Trinity

[A New Dawn]

In my few short days here, I have noted that many use the concept of the Trinity in different ways. Maybe each can describe how they view the Trinity, or what their definition of it is.

Here is what I view as the common definition of the Trinity, and how I believe the Trinity to be composed.

Trinity - a word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 44:6; Mark 12:29, 32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.
(Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary)

The word, Trinity, literally means, "a unity of three". The Trinity is a central doctrine of most branches of Christianity; it says that God is one God, existing in three distinct persons, usually referred to as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Historically, this has been described by the Nicene (325 A.D.), Apostles' (200 A.D.), and Athanasian Creeds (mid 300's A.D.) although it is not explicitly described in the Bible. This one God however exists in three persons, or in the Greek hypostases. God has but a single divine nature, and a single will, and is of but one substance. The Three are co-equal and co-eternal.
(From Wikipedia)

 

[chaindog]

In my few short days here, I have noted that many use the concept of the Trinity in different ways. Maybe each can describe how they view the Trinity, or what their definition of it is.

Here is what I view as the common definition of the Trinity, and how I believe the Trinity to be composed.

Trinity - a word not found in Scripture, but used to express the doctrine of the unity of God as subsisting in three distinct Persons. This word is derived from the Gr. trias, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 44:6; Mark 12:29, 32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.
(Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary)

The word, Trinity, literally means, "a unity of three". The Trinity is a central doctrine of most branches of Christianity; it says that God is one God, existing in three distinct persons, usually referred to as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Historically, this has been described by the Nicene (325 A.D.), Apostles' (200 A.D.), and Athanasian Creeds (mid 300's A.D.) although it is not explicitly described in the Bible. This one God however exists in three persons, or in the Greek hypostases. God has but a single divine nature, and a single will, and is of but one substance. The Three are co-equal and co-eternal.
(From Wikipedia)

I also believe them to be separate entities, although I don't ascribe much importance to the matter.

 

[jessedance]

and i believe it all to be nonsense

 

[trinity2359]

and i believe it all to be nonsense

I have to agree.



I never got the idea of a trinity for several reasons:

1 - The Jews - God's chosen people for most of history - don't believe in it
2 - Jesus Christ is the firstborn of creation (Colossians 1:15). Jesus was taught (John 8:28), received revelation (Revelations 1:1), and is subject to his God and Father (1 Corinthians 11:3, 15:24-28) forever. Don't forget - he died. My God can't die. And if Jesus didn't die then we all believe in vain (1 Cor 15:12-22). Thus Jesus wasn't always God or part of a Trinity.

(Though my screen name is Trinity - it is for the Matrix movie character, rather than 'Christian' concept)

 

[arizona_sunshine]

Thus Jesus wasn't always God or part of a Trinity.

trinity

I see your 'LDS' icon, so I am assuming your beliefs are the same as mine. Jesus Christ, from an LDS perspective, has been part of the Godhead from the beginning. He is the God of the Old Testament. He is the Co-Creator of the earth with our Heavenly Father.



Welcome to Christian Forums, bytheway!

 

[lared]

Only the Father, who is commonly known as Jehovah in modern day common English, is referred to as the Almighty God.

Jesus did not know the day or the hour of the last day, when Matthew was written, thus he is not Almighty God.

Jesus can be referred to as God in the sense that he is powerful, just as Satan is referred to as god. Many other persons and things are gods to different people.

But the Father and Son are two different persons.

A couple become one when they get married but they are not actually the same person. Jesus prayed that all his followers would become one or rather united (not disunited as the churches currently are), just as he and his Father are one.----The context is important.

Thomas may have said My God with reference to Jesus, but he certainly did not mean his Almighty God Jehovah, the heavenly Father, whom he often heard Jesus pray to and his Jewish heritage worshiped for thousands of years.

Jesus was created as he is known as the first born of all creation.

The Father is from everlasting to everlasting. In other words he did not have a beginning.

Jesus was dead for approx. 3 days.

John chapter 17 is a prayer. Jesus is praying to his heavenly Father. Jesus is on earth. Jehovah is in heaven. Verse 3 tells us that our everlasting welfare is hinged upon our knowing two persons. Jehovah, our heavenly Father, and Jesus, his son.

Yes, there are a few scriptures in the Bible that one may use to prove that Jesus is Almighty God. Just as there are a few scriptures in the Bible that the homosexual agenda uses to promote homosexuality.

By far, the biggest stumbling block, is the divine name, Jehovah. Most English Bibles have removed it and have substituted it with either LORD or GOD in all capital letters. Please compare Psalm 83:18 in an older King James Bible with a newer King James Bible.

If someone said the President was in town. You might automatically think of George Bush. But President could also refer to Bill Gates. Can you see how important the name is. One could become confused.

Some will say, oh, the name Jehovah is not important. But Jesus did not think so. Why the very first thing he told us to pray for in the model prayer, the Lord's Prayer is for God's name to be hallowed or be made sacred. God's name was important to Jesus and he used it and said he would make it known.

It may not be the exact proper pronunciation, but is the name Jeremiah, Jacob, Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Joshua? NO, but these are common modern day English pronunciations, just as Jehovah is for God Almighty.

 

[Swart]

and i believe it all to be nonsense

I'm confused here. Why do you consider the nature of God to be nonsense?

Accept of the Nicene Creed is considered to be the definition of a Christian according to this board.

I think a very valid point has been raised by Jenda. Just what do the posters who accept the concept of the Trinity mean when they say it?

I must admit. I find the Trinitarian concept difficult to understand. I never understood it when I was a Presbyterian, despite being told to "have more faith" by my minister.

However, I agree with a lot of Jenda's description of what *she* believes constitutes the Trinity. Modalism and Sabellianism aside, the description of the Trinity is a very broad definition and is wide open to additional interpretation.

So, enlighten us. What do *you* believe?

 

[A New Dawn]

However, I agree with a lot of Jenda's description of what *she* believes constitutes the Trinity. Modalism and Sabellianism aside, the description of the Trinity is a very broad definition and is wide open to additional interpretation.

So, enlighten us. What do *you* believe?

Actually, I don't believe in the Trinity, at least not fully. This is just what my concept of the Trinity is. I am mostly modalist, but I accept certain aspects of the Trinity.

I did not mean to mislead anyone with my question. However, I am interested in how everyone else views the Trinity because I've seen some pretty broad definitions.

I agree, in a way, with jessedance, though, that it is nonsense. I don't think that God cares whether we believe in the Trinity, or if we believe in Modalism, as long as we believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

 

[Swart]

I agree, in a way, with jessedance, though, that it is nonsense. I don't think that God cares whether we believe in the Trinity, or if we believe in Modalism, as long as we believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

So, what do you think of using the Nicene creed as a basis for deciding if someone is a Christian or not? What do you think should be the determining factor of Christianity?

If it is nonsense (as some have claimed), then why is it given so much importance?

IMO, I think an understanding of the nature of God is important. Even as a LDS, I had some false notions about God that were inhibiting the HG from working within me. Once I cast these notions aside, I had a much greater ability to feel and recognise the spirit.

Most Christians regard modalism as an heretical doctrine. Do you think modalism is covered by the creed?

 

[Swart]

Only the Father, who is commonly known as Jehovah in modern day common English, is referred to as the Almighty God.

FYI. LDS believe that Jesus=Jehovah and that all references to Jehovah are refernces to JC.

 

[TOmNossor]

I hope some of the below can help to understand some of the Trinity terms in modern scholarship.

Modalism through liberal Social Trinitarianism are all attempts to understand how God can be three and God can be one.

I would suggest that the Bible provides us with one bit of information on how the three is one. It is contained in John 17 (and prolly some similar statements). John 17 is a very low standard of oneness. My view of the Trinity has significantly more oneness than that demanded by John 17, and an Augustinian Trinity has even more oneness than this.



1. Absolute Monotheism: This is the classic one God and only one God. Modern day Jews and Moslems would be AMs. A Jew would claim that ancient Jews where AMs, but some Old Testament scholars might not agree. Jews and Moslems can logically call Christians polytheist even though we reject this title.

2. Modalist:This is the Sabellian heresy. It maintains that God is one, but we experience him as 3 different modes. In human experience we see evidence of a God the Father, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit. This is just a representation of the one true God. An analogy could even be: Bush is the President, Bush is a Texan, Bush is an exerciser, Bush is one. Sometimes mentioned and generally true is the fact that a fourth nature exists for God that is his real nature encompassing all of his modes.

3. Modal Trinitarianism: This is similar to the above, but is an attempt at a real Trinitarian structure. We experience God as three different modes as above, and He really is composed of three different modes. There is no fourth “real nature.” God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We experience him as such and he exists as such. This structure is linked to Karl Barth. Critics claim it is just a restatement of the Sabellian heresy.

4. Augustinian Trinitarianism: While there is some wiggle room in what a Catholic can believe about the Trinity, if I understand correctly it generally centers around this formulation of the Trinity. For simplicity I will state this formulation with just two components, but of course the Holy Spirit is included.

a. There is exactly one God

b. The Father is God

c. The Son is God

d. The Father is not identical to the Son

The Trinity is more complex than this, but the above is a good starting point. If you look at a-d, it is a paradox or a mystery to hold all 4 of these positions at once. To distinguish this from the below I must mention some more things. The Father alone is unbegotten and non-proceeding. In Western or Augustinian Trinitarianism the fount of Diety resides in the Father’s Being (the more oneness component) rather than in his person. This allows for the Holy Spirit to proceed from both the Father and the Son. Another distinction is that Augustinian Trinitarianism starts with the oneness and formulates the threeness.

5. Easter Orthodox Trinitarianism: Same as above except that the fount of Diety resides in the Father’s person. This results in the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father alone. Also the threeness is a starting point from which oneness is formulated.

6. Social Trinitarianism LDS: God is one and GOD is three. (much of the below is from Ostler)

a. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct divine persons and one Godhead in virtue of oneness of indwelling unity of presence, glory, and oneness of mind purpose, power and intent. Three wills exist, but the Son and the Holy Ghost freely, perfectly, and always choose to submit their will to the Father’s (the Son and Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father, but they are fully divine).

b. The Father is the fount of divinity. The Son and the Holy Ghost exist, but through the indwelling love of the Father are divine. Also, part of divinity is the love of the Father for the Son and Holy Ghost (and of course their love of him and eachother). Divinity is expressed through the relation of the three, thus one divinity exists.

c. The unity of the divine persons falls short of identity, but is much more intimate than merely belonging to the same class. There are distinct divine persons, but hardly separated or independent divine persons.

7. Social Trinitarianism (more Tri-theist): “The Holy Trinity is a divine society or community of three fully personal and fully divine beings…” - Cornelius Plantinga. The Protestant author who presented this possibly didn’t do Plantinga justice, but there is clearly a continuum within Social Trinitarianism.

8. Tri-theism: Three gods, Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Independent and all fully God.

9. Pagan Polytheism: Many gods. Sometimes look to components of nature as gods.



Note: to Jenda. I was actually surprised to discover the prevalence of modalistic thought within the RLDS / Community of Christ. I do not think there are many LDS who are on the modalist side of the Augustinian Trinity which puts LDS farther from RLDS than from non-LDS Christians. Peculiar! But I have always thought that the BOM demands a oneness of God at least as much if not more than the New Testament so I can understand how you who accept the BOM as scripture can be on this side of the discussion.



Note: to anyone who denies the divinity of Christ. I think you would fall in the Absolute Monotheism category above.
If you believe that Christ is divine but less divine than God, then you would not fit in the above framework. (LDS believe that Christ is subordinate to God, but we do not say he is less divine).



If you really do not care about the similarities between LDS thought and non-LDS Christians thought, then you do not need to read below.



Now, I want to mention a little about homoousian/homoousius. I participated in a discussion with a Dismas on this board and provided 2 pieces of data that showed that the “of one substance” immediately post Nicea had a different meaning than what it is generally assumed to means (have meant) today. My Catholic friend found a third statement by Athanasius to back this up.



I want to introduce two terms in order to define what homoousian means.

LDS believe that God the Son and God the Father are of one substance in the same way that you and me are of one substance. I call this “you-me substanceness.”

Homoousian has come to mean of one substance that we can call “me-me substanceness.”



In a resent discussion with a famous anti-cultist I proposed that LDS can embrace a oneness of “me-me substanceness.” This became obvious to me as he spoke about what this oneness means. Specifically he said that the oneness was not associated with “dimensional space,” And it is something “metaphysical.”



So LDS typically talk about the of one “me-you substanceness” that Christ and the Father share in their bodies of flesh and bones. But, the Holy Spirit is divine and has not body so the physical body cannot be integral to divinity.



The above is also quite powerful because we can know that the “me-me substanceness” if applied to LDS or non-LDS thought cannot be associated with a body of flesh and bones. This is because the oneness of God in LDS thought is associated with his divinity and the body of God is not. And that the oneness of God in non-LDS thought is not associated with a body of flesh and bones because this is not integral to God the Father in non-LDS thought.



So this is what I believe. In my version of LDS thought that derives largely from Blake Ostler (which he derives from the standard works and some of the statements of Joseph Smith), “me-me substanceness” exists in the non-physical unity associated with the bond that is indwelling unity of presence, glory, and oneness of mind purpose, power and intent and the indwelling love that unifies beyond what we humans currently understand. There is a “me-me substanceneess” associated with the singleness of the above divine aspects. And unlike the physical body (which is of one “you-me substanceness
,” the above is connected to the divinity of the Trinity.



The other thing I want to mention here, is that neither he nor I really moved from our view of the Trinity. We just defined our terms very carefully and it resulted in us being “infinitely closer to agreement.”



Hope you enjoy this. If not, all I was paid to make this post will be refunded.



Charity, TOm

 

[happyinhisgrace]

So many people try to complicate things in effort to explain them in a "human" understanding. The Trinity is simply this....ONE God in 3 persons. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. All 3 persons share the same being and are One God. Does it make complete sense to our human understanding how 3 persons could be one and not just one in purpose but ONE? No, it doesn't. We are human, we are not God. If we were God, we would understand it completely but since we are below God and there is only ONE God EVER, then of course we are not going to completely understand every thing about the nature of God and how He does what He does. But still....the trinity is just one God. Christians are monothiest, they are not polythiest, modelist, humanist, etc. They are monothiest who believe in one and only one God EVER.


God Bless,
Grace

 

[Bugmotel]

Lets look at this from a scriptural perspective:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So this places Jesus before creation, and he and God are one.

Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

This makes the Holy Spirit and God one.

Deduction: If God and Christ are one, and the Holy Spirit and God are one, then Christ and the Holy Spirit are one.

 

[TOmNossor]

So many people try to complicate things in effort to explain them in a "human" understanding. The Trinity is simply this....ONE God in 3 persons. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. All 3 persons share the same being and are One God. Does it make complete sense to our human understanding how 3 persons could be one and not just one in purpose but ONE? No, it doesn't. We are human, we are not God. If we were God, we would understand it completely but since we are below God and there is only ONE God EVER, then of course we are not going to completely understand every thing about the nature of God and how He does what He does. But still....the trinity is just one God. Christians are monothiest, they are not polythiest, modelist, humanist, etc. They are monothiest who believe in one and only one God EVER.


God Bless,
Grace

HappyinHisgrace,

In truth I agree with all of the following:

* So many people try to complicate things in effort to explain them in a "human" understanding.

* ONE God in 3 persons. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

* Does it make complete sense to our human understanding how 3 persons could be one and not just one in purpose but ONE? No, it doesn't. We are human, we are not God. If we were God, we would understand it completely but since we are below God and there is only ONE God EVER, then of course we are not going to completely understand every thing about the nature of God and how He does what He does. But still....the trinity is just one God. Christians are monothiest, they are not polythiest, modelist, humanist, etc. They are monothiest who believe in one and only one God EVER.



I also agree with the following, but I am knowledgeable enough to know that the intricacies of what you mean by these words and what I mean are different:

* All 3 persons share the same being and are One God.



So, since it is soooo simple, and I agree with every word you posted (other than that it is sooo simple) I must be just as Christian as you in your eyes. Correct?



In truth, I believe the Bible can be interpreted from a modalist through a tri-theist position. I believe the only place where the way that God is one is defined is in John 17.

Which says that the Son and the Father are one in purpose. The Bible does not explain the oneness any more than this. If you stop as scripture you have One God who is one in purpose. If you proceed to 450AD and Augustine, you have the Trinity you embrace, but the Bible defines oneness in only a “one in purpose” way. So even those who merely assert a oneness in purpose are quite biblical, but recently LDS leaders including President Hinckley have asserted oneness in more than just “purpose.”



If you left the CoJCoLDS because what you saw in the Bible was a greater oneness than merely one in purpose, again, you left without understanding what LDS can and potentially should believe.



Charity, TOm

 

[jessedance]

I'm confused here. Why do you consider the nature of God to be nonsense?


So, enlighten us. What do *you* believe?

I believe God created a male spermazoid that he used to fertilize Mary's egg with, thus resulting in the fetus that became the baby Jesus. I do not believe Jesus existed before he was born. I believe Jesus is the new creation of God to replace the old creation, adam or all of us. we are a new creation in christ Jesus who is the new creation or second adam of God.Jesus is the son of God because God provided the spermazoid to fertilze Marys egg. Jesus is the son of man because Mary provided the egg and he there fore is a descendant of david on his mothers side. Jesus grew in grace and favor with God and after the devil tempted him for 40 days and nights god took up residence in Jesus and annointed him for his ministry . God did all the miralces and spoke in jesus and gave jesus words to speak. people saw god when they saw jesus because god was so fully manifestedd in Jesus. Jesus is the visible image of the invisible god. Jesus is the only way we can see God. and we see God in jesus because God is in christ manifesting himself to us. Jesus was sinnless and therefore died for us and was therfore accepted by god as payment for our sins if we accept Jesus.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

If you left the CoJCoLDS because what you saw in the Bible was a greater oneness than merely one in purpose, again, you left without understanding what LDS can and potentially should believe.

This thread is not called "Reasons why Grace left the Mormon church". No need to try and make it personal.

Grace

 

[happyinhisgrace]

So, since it is soooo simple, and I agree with every word you posted (other than that it is sooo simple) I must be just as Christian as you in your eyes. Correct?

That depends, do you believe in a God that is 1 God in 3 persons or a god that is 3 Personages that are 1 in purpose?

Grace

 

[chaindog]

I believe God created a male spermazoid that he used to fertilize Mary's egg with, thus resulting in the fetus that became the baby Jesus. I do not believe Jesus existed before he was born. I believe Jesus is the new creation of God to replace the old creation, adam or all of us. we are a new creation in christ Jesus who is the new creation or second adam of God.Jesus is the son of God because God provided the spermazoid to fertilze Marys egg. Jesus is the son of man because Mary provided the egg and he there fore is a descendant of david on his mothers side. Jesus grew in grace and favor with God and after the devil tempted him for 40 days and nights god took up residence in Jesus and annointed him for his ministry . God did all the miralces and spoke in jesus and gave jesus words to speak. people saw god when they saw jesus because god was so fully manifestedd in Jesus. Jesus is the visible image of the invisible god. Jesus is the only way we can see God. and we see God in jesus because God is in christ manifesting himself to us. Jesus was sinnless and therefore died for us and was therfore accepted by god as payment for our sins if we accept Jesus.

I'm curious... is this your own interpretation or is it representative of Pentacostals in general?

Chaindog

 

[A New Dawn]

Note: to Jenda. I was actually surprised to discover the prevalence of modalistic thought within the RLDS / Community of Christ. I do not think there are many LDS who are on the modalist side of the Augustinian Trinity which puts LDS farther from RLDS than from non-LDS Christians. Peculiar! But I have always thought that the BOM demands a oneness of God at least as much if not more than the New Testament so I can understand how you who accept the BOM as scripture can be on this side of the discussion.

In actuality, the RLDS have traditionally believed in the Trinity, however there is a splinter group that has distanced itself from the RLDS church which I more closely associate with than the mainstream church. This group is fairly large for a splinter group, in fact it was close to 1/4 of the membership of the RLDS church that split away. It is within this group that modalism has become increasingly popular, and that for a very specific reason.

The original printing of the Book of Mormon had a lot of modal language in it. That was changed to Trinitarian language in the second printing of the book. A new version of the Book of Mormon has been put out, not by either church, but by an independent entity that took all of the editions of the BoM and compared them with the original manuscript and the printers manuscript. In this edition, the original wording was restored. Many of the people in this splinter group have started embracing this version of the BoM, and modalism along with it.

 

[TOmNossor]

So, since it is soooo simple, and I agree with every word you posted (other than that it is sooo simple) I must be just as Christian as you in your eyes. Correct?

That depends, do you believe in a God that is 1 God in 3 persons or a god that is 3 Personages that are 1 in purpose?

Grace

I believe in One True God in 3 persons. The unity of God that I embrace is far more than just the unity of purpose, but unity in purpose is part of this unity. The thing is I can embrace both halves of your above statement. That is why I say this is not quite simple.
You are not suggesting that there is a difference in the definition or even connotation between the word "person" and "personage" are you?

Charity, TOm