What do you mean by "Trinity"?

BobRyan · May 27, 2016

Tree of Life said:
So Jesus does not have a real relationship with a person known as the Father?

Not if he is the same person.

Another good reason to go for "One God in THREE Persons"

John 14
24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me. 25 “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful. 28 You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Colter · May 27, 2016

BobRyan said:
And you have traded rejection of the Bible doctrine on creation - for evolution -- and in like-manner traded the Bible doctrine on the virgin birth for -- regular birth of a form that even atheists would not object to. And have traded in the Bible doctrine of the trinity for... ??? (Not sure what you believe at that point except for your complaints about "One God in three persons")

I get that there is a Bible doctrine of sorts on YEC and the Virgin birth, but there is no Bible doctrine on the Trinity. The word Trinity doesn't even appear in the Bible. Jesus never gave a sermon on a Trinity. Since Jesus is divine the speculation grew up later.

Albion · May 27, 2016

It's been pointed out many times that the word "Trinity" is not in Scripture, but the idea is unavoidable if one goes by what is in the Bible.

Colter · May 27, 2016

Albion said:
It's been pointed out many times that the word "Trinity" is not in Scripture, but the idea is unavoidable if one goes by what is in the Bible.

In lower school the curriculum is often in anticipation of the enlarged concepts encountered later.

What's unavoidable in the Bible books is that God has divine offspring to which he has granted powers and authorities.

Albion · May 27, 2016

Colter said:
In lower school the curriculum is often in anticipation of the enlarged concepts encountered later.

What's unavoidable in the Bible books is that God has divine offspring to which he has granted powers and authorities.

He may be said to have one. But the problem is that some people think in mortal terms when they see that word, whereas the Bible clearly teaches tat the Son of God is not an offspring in the way we know our own children. For one thing, it teaches that the Son is from all eternity, so he cannot be compared to one's own human child who comes into existence after the parent.

ScottA · May 27, 2016

BobRyan said:
This thread is not intended for anyone who rejects the Trinity because people that reject the trinity might give a different definition for it - one that even Trinitarians reject - so that does not address the question.

I believe "One God in three Persons" as the "blessed Trinity", eternal, infinite all powerful all knowing -- all three persons. Yet all included in the "ONE God" concept, infinitely complex topic - so not trying to reduce it to a nutshell.

How about your belief in the Trinity? How do you define what Trinity is?

What we have to go by...is our dilemma: What we see, we see through a glass darkly...and all things come in parables.

But that was then - 2000 years ago - and this is now...where we have the Helper (the Holy Spirit) sent by Christ to teach us ALL things.

So, then, if we argue what is written with what is taught - we grieve the Holy Spirit. And therefore, in building upon the foundation of the written word, we are to press on - to welcome the Holy Spirit, that all truth can be (as it was foretold) written upon our hearts.

It is from that standpoint that I surmise: The Trinity to be a stone in the foundation, showing (introducing), and bringing us into a greater understanding of the complexity of our Omnipresent God, whom, at the very least, can be personally known having those three faces that have been expressed. In the end, I should think, as we become One with Him, the total will come to include all our faces as well.

Razare · May 27, 2016

I believe Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. They are one.

A good example of this is how God built humans, spirit, soul, and body. 1 entity, in 3 parts. My mind can say one thing, my spirit say another, and my body say another thing. Most people never realize this, and just understand it as one big package that is you.

God works that way too. He has parts, but those parts can be taken for granted and just considered one big package.

My body has a will, my spirit a will, and my mind a will, just as each part of God has its own will. Now, for humans, the will that matters in terms of deeds is the will of the soul. So that the will of our souls reigns over the will of our spirit, and over our body.

And that will which ultimately rules, can yield to the spirit, and yield to the body.

But with God, his will is perfect, so that in being supreme over the spirit and body, he manifests his will through Christ (the body) and the Holy Spirit.

There's a lot to this I don't understand, but I do understand it by the analogy God gives in this word when he made us in his likeness. But I got this knowledge because I did not accept the doctrine of men on the idea of trinity. I would not accept that useless word, and useless concept taught by the wisdom of the world.

When people parrot off, "One God, 3 parts" do they really have any revelation from God on what they mean? If they don't, the words are useless.

I never sought after that manner of knowledge on the trinity, rather I believed God for knowledge. I believed Christ when he said, "The Father and I are one". I didn't try to add theology to it. Then God gave me more understanding, and as that understanding grew, I could recognize how we were made in the image of God, and how studying how we are built, would be studying how God is built.

hedrick · May 27, 2016

I don't mind Colter's theology of Jesus and the Father. To a first approximation it's probably OK, and matches the way both Jesus and Paul typically speak. However at times in Paul, and also in other writers, we see the idea that Christ is preexistent. That starts to push in the direction of the Trinity. So does the idea that Jesus is God with us, if you think about the implications. So I think non-Trinitarian theology is only an approximation.

Historically the Trinity and Incarnation were tied closely enough that everyone who denied the Trinity also denied the Incarnation. But I don't get the impression that Colter is doing that. If you're OK with the idea that the Father suffered, I think a real Incarnation can exist in a non-Trinitarian system. But it's unusual enough that it should give you pause.

Hoghead1 · May 27, 2016

Razare said:
I believe Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. They are one.

A good example of this is how God built humans, spirit, soul, and body. 1 entity, in 3 parts. My mind can say one thing, my spirit say another, and my body say another thing. Most people never realize this, and just understand it as one big package that is you.

God works that way too. He has parts, but those parts can be taken for granted and just considered one big package.

My body has a will, my spirit a will, and my mind a will, just as each part of God has its own will. Now, for humans, the will that matters in terms of deeds is the will of the soul. So that the will of our souls reigns over the will of our spirit, and over our body.

And that will which ultimately rules, can yield to the spirit, and yield to the body.

But with God, his will is perfect, so that in being supreme over the spirit and body, he manifests his will through Christ (the body) and the Holy Spirit.

There's a lot to this I don't understand, but I do understand it by the analogy God gives in this word when he made us in his likeness. But I got this knowledge because I did not accept the doctrine of men on the idea of trinity. I would not accept that useless word, and useless concept taught by the wisdom of the world.

When people parrot off, "One God, 3 parts" do they really have any revelation from God on what they mean? If they don't, the words are useless.

I never sought after that manner of knowledge on the trinity, rather I believed God for knowledge. I believed Christ when he said, "The Father and I are one". I didn't try to add theology to it. Then God gave me more understanding, and as that understanding grew, I could recognize how we were made in the image of God, and how studying how we are built, would be studying how God is built.

If you are talking abut the Trinity, then you are going on the teachings of men, of the fathers. The very term "Trinity" is not found in Scripture. Your vies of the Trinity is very close to the various extra-biblical psychological models of the Trinity proposed by the fathers. That shows you are in fact influenced by "wordily wisdom."

Hoghead1 · May 27, 2016

Cappadocious said:
I'll wait for hedrick because this def. Has been proven nonsense in other threads.

Well, take it up with Aquinas, then.

Hoghead1 · May 27, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
Sometimes I think westerner intellectuals do not appreciate what Greek Christians did in the early Church. Why do eastern Christians, both Greek and Oriental, not seem to have these kinds of issues with the doctrine of the Trinity? I wouldn't characterize Orthodox theologians as being "anti-intellectual", so that can't be the reason.

The intellectual tradition that Hoghead speaks of is something that was not uncritically accepted in the Church. Especially in the East, there were controversies about how God is known. The sort of theology that became popular in western Europe in the middle ages, dominated by rationalism, was rejected by Eastern Christians as inconsistent with the methods that have been used by the people of God since the beginning. The sort of caricature that Hoghead presents of how Greeks did theology doesn't do the Eastern understanding of the Trinity or divine immanence justice.

No, I am correct in what I say. Both the Eastern and Western fathers agreed that God is wholly immutable, nonrelational being. Read the Cappadocians, for example, also Augustine, Athanasius. That God is unchanging is a central and unquestioned tenet of their theology.

Hoghead1 · May 27, 2016

Erose said:
Well finally it seems that you are moving ever so slightly to have some idea of what economic Trinity means, just not quite there yet. You would be there if you would read the links.

Nuts! Yu go rad the links. Yu are the one having trouble understating what it is.

Hoghead1 · May 27, 2016

Erose said:
Yes I read question 28, and that question needs to be read in light of question 8, and the realization that question 28 is in his discussion of the Trinity. You made a claim, a false claim, that Thomas did not teach the omnipresence of God, that I show was on your part a false accusation. Whether he teaches your idea of omnipresence or not, does not matter. What matters is that you made a false accusation.

No, I didn't. Thomas made it very clear in 28 that God is "outside" creation. Also, you need to look at 8, Art.3, where he uses the metaphor of a prince ruling from afar to describe how God works. You might also look at 8,3, where he cites his views as being supported by Dionysius, who said that things can not touch God. As I told you before, he sees God's power as present, but not God. So I would encourage you to go back over Thomas, before jumping the gun and taking pot shots at me.

Hoghead1 · May 27, 2016

Tree of Life said:
For someone who supposedly attended seminary I'm surprised that you don't understand this stuff.

I don't think I understand this "stuff," I know I understand this "stuff." True, some members here may want to argue with me. That's OK. I have answered all their objections. If you find some on I haven't, let me know and I will.

Hoghead1 · May 27, 2016

Tree of Life said:
From the Wikipedia article:

How am I misreading it?

Heresy is when you disagree with or oppose Scripture. That's why modalism is a heresy. Not because it disagrees with a church but because it is unbiblical.

That's maybe what Wiki has to say, but you can't always rely on Wiki. As I pointed out in an earlier post, since modalists believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all God, that amply qualifies them to be considered Trinitarian. So calling them anti-Trinitarian seriously misrepresents their position. It's like calling teh Baptists Anabaptists, which meant against baptism, when, of course, they weren't. Also, as I pointed out before, many Trinitarians were modalists, as is well illustrated in the psychological models of teh Trinity found in Calvin, Tertullian, and Augustine. The major 20th-century neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth was a modalist and said that the Trinity represents three ways God has of being God. And I could cite other major examples here.
Your understanding of heresy overlooks the point that heresy simply you disagree with a church's teachings, as I think I pointed out before. The heretics often cited Scripture in their defense, so the matter is one of not of Scripture per se, but whose interpretation of Scripture is correct. More than once historically, charges of heresy had to be based on something other than Scripture . When Calvin had Servet executed, he found no biblical precedent for this. Hence, he had to resort to a law passed by teh Emperor Justinian.

klutedavid · May 27, 2016

Hello all.

How do you folk understand the following verse.

Isaiah 44
6 Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts

There are two separate identities mentioned and both are identified as God.

Hoghead1 · May 27, 2016

klutedavid said:
Hello all.

How do you folk understand the following verse.

Isaiah 44
6 Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts

There are two separate identities mentioned and both are identified as God.

It is ambiguous. On one hand, it could be affirming the Deity of teh Messiah. On the other, it may be simply affirming the kingship of teh coming Messiah.

hedrick · May 27, 2016

klutedavid said:
Hello all.

How do you folk understand the following verse.

Isaiah 44
6 Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts

There are two separate identities mentioned and both are identified as God.

Nope. If you read the context it's referring to God. God is the primary King of Israel. The human king is his agent. God also redeems Israel.

"The herald presents God by a double title. He is “King of Israel.” In this empire and especially in its capital city this is easily forgotten. When Israel has lost its Davidic king, one might assume that YHWH’s royal status and authority over Israel have also gone. Daniel’s struggles and those of his friends (Dan 1–6) illustrate this. However, YHWH still claims his title and position. He demonstrates his authority and power by bringing a new emperor to restore his city and set his people free. He is revealed in this act as Israel’s “redeemer, YHWH of Hosts,” in a new setting. He had redeemed Israel from Egypt at the beginning of their history as a people. Now, with Israel in exile and under imperial bondage again, it will take a new ransom price to get her free. God promised Cyrus the treasures of Egypt as his reward for rebuilding Jerusalem and freeing the Jews (43:3–4)."

Watts, J. D. W. (2005). Isaiah 34–66 (Revised Edition., Vol. 25, p. 688). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Calvin understands it the same way.

Hoghead1 · May 27, 2016

hedrick said:
In fairness, in Part 1, Q 28, Art 1, Obj 3, Thomas is dealing with the Trinity. Thus “real relation” is speaking of the relations within the Trinity, i.e. subsistent relations, meaning hypostases. I think this is a technical definition of “real”, and that he is not dealing with the question of whether there is an actual relationship between God and his creation.

If he said yes, then we wouldn’t have a Trinity, we’d have a Trillionty, with every creature part of God.

I do think we see in his theology the limits of using the type of analysis he does. But within the conceptual world given to him by tradition, I think he’s doing a good job interpreting it.

I feel the same way about your assertion that modern theology is modalist because it says God is one person. You need to look at the context in which modalism is defined. Modern theology says that God is one personality in the modern sense. But you’ve agreed that person as used in the Trinity isn’t the usual modern sense of person. So it’s perfectly possible for modern theology to be right that God is one personality but that he could still be in Aquinas’ sense three persons. Since modalism is defined as a heresy in traditional theology, you have to use the traditional theological definition of person to assess it. Thus I don’t believe that modern theology is modalist. Indeed I would argue that within a traditional analysis it would be heretical to claim that God is three personalities, because that would imply three wills and three consciousnesses, which of course is heretical.

This is why we speak in English of God as three Persons but not three people.

Thomas clearly states that God has "no real relationship" to creation. He is talking about God and creation here, not what's happening in the Trinity. No, I think it confusing to say God is one personality but three persons. That would appear too contradictory today. The fact that modalism was condemned as a heresy should not mean we should shy away from it. Just about every church has been labeled heretical. Also, many contemporary theologians are modalisic, in the sense they affirm the "persons" aren't actual personalities, but simply three ways God has of being God.

Erose · May 27, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
No, I didn't. Thomas made it very clear in 28 that God is "outside" creation. Also, you need to look at 8, Art.3, where he uses the metaphor of a prince ruling from afar to describe how God works. You might also look at 8,3, where he cites his views as being supported by Dionysius, who said that things can not touch God. As I told you before, he sees God's power as present, but not God. So I would encourage you to go back over Thomas, before jumping the gun and taking pot shots at me.

So are still claiming that Thomas does not teach God is omnipresent? Or have you left that argument?

What do you mean by "Trinity"?

How do you define Trinity?

One God in three Persons - all of the persons, infinite, no beginning, eternal ...

One God in threee persons - and not all the same attributes listed in option 1

The definition does not include "one God in three persons" - so something else

Junior Member

Member

Facilitator

Member

Facilitator

Author: Walking Like Einstein

God gave me a throne

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency