The Trinity: Warning, possible "heresy" ahead!

[Achilles6129]

First of all, I want to say that I think that the idea that the Trinity is somehow "incomprehensible" is an excuse to thwart sound theology. I think that there are two perfectly acceptable ways to understand the Trinity:

1) One God (one essence, one center of consciousness) who manifests himself in three persons or three separate ways
2) Three Gods (three centers of consciousness) who all share the same essence and hence who are all one in essence

I think both of these are good ways of understanding the Trinity. To figure out which is correct, we have to go to Scripture. Here's the surprise: I think that Scripture actually supports the second suggestion.

First of all, the Hebrew word "elohiym" used in the OT for God is actually a plural word:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h430

The word can be translated "gods" as well as "God." To illustrate this, let me give an example comparing the KJV and a more modern translation:

"5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Gen. 3:5 (KJV)

"5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”" Gen. 3:5 (ESV)

The fact that "you will be like God" is the correct translation is shown by God's acknowledgement later on in Gen. 3:

"22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil." Gen. 3:22a

Notice also that God refers to himself as "us" in Gen. 3:22, which is very strange if he is a singular person. Ideas that God is addressing some sort of "angelic council" are refuted by Gen. 3:5, which is the verse God is referencing. The passage in Gen. 3:5 is a clear reference to God, the Creator - not God and an angelic council. But let's continue:

"26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Gen. 1:26-27 (ESV)

"6 And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.” 8 So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth." Gen. 11:6-9 (ESV)

Here, again, in both passages, the "us" refers to YHWH. However, in each passage, after the plural "us," a singular is used to describe God. This makes perfect sense if we have a plurality (three) of consciousness but one essence. Thus these passages support the idea of three Gods who are one essence.

Please note that there is no reason in these passages to claim that the "us" refers to God and the angels. There is simply no exegetical reason for such a thing. I would suggest that that interpretation was invented by people who are committed to a monotheistic approach. By monotheism I mean the idea that God is a single consciousness instead of a plurality of consciousnesses, not the idea that God is a single essence. I would agree with the idea that God is one essence but disagree with the idea that he is one consciousness.

Next, we examine a passage Jews often use to try to prove God is a single consciousness:

"4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." Deut. 6:4 (ESV)

I would suggest that the "one" here doesn't refer to a single consciousness but rather to a singular essence. Three persons can share the same essence. I would suggest that this is actually the natural understanding of the passage, since it would be apparently totally unnecessary for God to state that he is a singular being if, in fact, he is a singular being. That should be obvious. There is a similar passage in Zechariah:

"9 And the Lord will be king over all the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and his name one." Zech. 14:9 (ESV)

Again, why say God is "one" if it's simply referring to a singular consciousness? I suggest again that this is talking about essence.

Finally, I want to bring your attention to the opening of John's Gospel:

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jn. 1:1 (ESV)

I think if we read this statement and really think about it it actually teaches two Gods who are one in essence (obviously, John is leaving the Holy Spirit out here). John says that the Word was "with" God, meaning that he is separate from God (the Father). However, John also says that the Word "was" God, meaning that the Word was God as well as the Father. It appears, then, that he's teaching that the Word and the Father are separate but are one in essence.

Thoughts?

 

[Albion]

First of all, I want to say that I think that the idea that the Trinity is somehow "incomprehensible" is an excuse to thwart sound theology. I think that there are two perfectly acceptable ways to understand the Trinity:

1) One God (one essence, one center of consciousness) who manifests himself in three persons or three separate ways
2) Three Gods (three centers of consciousness) who all share the same essence and hence who are all one in essence

Hmm. I don't see any possible way to believe #2 there.

That's absolutely closed off by numerous verses in Scripture, even considering the attempt to dance around it by saying "three centers of consciousness" or whatever.

 

[katholischen_miliz]

This is from a theological site, with theologians, apologists, etc.

 

[katholischen_miliz]

Recently, I had an extensive discussion with a Muslim about the Trinity. His problem with the Trinity was not so much with biblical texts, and obviously so, because he did not accept the Bible in the form it is in today as the word of God. Though I must say that he was remarkably interested in looking at what the New Testament had to say about the topic.

His main problem was conceptual. And I find this to be generally the case with folks who reject the Trinity. They either think Christians are claiming there are three Gods (which is what my Muslim friend actually believed to be so), or that we are teaching something that is a logical contradiction, e.g., 3=1, and 1=3.
Neither is true, of course. But if we are going to help these people to understand, I find, a little background information is essential in order to establish a conceptual foundation for discussion.
In Catholic theology, we understand the persons of the Blessed Trinity subsisting within the inner life of God to be truly distinct relationally, but not as a matter of essence, or nature. Each of the three persons in the godhead possesses the same eternal and infinite divine nature; thus, they are the one, true God in essence or nature, not “three Gods.” Yet, they are truly distinct in their relations to each other.

In order to understand the concept of person in God, we have to understand its foundation in the processions and relations within the inner life of God. And the Council of Florence, AD 1338-1445, can help us in this regard.

The Council’s definitions concerning the Trinity are really as easy as one, two, three… four. It taught there is one nature in God, and that there are two processions, three persons, and four relations that constitute the Blessed Trinity. The Son “proceeds” from the Father, and the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” These are the two processions in God. And these are foundational to the four relations that constitute the three persons in God. These are those four eternal relations in God:

1. The Father actively and eternally generates the Son, constituting the person of God, the Father.

2. The Son is passively generated of the Father, which constitutes the person of the Son.

3. The Father and the Son actively spirate the Holy Spirit in the one relation within the inner life of God that does not constitute a person. It does not do so because the Father and Son are already constituted as persons in relation to each other in the first two relations. This is why CCC 240 teaches, “[The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity] is Son only in relation to his Father.”

4. The Holy Spirit is passively spirated of the Father and the Son, constituting the person of the Holy Spirit.
We should take note of the distinction between the "generative" procession that consititutes the Son, and the "spirative" procession that constitutes the Holy Spirit. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, and Scripture reveals, the Son is uniquely "begotten" of the Father (cf. John 3:16; 1:18). He is also said to proceed from the Father as "the Word" in John 1:1. This "generative" procession is one of "begetting," but not in the same way a dog "begets" a dog, or a human being "begets" a human being. This is an intellectual "begetting," and fittingly so, as a "word" proceeds from the knower while, at the same time remaining in the knower. Thus, this procession or begetting of the Son occurs within the inner life of God. There are not "two beings" involved; rather, two persons relationally distinct, while ever-remaining one in being.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but not in a generative sense; rather, in a spiration. "Spiration" comes from the Latin word for "spirit" or "breath." Jesus "breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit..." (John 20:22). Scripture reveals the Holy Spirit as pertaining to "God's love [that] has been poured into our hearts" in Romans 5:5, and as flowing out of and identified with the reciprocating love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father (John 15:26; Rev. 22:1-2). Thus, the Holy Spirit's procession is not intellecual and generative, but has its origin in God's will and in the ultimate act of the will, which is love.

As an infinite act of love between the Father and Son, this "act" is so perfect and infinite that "it" becomes (not in time, of course, but eternally) a "He" in the third person of the Blessed Trinity. This revelation of God's love personified is the foundation from which Scripture could reveal to us that "God is love" (I John 4:8).

God is not revealed to "be" love in any other religion in the world other than Christianity because in order for there to be love, there must be a beloved. From all eternity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have poured themselves out into each other in an infinite act of love, which we, as Christians, are called to experience through faith and the sacraments by which we are lifted up into that very love of God itself (Romans 5:1-5).

It is the love of God that binds us, heals us, and makes us children of God (I John 4:7; Matt. 5:44-45). Thus, how fitting it is that the Holy Spirit is depicted in Revelation 22:1-2, as a river of life flowing out from the Father and the Son and bringing life to all by way of bringing life to the very "tree of life" that is the source of eternal life in the the Book of Revelation (Rev. 22:19).

 

[Extraneous]

Who are the two witnesses in Revelation, and the two olive trees?

Zechariah 4:11 Then I answered and said to him, “What are these two olive trees—at the right of the lampstand and at its left?” 12 And I further answered and said to him, “What are these two olive branches that drip into the receptacles of the two gold pipes from which the golden oil drains?”

13 Then he answered me and said, “Do you not know what these are?”

And I said, “No, my lord.”

14 So he said, “These are the two anointed ones, who stand beside the Lord of the whole earth.”

 

[katholischen_miliz]

Biblically speaking, we see each of the persons in God revealed as relationally distinct and yet absolutely one in nature in manifold texts. For example, consider John 17:5, where our Lord prays on Holy Thursday:

… and now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was made.

Notice, before the creation, the Son was “with” the Father. Also, the Son addressing the Father and himself in an “I/thou” relationship is unmistakable. We have distinct persons here. “Father” and “Son” reveal a generative relationship as well. Yet, this relationship between two persons clearly has no beginning in time because it existed before the creation, from all eternity. Thus, the relational distinction is real, and personal, but as far as nature is concerned, Jesus’ words from John 10:30 come to mind: “I and the Father are one,” in that they each possess the same infinite nature.

The Holy Spirit is also seen to be relationally distinct from both the Father and the Son in Scripture inasmuch as both the Father and the Son are seen as “sending” “him.”

But when the Counselor comes (the Holy Spirit), whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness of me… (John 15:26).

… he will guide you into all truth (John 16:13).

Thus, the relational distinction is real, and personal, but the Holy Spirit, like the eternal Son, is revealed to be God inasmuch as he is revealed to be omniscient. “He will guide you into all truth.” In fact, I Cor. 2:10 also reveals the Holy Spirit to be omnicient when it says, "... no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." He speaks as God in texts of Scripture like Hebrews 3:7-11: 10:15-18. Thus, the Holy Spirit is revealed in Scripture to possess the same infinite and divine nature as does the Father and the Son.

 

[katholischen_miliz]

Analogy is the theologian’s best friend in explaining the mysteries of the Faith. And when it comes to the Trinity, there are many analogies to choose from. We will explore just two of them here that I have found helpful. In fact, it was these very two analogies that helped my Muslim friend to say the idea of the Trinity “made sense” to him, even though he wasn’t ready to leave his Muslim faith… at least, not yet.

From his famous and classic Confessions, Bk. 13, Ch. 11, St. Augustine writes:

I speak of these three: to be, to know, and to will. For I am, and I know, and I will: I am a knowing and a willing being, and I know that I am and that I will, and I will to be and to know. Therefore, in these three, let him who can do so perceive how inseparable a life there is, one life and one mind and one essence, and finally how inseparable a distinction there is, and yet there is a distinction. Surely a man stands face to face with himself. Let him take heed of himself, and look there, and tell me. But when he has discovered any of these and is ready to speak, let him not think that he has found that immutable being which is above all these, which is immutably, and knows immutably, and wills immutably.

In order to appreciate Augustine’s words, we must begin with three essential and foundational truths that undergird them. Without these, his words will fall on deaf ears.

1. We believe in one, true God, YAHWEH, who is absolute being, absolute perfection, and absolutely simple. Our belief in the Trinity does not mean God is three, or any other number of Gods.

2. Humankind is created “in [God’s] image and likeness” (cf. Gen. 1:26). From the context of Genesis 1, we know this “image and likeness” does not pertain to the body of man because God has no body. Indeed the divine nature cannot be bodily or material because there can be no potency in God as there is inherent in bodies, so this “image and likeness” must be referring to our higher faculties or operations of intellect and will.

3. It follows, then, that God is rational. He too is both intellectual and volitional.

These simple truths serve as the foundation for what I call St. Augustine’s anthropological analogy that can help us to understand better the great mystery of the Trinity:

In God we see the Father—the “being one” and first principal of life in the Godhead—the Son—the “knowing one”—the Word who proceeds from the Father—and the Holy Spirit—the “willing one”—the bond of love between the Father and Son who proceeds as love from the Father and Son. These “three” do not “equal” one if we are trying to say 3=1 mathematically. These three are distinct realities, relationally speaking, just as my own being, knowing, and willing are three distinct realities in me. Yet, in both God and man these three relationally distinct realities subsist in one being.

As St. Augustine points out, we can never know God or understand God completely through this or any analogy, but it can help us to understand how you can have relational distinctions within one being. And we can see this is reasonable.

The weakness inherent here—there are weaknesses in all analogies with reference to God—is that our knowing, being, and willing are not each infinite and co-extensive as the persons of God are. They subsist in one being in us, but they are not persons.

 

[katholischen_miliz]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us another analogy wherein we can see the reasonableness of the Trinity by helping us to see the possibility of distinct persons who possess the same nature. CCC 2205 provides:

The Christian family is a communion of persons, a sign and image of the communion of the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.

When we think of a family, we can see how a father, mother, and child can be distinct persons and yet possess the same nature (human), just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who each possess the same nature (divine).

The weakness, of course, is that in God each person possesses the one infinite and immutable divine nature, and is therefore, one being. Our analogous family consists of three beings. Again, no analogy is perfect.

But in the end, if we combine our two analogies, we can at least see both how there can be three relationally distinct realities subsisting within one being in the anthropological analogy, and how there can be three relationally distinct persons who share the same nature in the analogy of the family.

If you enjoyed this snippet, let me recommend to you that you read the unedited version of my article on "Defending the Trinity" at my personal blog here at TimStaples.com.

 

[katholischen_miliz]

This is written by Tim Staples, who is a Catholic apologist who converted from evangelical Protestantism, he has studied theology, scripture, and has a lot of experience in apologizing.

 

[Achilles6129]

Hmm. I don't see any possible way to believe #2 there.

That's absolutely closed off by numerous verses in Scripture, even considering the attempt to dance around it by saying "three centers of consciousness" or whatever.

Can you explain how? It would be perfectly accurate to say that there is one God, as in one essence that is God. What I'm saying is that there are three centers of consciousness instead of one center of consciousness.

 

[Albion]

Can you explain how? It would be perfectly accurate to say that there is one God, as in one essence that is God.

Yes.

What I'm saying is that there are three centers of consciousness instead of one center of consciousness.

Well, that isn't just what you said, but even if we go with this, 'three centers of consciousness' essentially separates the persona into separate entities. Or so it seems to me.

 

[Achilles6129]

OK, so go ahead and refute my OP with Scripture. Please also understand that I am basing my ideas of the Trinity off of Scripture (notably the passages I quoted above), not philosophy.

 

[Extraneous]

Dont argue it, just experience it.

 

[ewq1938]

First of all, I want to say that I think that the idea that the Trinity is somehow "incomprehensible" is an excuse to thwart sound theology. I think that there are two perfectly acceptable ways to understand the Trinity:

1) One God (one essence, one center of consciousness) who manifests himself in three persons or three separate ways
2) Three Gods (three centers of consciousness) who all share the same essence and hence who are all one in essence

I think both of these are good ways of understanding the Trinity.

Neither are accurate for the Trinity.

1) One God (one essence, one center of consciousness) who manifests himself in three persons or three separate ways

This sounds too similar to Modalism regarding the one consciousness. The Trinity does not have one consciousness. It is more accurate to say more than one consciousness in harmony.

2) Three Gods (three centers of consciousness) who all share the same essence and hence who are all one in essence

This is clearly wrong because there is one God not three. God is a title, it signifies Divinity. The Trinity is composed of three that each are Divine thus each is God but the three form one God not 3 Gods much like many Christians form a single bride of Christ.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, you are certainly doing your homework and on the right track, Katho. Actually, you are one of the very few in this forum who really has done some homework. I don't know how far you want to go into this, but maybe, just maybe, I thought you might be interested. Many Christians think that there is only one model or picture of God as he is in his own nature. In point of fact, there are two at present. There is the classical model or traditional model of God, the one found in the fathers, major creeds and confessions. This can be called classical theism. However, there is also a neo-classical model of God. The latter has been proposed by contemporary theologians such as myself. We believe the classical picture of God needs a major face lift and have been producing literature on this since the late 40's. I mention all this to you because you have tuned into Augustine's model of God, which is classical theism.

 

[Achilles6129]

Neither are accurate for the Trinity.

1) One God (one essence, one center of consciousness) who manifests himself in three persons or three separate ways

This sounds too similar to Modalism regarding the one consciousness. The Trinity does not have one consciousness. It is more accurate to say more than one consciousness in harmony.

2) Three Gods (three centers of consciousness) who all share the same essence and hence who are all one in essence

This is clearly wrong because there is one God not three. God is a title, it signifies Divinity. The Trinity is composed of three that each are Divine thus each is God but the three form one God not 3 Gods much like many Christians form a single bride of Christ.

God is one in essence. However, he has three centers of consciousness. Would you agree with that?

 

[ewq1938]

God is one in essence. However, he has three centers of consciousness. Would you agree with that?

I wouldn't call the Trinity a "he" because the Trinity isn't one person but the above is better than the earlier ones.

 

[Hoghead1]

I agree, Achilles, that too often the so-called mysteries of the Trinity aren't mysteries at all but really due to muddled thinking on the part of the fathers. I noted your reference to the social theory of teh Trinity. Three are three separate, unique personalities. The oneness of God is due to the fact they all work in harmony. The Cappadocians proposed that, and it is still quite popular. However, to many of us that is really polytheism. Three Gods in harmony is still three Gods, not one.

 

[True Science]

[deleted]

 

[True Science]

Trinity is neo-platonism. God is not an abstraction that transends all categories of language nonsense. He is a concrete being who lives in heaven with feelings, who loves, hates, favors, becomes happy and sad, so on and so forth. God the Father is the only true God. The person of Christ Jesus is his only literally begotten Son before the ages. Semi-Arianism is the truth. It is the most consistent logically and with the text.