTENCE.........................ACTIVITY.......................THOUGHT

1. God the Creator, the Father, created this physical world of elements, forces and life forms. Earth, Water, Air and Fire are the elements, Plants, Animals and Mankind are the lifeforms. The Sun is the attracting force that draws everything up with the power of light. The Earth pulls everything down by it's weight. This is the physical manifestation and it was created by God over 6 days. Gen.1 This is the " Father perspective."

2. The Human historical perspective lies in Mankind's ability to conceptualize his life as part of a long drawn out series called the generations of Mankind. It is also his ability to conceive and imagine his own 70 or so years of life. Animals can't do this. They are not made in " God's image."

3. The perspective of Mental understanding called the Holy Spirit is attained only after humanity, or each person individually, experiences living in this physically created world. Only then does he attain a full human consciousness and understanding. This is indicated in the Bible by the fact that the "Holy Spirit" did not become manifest untill after the coming of God's Son who was Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ arrived to mankind only after 40 centuries after the beginning with Adam and Eve. He arrived on the 4th day just as the Sun was created on the 4th day.(1 day=1000years 2Pet.3;8) So to a person cannot really understand his life before the age of 40. This is what is meant by the "Holy Trinity." How dare we human beings attempt to discuss the nature of our Lord God! The Nicean Creed was a hoax to hold power by the church elite when the new Christians, after reading the gospels of Jesus for themselves in the Greek, began to become disaffected with the church hierarchy.

It's not wise to look at MAN to discover Who God is-meh!

What if man is not living up to his end of the bargain?-lol

What if he has seared his conscious, is insane, ect?

No, we look unto God to reveal HIMSELF

Yab Yum · Jan 13, 2010

The problem is that there's nothing in scripture to support any of this philosophy.

wayseer · Jan 13, 2010

Yab Yum said:
The problem is that there's nothing in scripture to support any of this philosophy.

You disagree with the Trinitarian faith?

Thekla · Jan 13, 2010

I still don't understand the proximity differentiation; love destroys distance. The Holy Scriptures attest that the Father is not 'distant' from those in Christ (the John passage I quoted before for example, the same is attested by Paul). If we love Christ and are in Him through the Holy Spirit, we will like Christ love the Father as children, and the Father will love us as children.

A distant father sounds more Deist than Christian. If indeed we feel the Father is 'distant' from us, then aren't we saying that also Christ and the Holy Spirit are distant from us as well ?

jpr7 · Jan 13, 2010

Zeena said:
No, I don't think it's at all misleading to refer to each Person of the Trinty as Person.

The Person of the Father, the Person of the Son as well as the Person of the Holy Spirit.

ACTUALLY, I believe what Karl Barth [above] recommended would, indeed, retract from that reality.

Zeena, thanks for clarifying. The reason I asked is because your first reply to me could be read as sarcastic. But your clarification here puts it in fuller context. Yes, I also agree as well that "person" is the best term we have to describe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I also think, however, that "person" must be qualified so as to prevent misunderstanding.

angelmom01 · Jan 13, 2010

Thekla said:
I still don't understand the proximity differentiation; love destroys distance. The Holy Scriptures attest that the Father is not 'distant' from those in Christ (the John passage I quoted before for example, the same is attested by Paul). If we love Christ and are in Him through the Holy Spirit, we will like Christ love the Father as children, and the Father will love us as children.

A distant father sounds more Deist than Christian. If indeed we feel the Father is 'distant' from us, then aren't we saying that also Christ and the Holy Spirit are distant from us as well ?

Hi Thekla, the way that I was seeing it is that the Father is made "near" through the Son. I'd have to look, but off the top of my head I can't think of an instance in the OT where God was known as a "father"?

Zeena · Jan 13, 2010

angelmom01 said:
Hi Thekla, the way that I was seeing it is that the Father is made "near" through the Son. I'd have to look, but off the top of my head I can't think of an instance in the OT where God was known as a "father"?

There is in the NT;

Ephesians 2:11-22

And the NT is the revelation of the old.

It's in there, just gotta dig.

God speed my sister!

Thekla · Jan 13, 2010

Zeena said:
There is in the NT;

Ephesians 2:11-22

And the NT is the revelation of the old.

It's in there, just gotta dig.

God speed my sister!

Thanks

And:

6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Galatians 4

And again, John 14:23

23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

wayseer · Jan 13, 2010

Thekla said:
I still don't understand the proximity differentiation; love destroys distance. The Holy Scriptures attest that the Father is not 'distant' from those in Christ (the John passage I quoted before for example, the same is attested by Paul). If we love Christ and are in Him through the Holy Spirit, we will like Christ love the Father as children, and the Father will love us as children.

You make good points. However, I might point out that God was certainly 'distant' from Jesus while on the cross. Likewise, I also suggest God is distant from us through sin. But that distance is shorten through Christ and shortened still further through the Holy Spirit.

Athanasias · Jan 13, 2010

If you do not want to wax philosophical try using the example of the family as its not perfect but its a good example that can teach kids the basic of it. Jp II taught this.

Zeena · Jan 13, 2010

Athanasias said:
If you do not want to wax philosophical try using the example of the family as its not perfect but its a good example that can teach kids the basic of it. Jp II taught this.

I like that, thanks!

Athanasias · Jan 14, 2010

Zeena said:
I like that, thanks!

Your welcome!

sungaunga · Jan 14, 2010

Trinity in plain English - They are separate, yet one. They are one, yet separate.

Zeena · Jan 14, 2010

sungaunga said:
Trinity in plain English - They are separate, yet one. They are one, yet separate.

Hey that's pretty good!

Did you try the exercise?

The Trinity - an explanation

Junior Member

..called to BE a Saint

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

..called to BE a Saint

..called to BE a Saint

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Junior Member

Veteran

..called to BE a Saint

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

..called to BE a Saint

Regular Member

Junior Member

..called to BE a Saint

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency