The Trinity

[Philip]

I believe that God created both time and space and thus that God exists outside of time and space. And yet I also believe that God is omnipresent - everywhere in time and space as well. Furthermore I believe Jesus is fully God and fully man.

These are all worthy beliefs.

This gives God three apparently contradictory attributes of being a man with a particular place and time in history, being everywhere in time and space and being outside of time as well. Now I suppose it is probably inaccurate or "modalistic" as pharmacy_student calls it, to identify the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit each to one of these three apparently contradictory attributes. But it certainly gives me a simple minded reason to think of God as three.

There does seem to be an error here. It seems that you are limiting the Logos's presence. It is He who sustains creation. He is certainly present at all places in creation.

I think God is infinite. His infinite power logically implies to me that God can be as many as He wants to be, while remaining one and the same.

This is a flawed understanding of omnipotence. It is not as if the Father decided on day, 'I think I'll have a Son, and why not a Spirit as well.'

Cannot modalism be a trinitarianism for the unsophisticated beginner like my own simple-minded grasp of the Trinity.

I suppose it is acceptable until you are corrected.

I am not sure that depthdeception is correct in identifying jgonz as modalist anyway.

You are possible correct. Modalism may be a generous description of jgonz's statement. According to jgonz's statement, the distinction between the three Persons of the Holy Trinity is merely a matter of human perception. This is certainly wrong. The Three Persons are not dependant on us for there existance or distinction.

 

[relspace]

First of all, thanks. I need all the input I can get on this topic. And please don't take anything I say as argumentative. I would not presume to teach. I only ask, fully aware of my ignorance on this topic.

There does seem to be an error here. It seems that you are limiting the Logos's presence. It is He who sustains creation. He is certainly present at all places in creation.

Your use of the "Logos's presence" is a little unfamiliar. Is this a reference to Jesus, affirming his status as creator? Taking my whole post into account I think you will see that I recognize this same problem in modality. Yet while Jesus was on the earth was he not in some respect limited to the power and presense of a man? Is this not part of what it means to say that he is fully man. Otherwise don't you have Arianism, a man's body with the mind of God? When we say that Jesus is fully God, does this mean omnipotence and omnipresense while He was on the earth? Is incorrect to say that God voluntarily limited himself fully to the form of man in power and knowledge while on the earth? Perhaps you can clarify.

This is a flawed understanding of omnipotence. It is not as if the Father decided on day, 'I think I'll have a Son, and why not a Spirit as well.'

Oh no. This was a manner of speaking only. I believe that God is infinite actuality beyond time. He is actually all that He can be. So while He can change and become in His presence within time and space, He already is everything outside of time and space. He is not potentially infinite. He is actually infinite.

My point is that three is limiting Him. We may know Him as three, but I cannot see limiting him to that number or in fact limiting Him in any other way. I checked the Nicean creed for the words "three and only three" and not only did I not find these words but I did not even find the words "three" or "trinity". It simply makes an affirmation of the three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I mean, we certainly have no need or cause to believe in any more than these. We have no knowledge of any "others." So it would be presumptous to posit any more than these three. And yet........do you see my point? Am I making any sense?

I suppose it is acceptable until you are corrected.

But surely Christianity is not simply a matter of believing what you are told. And Christianity is not restricted to the intellectual giants. I also do not beleive that doctrinal purity is a requirement for salvation, although it may be a requirement for teaching and ministry, lest you become troublemaker or mislead people.

You are possible correct. Modalism may be a generous description of jgonz's statement. According to jgonz's statement, the distinction between the three Persons of the Holy Trinity is merely a matter of human perception. This is certainly wrong. The Three Persons are not dependant on us for there existance or distinction.

Hmmm... good point. But jgonz did not really say that any more that jgonz was saying that God really is a diamond. Anything we say about God is pointing at something beyond human comprehension. Thinking that any of our descriptions of God are accurate is a bit pretentious. Even doctrine should be understood more in terms of avoiding error and contradicting scripture rather than as fully apprehending God. I think jgonz was being descriptive by metaphor rather than doctrinal. But it is a good thing to add your point as a cautionary note to ammend jgonz' description.

 

[Philip]

Your use of the "Logos's presence" is a little unfamiliar. Is this a reference to Jesus, affirming his status as creator?

It is the Orthodox belief that not only is the Son the method of creation, but also the sustainer of creation.

Yet while Jesus was on the earth was he not in some respect limited to the power and presense of a man? Is this not part of what it means to say that he is fully man.

Not exactly. Even while incarnate as Jesus Christ, the Son of God remained God. He did give up His glory, but nothing of His Divinity.

Colossians 1:19
For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell,

Colossians 2:9
For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily,​

Otherwise don't you have Arianism, a man's body with the mind of God?

Actually, that is Apollinarianism. Arianism is a heresy about Christ's relationship to the Father. It states that while the Son is God, He is a 'lesser' God created by the Father.

When we say that Jesus is fully God, does this mean omnipotence and omnipresense while He was on the earth?

Yes. This is a place where logic tends to fail us. I am not saying that the body of Jesus was omnipresent -- It is a physical object with a physical location. However, Jesus, being God, was still omnipresent.

Is incorrect to say that God voluntarily limited himself fully to the form of man in power and knowledge while on the earth? Perhaps you can clarify.

It depends on what you mean by 'limit Himself'. He was still omnipotent, but He did limit His use of power. Recall His betrayal and arrest:

Matthew 26:52-54
Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?"​

Despite His power to resist, He does limit His actions.

Oh no. This was a manner of speaking only. I believe that God is infinite actuality beyond time. He is actually all that He can be. So while He can change and become in His presence within time and space, He already is everything outside of time and space. He is not potentially infinite. He is actually infinite.

Okay. I understand what you mean now.

My point is that three is limiting Him. We may know Him as three, but I cannot see limiting him to that number or in fact limiting Him in any other way. I checked the Nicean creed for the words "three and only three" and not only did I not find these words but I did not even find the words "three" or "trinity". It simply makes an affirmation of the three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I mean, we certainly have no need or cause to believe in any more than these. We have no knowledge of any "others." So it would be presumptous to posit any more than these three. And yet........do you see my point? Am I making any sense?

Yes, I do understand what you are saying. Our knowledge of God is limited to His revelation of Himself to us. He has revealled Himself as three disctinct Persons who are One in essence. It is certainly possible, and I see no logical basis for denying, that there could be more Persons within the (Tri)nity. At the same time, I find it pointless to speculate about what God has not revealed.

There are some theological reasons to believe that there are exactly three Persons in the Trinity. Most of these have to do historical and philosophical meaning of terms like 'Logos of God'.

But surely Christianity is not simply a matter of believing what you are told. And Christianity is not restricted to the intellectual giants. I also do not beleive that doctrinal purity is a requirement for salvation,

I agree completely. The point I was trying to make is that we must change our understanding once we know it is wrong. It is prideful, for example, to argue against the Trinity because it is difficult to understand. What is dangerous is not the mistaken understanding by itself, but the attitude that maintains it.

Hmmm... good point. But jgonz did not really say that any more that jgonz was saying that God really is a diamond.

Correct. My statement was based on my assesment of jgonz's statement. That is, of course, biased by my previous encounters with people who use the same type of description.

Anything we say about God is pointing at something beyond human comprehension.

I would amend this to say 'Anything we say about God that goes beyond revelation is pointing....'

Even doctrine should be understood more in terms of avoiding error and contradicting scripture rather than as fully apprehending God.

Agreed. This is why Orthodoxy thrives on apophatic, not kataphatic, theology.

 

[relspace]

Not exactly. Even while incarnate as Jesus Christ, the Son of God remained God. He did give up His glory, but nothing of His Divinity.

Colossians 1:19
For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell,

Colossians 2:9
For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily,
​

Maybe you can explain the words glory and deity, because I would not have associated either with omnipotence. But I would have understood this to mean only that He was truly God, and also perhaps that the Holy Spirit dwelt within him much as (or more fully than) the Holy Spirit dwells within the Christian.

Actually, that is Apollinarianism. Arianism is a heresy about Christ's relationship to the Father. It states that while the Son is God, He is a 'lesser' God created by the Father.

Thanks. It has been a while, but think I make that mistake a lot. I guess I remember the word Arianism and the meaning of Apollinarianism more easily and forget the rest.

Yes. This is a place where logic tends to fail us. I am not saying that the body of Jesus was omnipresent -- It is a physical object with a physical location. However, Jesus, being God, was still omnipresent.

It does indeed fail me. Because I don't see how that differs from Apollinarianism. Everything in the gospel stories sound like He is a man in both knowledge and power and if he is not then I cannot see how He would be fully man. Our power is not who we are. We can lose an arm or the power of speech or even memories and still we remain who we are. None of these things are us. If God did not become a man in power and knowledge then in what sense did He "humble himself" or become a man? In fact, you make him sound to me like a puppet controled by God or nothing more than a holographic image, kind of like the ones in star trek that you cannot distinguish from a real person. It even makes his death seem like nothing real. His life, His innocence and His attonement, wouldn't the fullness of God's power and knowlege make all of that meaningless.

It depends on what you mean by 'limit Himself'. He was still omnipotent, but He did limit His use of power. Recall His betrayal and arrest:

Matthew 26:52-54
Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?"​

​

Despite His power to resist, He does limit His actions.

But these words do not sound like the words of someone who is omnipotent. If He was omnipotent then why would He need to appeal to His Father? and why would He send for angels? All He would need to do is choose not to die. Even when He performed miracles, it was always implied that these were things that any man could do if they just had faith. Unless you mean that any time He wanted He could abandon the limitations of a man to which He had voluntarily submitted himself (although that would have been so pointless that I don't see Him doing this). Perhaps the first of the three temptations was to do exactly this. But I suspect that to do so would abort the meaning of the atonement for which He had to be a man.

 

[TruthMiner]

Someone please help me with understanding the trinity...God the Father = the Son = the Holy Spirit?

How can one be three?

It is not very hard at all actually. To turn three into one all you have to do is create ONE category to put those three things into.

So there a eleven players on ONE football team.

There are three people in ONE trio.

Whether anyone should be doing this with Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is, however, quite questionable.

 

[PaladinValer]

Hear o Israel, the L-rd thy G-d is One.

I see the 3 as Facets of G-d. For example: one diamond, but you turn it to different angles and it looks a little different... but it's still the same 1 diamond.

This is Sabellianism, not orthodox Trinitarianism.

God has no "facets;" he doesn't have different modes or wills. God is One Will, One Substance, One Mode; God. This all exists as Three Persons, who are distinct and unconfused.

CaliforniaJosiah, while the Holy Trinity may be "beyond our reasoning," in full, in part, we can and have delved into this Mystery of Faith with reasoning and the Holy Spirit: we have the Nicene Creed.

I'm saying this so that you are careful not to unintentionally fuel an argument against the Nicene Creed. Mysteries are not solvable, but they are delvable. As Christians, we are called to delve into them and contemplate them. We might find something new, but more than likely, even the wisest will come out saying "I don't know" and stick with the Creed.

 

[oldsage]

The Christian Church say that God is one, and this is because they make the three Persons share one undivided essence. Yet they do not allow anyone to say that the one God is one Person, but insist that there are three Persons

For one, yes that is what Christianity teaches three Persons in one Essence. To define it otherwise would be heresy and against the teachings of God.

a belief necessary to preserve an idea of three Gods such as you have.

Nope, you missed it, the Trinity doctrine affirms one God, not three gods, to day there is three gods that is Tritheism which is a form of Polytheism, which is against the teachings of the Church. For an example of Tritheism read Mormon (Latter-day Saints) theology, they are Tritheist.

You also attribute to each Person a character differing from the others'; do you not by this divide that Divine essence of yours? In these circumstances how can you say and at the same time think that God is one?

No, this isn't an accurate representation of what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches.

I would forgive you if you said that there is one Divine. How can anyone who is told that the Father is God

, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that each person by Himself is God' possibly think that God is one? Surely this is a contradiction which cannot be believed.

No, this is easy to believe, God is one in His essence, God who is eternal is Simple, meaning no divisions, if God isn't simple, then He isn't God. So, the doctrine of the Trinity teaches God is One, not in thoughts but in essence. You seem to keep thinking along the lines of three essences and keep trying to separate God into parts. If you argue against the Trinity doctrine you need to represent it correctly, God is one in His essence, not divided, God is three in a relational sense.
From here we don't try to explain it further, but leave it as that.

This illustration will show that one cannot speak of one God but only a like Divinity: one cannot call a group of people, who make up a single senate, assembly or council, one man

This idea doesn't represent the Trinity, for one this shows there are divisions, ontological differences. It isn't the same idea as a simple being.

Nor can three diamonds of a single composition be called one diamond, only one in respect of their composition; and each diamond differs from another in value according to its weight. This would be impossible if they were one, and not three.

Again, another mis-representation of the Trinity, here you are thinking about three separate items making it Tritheism, and in Polytheism there really isn't a god but several powerful beings.
If you want to poke holes in the doctrine of the Trinity then deal with what it teaches, not what it doesn't.

Blessings,
Chris

 

[relspace]

No, this is easy to believe, God is one in His essence, God who is eternal is Simple, meaning no divisions, if God isn't simple, then He isn't God. So, the doctrine of the Trinity teaches God is One, not in thoughts but in essence. You seem to keep thinking along the lines of three essences and keep trying to separate God into parts. If you argue against the Trinity doctrine you need to represent it correctly, God is one in His essence, not divided, God is three in a relational sense.

simple? One God, three persons, one essence. simple? You have got to be kidding. You had me until you said this. Look I am no expert on Trinitarian doctrine, but I appreciate the reason for it. It is all a juggling act, attempting to avoid blatant contradictions in scripture or with scripture. It repells the efforts of men to simplify the scriptures by alteration to fit the doctrines of men. But to call it simple or to call God simple sounds ridiculous to me.

I believe that God is infinite. If one is going to assign a number to God then this is the most appropriate "number." For it means without limit. So, I say that God is not one, not three, but infinite. These numbers one and three have to with us - God's relationship to us. We know God as one creator, one power, one will, one all knowing and all powerful entity with one sovereignty over all that exists. And yet we also know God as three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is the redeemer who gave his life in atonement for the sins of all mankind. Then there is the father who the redeemer spoke of and spoke to while He was among us. And finally there was the Holy Spirit who descended and remained upon Jesus "like a dove" after his baptism and who comes to comfort and baptize Christians.

God is in no way "simple". God is beyond our comprehension. My words in the previous paragraph are little more than the meaningless noises of a baboon, hooting its declaration of worth to the other baboons. Yet at its heart the Trinitarian doctrine is the work of wiser baboons than I, merely trying to help keep baboons like me from picking and choosing what they like or dislike in scripture, and burying the word of God beneath our own prideful hooting.

The Christian Church say that God is one, and this is because they make the three Persons share one undivided essence. Yet they do not allow anyone to say that the one God is one Person, but insist that there are three Persons, a belief necessary to preserve an idea of three Gods such as you have. You also attribute to each Person a character differing from the others'; do you not by this divide that Divine essence of yours? In these circumstances how can you say and at the same time think that God is one? I would forgive you if you said that there is one Divine. How can anyone who is told that 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and that each person by Himself is God' possibly think that God is one? Surely this is a contradiction which cannot be believed. This illustration will show that one cannot speak of one God but only a like Divinity: one cannot call a group of people, who make up a single senate, assembly or council, one man, but so long as they all individually hold the same opinion, they can be said to have one view. Nor can three diamonds of a single composition be called one diamond, only one in respect of their composition; and each diamond differs from another in value according to its weight. This would be impossible if they were one, and not three.

I will not accuse you of heresy like oldsage. I do not put faith in any doctrines Trinitarian or otherwise, I only struggle with them in my search of for comprehension, and I battle with the doctrine of the Trinity as much as any of them. Instead I point at your words and say "behold inadequacy of human words about God". I am not fond of the word "essence" in this doctrine of the Trinity making it sound as if the three person of God were made of similar material, like your diamond analogy. But do think you limit God too much. Why cannot the infinitely all-powerful omnipresent creator of the universe not be different three persons if He so chose to be? Certainly no human can truly be more than one person (although people with split personalities come close to this in many ways), but God is not a human, or at least, not only a human, and therefore our limitations are not His. In fact, I do not think God has limitations except those which He chooses to impose upon Himself. So I ask you. Do you really believe in an infinite all-powerful God, or do you, like the Mormons, believe in a God who is just like one of us, who just happens to be our father and/or the creator of the world.

 

[Theophorus]

The Trinity has always been a difficult point for me too, but I just had a thought coming from Christology that brought me much closer to comprehension of this doctrine.

I believe that God created both time and space and thus that God exists outside of time and space. And yet I also believe that God is omnipresent - everywhere in time and space as well. Furthermore I believe Jesus is fully God and fully man. This gives God three apparently contradictory attributes of being a man with a particular place and time in history, being everywhere in time and space and being outside of time as well. Now I suppose it is probably inaccurate or "modalistic" as pharmacy_student calls it, to identify the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit each to one of these three apparently contradictory attributes. But it certainly gives me a simple minded reason to think of God as three.

I think God is infinite. His infinite power logically implies to me that God can be as many as He wants to be, while remaining one and the same. But the above thoughts give Him in my mind an immediate and important aspect of three-ness which I can relate to.

I think much of the confusion here might be alleviated by the orthodox teaching of thr grace of God, or his uncreated energies that are "all in all", and also a function of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. This "grace manifests all of creation as well as all men, but in greater illimination leads man onto theosis.

[The] theology of the Eastern Church distinguishes in God the three hypostases, the nature or essence, and the energies. The Son and the Holy Spirit are, so to say, personal processions, the energies, natural processions. The energies are inseparable from the nature, and the nature is inseparable from the three Persons. These distinctions are of great importance for the Eastern Church’s conception of mystical life:…3) The distinction between the essence and the energies, which is fundamental for the Orthodox doctrine of grace, makes it possible to preserve the real meaning of Saint Peter’s words “partakers of the divine nature” [2 Peter 1:4]. The union to which we are called is neither hypostatic—as in the case of the human nature of Christ—nor substantial, as in that of the three divine Persons: it is union with God in His energies, or union by grace making us participate in the divine nature, without our essence becoming thereby the essence of God. In deification [theosis] we are by grace (that is to say, in the divine energies), all that God is by nature, save only identity of nature . . .according to the teaching of Saint Maximus. We remain creatures while becoming God by grace, as Christ remained God in becoming man by the Incarnation.10

Eastern tradition knows no such supernatural order between God and the created world, adding, as it were, to the latter a new creation. It recognizes no distinction, or rather division, save that between the created and the uncreated. For [the] eastern tradition the created supernatural has no existence. That which western theology calls by the name of the supernatural signifies for the East the uncreated—the divine energies ineffably distinct from the essence of God. . . . The act of creation established a relationship between the divine energies and that which is not God. . . . [However,] the divine energies in themselves are not the relationship of God to created being, but they do enter into relationship with that which is not God [i.e., His creation], and draw the world into existence by the will of God.11

from here.

 

[oldsage]

simple? One God, three persons, one essence. simple? You have got to be kidding. You had me until you said this. Look I am no expert on Trinitarian doctrine, but I appreciate the reason for it. It is all a juggling act, attempting to avoid blatant contradictions in scripture or with scripture. It repells the efforts of men to simplify the scriptures by alteration to fit the doctrines of men. But to call it simple or to call God simple sounds ridiculous to me.

I don't think you understand what I mean when I said 'simple'. When I use the term 'simple' it is in the ontological sense, that God is undivided, one essense, without any parts, there isn't any division in God's ontos. I should have defined what I meant when I used the term, sorry.

Blessings,
Chris

 

[SpiritualSon]

I don't think you understand what I mean when I said 'simple'. When I use the term 'simple' it is in the ontological sense, that God is undivided, one essense, without any parts, there isn't any division in God's ontos. I should have defined what I meant when I used the term, sorry.

Blessings,
Chris

The Greek and the Catholic Church thinks it has all the answers. The Romans and the Greeks were always more than one God worshippers. Three persons, means three gods.

Harry

 

[minasoliman]

The Greek and the Catholic Church thinks it has all the answers. The Romans and the Greeks were always more than one God worshippers. Three persons, means three gods.

Harry

It seems like the angel that told you that doesn't know much about the ancient Church or his own Church history (and might I add this is quite an insulting remark). It's not just the Greeks and Romans, but Egyptians, Syrians, Serbians, Russians, Armenians, Chaldeans, Arabs, Indians, Africans, Americans, etc. etc. etc.

Have you neglected the dialogue you had with me that you failed to engage in?

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=22756062&postcount=59
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=22765889&postcount=64
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=22772453&postcount=68
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=22809503&postcount=71

These thoughts in your head are deceptions, and if you continue to succumb to them without testing them, without doing the sign of the Cross on yourself, without praying to God in a humble manner, then you will always be stubborn and negligent concerning the arguments made here. Even St. Paul says:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8)

Believe it or not, the angel who keeps talking to you is a condemned heretic.

God bless.

Mina

 

[Chivahead103]

The easiest way to understand the trinity is this way:

The United States is one nation but has 50 states. Those 50 States are one and have one purpose.

 

[Abiel]

I have never yet heard an analogy of the Trinity that wasn't a heresy. Best to stay away from them I think.

 

[TruthMiner]

Someone please help me with understanding the trinity...God the Father = the Son = the Holy Spirit?

How can one be three?

Easy. Take the three things and put them into ONE category.

Example:

ELEVEN football players = ONE team.

THREE musicians = ONE trio or ONE band.

That's all the Trinity doctrine does. No big mystery.

 

[minasoliman]

Easy. Take the three things and put them into ONE category.

Example:

ELEVEN football players = ONE team.

THREE musicians = ONE trio or ONE band.

That's all the Trinity doctrine does. No big mystery.

I think other people have made points that show that there is not one analogy that does not lead to heresy. So, while the analogy you have is plausible, it is also not perfect, and one has to go to the extent that "three persons" does not mean "three gods." Many people don't understand that, and we may not fully understand that either, but that's what makes God such a mystery.

My favorite analogy is taking anything that God is said to be. For example, we say God is Love. Therefore, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is like Lover, Love, and the Life of Love.

So, the Trinity doctrine will take eternity to understand, and it is a mystery that only God Himself understands, but as for us, we have limited minds, and we can only understand to the extent our mind can bring us.

God bless.

Mina

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

There is an interesting article on "Messianic, Scripture and Trinity" arguments and debates that you should consider in this discussion. Go to:

http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/hazak/thatsubject.html

Shalom, David.

 

[rbrown281]

I LIke what Maximus said on March 3, 06 (Think of the Father as the sun, the Son as the sun's rays, and the Holy Spirit as the sun's heat. That is an imperfect analogy (like all analogies must be in this case), but one can see the similarities: where the sun is, there are its rays and its heat. You can't have any one of them without the other two, and the sun itself is the engine of all three.) Also I have considered this analogy, that if God was like water,where there is solid,liquid and gas; compare Father , Son and Holy Spirit. Just my thoughts.

 

[ttreg]

someone may of said this is so sorry i only read the first few posts but ive heard this: the Father is not the Son the Son is not the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the Father ,but the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. though i too have had some troubles understanding the Trinity idk....it seems like its well idk.......

 

[Simonline]

Someone please help me with understanding the trinity...God the Father = the Son = the Holy Spirit?

How can one be three?

Take a sheet of A4 paper and write on one side the word 'God' and on the other side the words 'Single Personality'. This, we will call 'the Unitarian model'.

Take a second sheet of A4 paper, place it 'portrait' style (shortest edges at the top and bottom) and fold it horizontally into three thirds (as you would a letter).

In the 'outside' center third, write the word 'GOD'.

Turn the sheet over and in the 'inside' left hand third write the word 'Father'. In the center third write the word 'Son' and in the right hand third write the words 'Holy Spirit'.

Take the sheet and, cutting from left to right of the 'landscape' side (the longer side), cut along both of the folds (but only two thirds of the way) so that you end up with three distinct but not separate strips. This, we will call 'the Trinitarian model'

Now, take a third sheet of A4 paper and duplicate the Trinitarian model but this time write the word 'god' on the 'outside' of all three strips' and cut all the way accross so that you end up with three separate strips. This we will call 'the Tri-theist model'.

Study them closely and see if you can work out the differences.

God is ONE but He is also THREE ('Trinitarianism').
He is not just ONE ('Unitarianism') and He is not just THREE ('Tri-theism') He is both ONE and THREE. - One Tri-Personal God

This ONE God has incarnated to become the human Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. But only ONE of the THREE Persons of the ONE God has done this. This Person is the Son. The Father and the Holy Spirit have not done this.

The Son exists simultaneously in two different realities that are so different that they CANNOT be brought together as one reality. They must ALWAYS remain as two separate realities.

The first reality is the Reality of the Divine Creator. This Reality is Personal ('It' (at least in relation to humans) is a 'He'); Eternal (He exists without time); Omnipotent (All powerful); Omniscient (All knowing); Omnipresent (Everywhere) and Immutable (Unchanging). This is called 'the Divine Nature'.

The second reality is the reality of the human creature. This reality is also personal (because it is made in the image of the Divine Creator); temporal (it cannot exist without time), has limited power, limited knowledge, can only be in one place at once and must always change, by degree, from one state of existence to another (as a result of having to exist within time). This is called the Human Nature.

Whilst the first Reality is absolutely self sufficient and self-sustaining, the second reality is totally dependent upon the first Reality for it's existence. This is called 'contingent' existence (i.e existence that is dependent (or 'contingent') upon another existence for it's own existence).

The way that the first Reality exists is totally different to the way that the second reality exists. This is why the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth has to have two natures whilst actually being only One Person. This is called the 'hypostatic union' and is a fancy term for the way that the Messiah simultaneously exists as a part of two separate realities - as the Eternal Divine Creator and as a temporal human creature.

The name 'YHWH' (God's name) and the title 'Son of God' are the designations or 'terms of reference' that reflect the reality that is the Messiah as the Divine Creator.

The name 'Jesus of Nazareth' and the title 'Son of Man' are the designations or 'terms of reference' that reflect the reality that is the Messiah as a human creature.

The title 'the Messiah' (meaning 'annointed' or 'chosen' one) is the term of reference for God (YHWH) as incarnate. In other words, God has now [permanently] become a human being and lived amongst us as one of us.

God's number one objective is to redeem His Creation from the curse and consequence of sin so that he can achieve his ultimate goal of living, by His Spirit, within each and every one of us. Since the fall, God has, because of sin, been unable to enjoy the kind of personal intimate relationship with His human creatures that was the reason why He created us in the first place. Ever since the fall God has been slowly and steadily working towards repairing the damage and restoring the relationship between Himself and His creatures whom He loves totally. Because of sin, God has, for our protecton, had to hide Himself from us and very slowly move ever closer to us but under very strict conditions so that His Holiness did not annihilate us in our sinfulness. Throughout the time that God lead Israel by the hand and took him out of Egypt and into the Promised Land, God always kept His distance, except when He had to judge them for their sin, but even then He always used restraint. Eventually, once settled in the Promised Land, a temple was was built for YHWH but that was never really what He wanted. Finally, on the Day that He died on the cross for the sins of the world, God could wait no longer and ripped the veil of the temple in two from top to bottom. At last! He no longer needed to confine Himself from sinful human beings for their protection. He could finally achieve what He has always wanted, to live in the hearts, minds and souls of those who were willing to trust Him and through them bring in the Kingdom of God so that more and more people would have the opportunity to have their broken relationship with the Eternal, Divine, Creator of the Universe restored...

...of course, none of this would be even remotely possible were God not Trinitarian in Nature?!

Simonline.