Why is the Trinity never explained, described, or mentioned in all of Scripture?

[ChubbyCherub]

Is the Holy Spirit God? Yes, according to the account in Acts of Ananias and Sapphira:

“But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? “While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”” (Ac 5:3-4 NKJV)

Is Jesus God? Not only did He say, "I and My Father are one," He also said that anybody who had seen Him had seen the Father. Also, even His enemies understood that He claimed equality with the Father:

“But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” (Joh 5:17-18 NKJV)

Thanks David for scriptural references, very appreciated!

I still read these as all 3 (God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit) having the same authority but not being the same entity.

To me, it reads like when I say to staff, "So and so speaks for me, or is me in my absence or if so and so said this, I've said it," Therefore, it could be said that staff think they are my equal, which would be true, but we are not a duality or trinity etc.

I don't know. I think the wording is ambiguous and the way it's used so it leaves things open to interpretation. As a result, I cannot say that I believe the bible speaks of a Trinity in the way we are taught.

If you have more references, I will be happy to have a look.

 

[David Lamb]

Thanks David for scriptural references, very appreciated!

I still read these as all 3 (God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit) having the same authority but not being the same entity.

To me, it reads like when I say to staff, "So and so speaks for me, or is me in my absence or if so and so said this, I've said it," Therefore, it could be said that staff think they are my equal, which would be true, but we are not a duality or trinity etc.

I don't know. I think the wording is ambiguous and the way it's used so it leaves things open to interpretation. As a result, I cannot say that I believe the bible speaks of a Trinity in the way we are taught.

If you have more references, I will be happy to have a look.

Thank you so much for your gracious reply. It makes things far more pleasant if, even when we might disagree, we don't resort to nasty name-calling, etc.

I find it helpful to think about some of the things we are told in the bible about Jesus Christ, things that can only be true of God. For example, John's gospel says that Jesus Christ was already there in the beginning, and He was with God, and He was God. Also, through Him, everything was created:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:1-3 NKJV)

“And the Word became 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.” (Joh 1:14 NKJV)

Then we have Thomas, saying to the risen Saviour: "My Lord and my God!" Jesus did not rebuke him, saying something like, "But only the Father is God. You must not call Me God."

Thanks again.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Thank you so much for your gracious reply. It makes things far more pleasant if, even when we might disagree, we don't resort to nasty name-calling, etc.

I find it helpful to think about some of the things we are told in the bible about Jesus Christ, things that can only be true of God. For example, John's gospel says that Jesus Christ was already there in the beginning, and He was with God, and He was God. Also, through Him, everything was created:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:1-3 NKJV)

“And the Word became 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.” (Joh 1:14 NKJV)

Then we have Thomas, saying to the risen Saviour: "My Lord and my God!" Jesus did not rebuke him, saying something like, "But only the Father is God. You must not call Me God."

Thanks again.

All these verses show that Jesus is God's instrument of creation and that He himself was God. Now why was Jesus himself God? Because as the Nicene Creed states - Jesus is God from God - He was begotten from/by the Father before all ages (=so NOT created like the Arians or Jehovah witnesses claim). In the same way my children are human because I'm human, Jesus is God because God the Father is God - they share the same essence/nature (Greek: ousia). But the Father and the Son are distinct identities/beings. Jesus is a human being (after His birth), God the Father is a spirit. Jesus is sub-ordinate in everything to the will of God the Father, and declares in John 17:3:

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.​

​

Jesus clearly distinguishes between two entities here. St. Augustine (5th century) had great difficulty with this verse and even went so far to suggest it should be translated differently to make it better fit with his Christology (into something like .. the only true God which is the Father and Jesus Christ ... ).

By plain logic the son of <a> cannot be <a> in the identity sense; but the son of <a> and <a> would have an identical nature/essence (Greek: ousia).

God the Father is still the God of Jesus - we never hear that addressed in sermons; but there are many NT verses that literally state that (Matthew 27:46, John 20:17, Romans 15:6, 2 Corinthians 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:17, Hebrews 10:5-7 / Psalm 40:6-8, 1 Peter 1:3, Revelations 3:2, Revelations 3:12). If God the Father currently still is the God of Jesus, than to me it seems they cannot be the same identity/entity.

Notice: I fully subscribe to the wording of the Nicene Creed (325 AD).

In the Bible we find the following titles/descriptions for Jesus:

• Son of God
• Son of Man
• Holy One of God
• Angel/messenger of YHWH / God
• Servant of God
• Judge of God
• Christ of God
• Apostle
• High Priest

These titles for the Messiah to me make little sense if one defines God the Father to be the exact same identity/entity as Jesus. And usually there is very little attention paid to the opening line of the Nicene Creed - but it's a powerful unambivalent statement.

 

[David Lamb]

All these verses show that Jesus is God's instrument of creation and that He himself was God. Now why was Jesus himself God? Because as the Nicene Creed states - Jesus is God from God - He was begotten from/by the Father before all ages (=so NOT created like the Arians or Jehovah witnesses claim). In the same way my children are human because I'm human, Jesus is God because God the Father is God - they share the same essence/nature (Greek: ousia). But the Father and the Son are distinct identities/beings. Jesus is a human being (after His birth), God the Father is a spirit. Jesus is sub-ordinate in everything to the will of God the Father, and declares in John 17:3:

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.​

​

Jesus clearly distinguishes between two entities here. St. Augustine (5th century) had great difficulty with this verse and even went so far to suggest it should be translated differently to make it better fit with his Christology (into something like .. the only true God which is the Father and Jesus Christ ... ).

By plain logic the son of <a> cannot be <a> in the identity sense; but the son of <a> and <a> would have an identical nature/essence (Greek: ousia).

God the Father is still the God of Jesus - we never hear that addressed in sermons; but there are many NT verses that literally state that (Matthew 27:46, John 20:17, Romans 15:6, 2 Corinthians 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:17, Hebrews 10:5-7 / Psalm 40:6-8, 1 Peter 1:3, Revelations 3:2, Revelations 3:12). If God the Father currently still is the God of Jesus, than to me it seems they cannot be the same identity/entity.

Notice: I fully subscribe to the wording of the Nicene Creed (325 AD).

In the Bible we find the following titles/descriptions for Jesus:

• Son of God
• Son of Man
• Holy One of God
• Angel/messenger of YHWH / God
• Servant of God
• Judge of God
• Christ of God
• Apostle
• High Priest

These titles for the Messiah to me make little sense if one defines God the Father to be the exact same identity/entity as Jesus. And usually there is very little attention paid to the opening line of the Nicene Creed - but it's a powerful unambivalent statement.

Yes, in saying that I believe Jesus and the Holy Spirit to be God, I am certainly not saying that there is no difference in identity between the three Persons of the Trinity. The context of my post is that I was replying to somebody who says they find it hard to believe in the Trinity.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Yes, in saying that I believe Jesus and the Holy Spirit to be God, I am certainly not saying that there is no difference in identity between the three Persons of the Trinity. The context of my post is that I was replying to somebody who says they find it hard to believe in the Trinity.

Thanks, yes .. I see your point, but in supporting/subscribing to Nicea and in light of all those verses I do not see a Biblical necessity to use the word 'Trinity' as its meaning can vary quite a bit. E.g. the theologian who originally used/coined that phrase ('trinitas' in Latin), Tertullian (155 - 220 AD), would not agree to the much later definition of 'Trinity' by e.g. St. Augustine (early 5th century AD). Therefore I prefer to stick to just using the Biblical terms - that is sufficient for my belief and understanding.

Be blessed David !

 

[David Lamb]

Thanks, yes .. I see your point, but in supporting/subscribing to Nicea and in light of all those verses I do not see a Biblical necessity to use the word 'Trinity' as its meaning can vary quite a bit. E.g. the theologian who originally used/coined that phrase ('trinitas' in Latin), Tertullian (155 - 220 AD), would not agree to the much later definition of 'Trinity' by e.g. St. Augustine (early 5th century AD). Therefore I prefer to stick to just using the Biblical terms - that is sufficient for my belief and understanding.

Be blessed David !

Thanks. As with a lot of words and phrases used by Christians, it is sometimes necessary to define what we mean by the word "Trinity," to avoid misunderstanding.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

Thank you so much for your gracious reply. It makes things far more pleasant if, even when we might disagree, we don't resort to nasty name-calling, etc.

I find it helpful to think about some of the things we are told in the bible about Jesus Christ, things that can only be true of God. For example, John's gospel says that Jesus Christ was already there in the beginning, and He was with God, and He was God. Also, through Him, everything was created:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:1-3 NKJV)

“And the Word became 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.” (Joh 1:14 NKJV)

Then we have Thomas, saying to the risen Saviour: "My Lord and my God!" Jesus did not rebuke him, saying something like, "But only the Father is God. You must not call Me God."

Thanks again.

I hope to only ever be gracious for we are brothers/sisters in Christ and should be unified in the glorification of Jesus, Amen!

Thank you so much for additional scriptures. When I compare the latest scriptures you provided to the former, I think it becomes clear why there is confusion regarding the Trinity.

Still, I cannot reconcile that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all 'three in one' because the old argument remains regarding Jesus praying to God when on Earth and how we probably all agree that God would not pray to Himself. It just doesn't make sense.

I don't believe I'm correct re: Trinity, by the way, I just don't believe in what I'm told about the Trinity subject to further evidence which makes sense. Otherwise, doubt remains which I have to be at peace with because to do otherwise would mean everything would be cast in doubt regarding the bible and/or how it is interpreted/taught.

Therein lies my conflict, in a nutshell.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

All these verses show that Jesus is God's instrument of creation and that He himself was God. Now why was Jesus himself God? Because as the Nicene Creed states - Jesus is God from God - He was begotten from/by the Father before all ages (=so NOT created like the Arians or Jehovah witnesses claim). In the same way my children are human because I'm human, Jesus is God because God the Father is God - they share the same essence/nature (Greek: ousia). But the Father and the Son are distinct identities/beings. Jesus is a human being (after His birth), God the Father is a spirit. Jesus is sub-ordinate in everything to the will of God the Father, and declares in John 17:3:

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.​

​

Jesus clearly distinguishes between two entities here. St. Augustine (5th century) had great difficulty with this verse and even went so far to suggest it should be translated differently to make it better fit with his Christology (into something like .. the only true God which is the Father and Jesus Christ ... ).

By plain logic the son of <a> cannot be <a> in the identity sense; but the son of <a> and <a> would have an identical nature/essence (Greek: ousia).

God the Father is still the God of Jesus - we never hear that addressed in sermons; but there are many NT verses that literally state that (Matthew 27:46, John 20:17, Romans 15:6, 2 Corinthians 11:31, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:17, Hebrews 10:5-7 / Psalm 40:6-8, 1 Peter 1:3, Revelations 3:2, Revelations 3:12). If God the Father currently still is the God of Jesus, than to me it seems they cannot be the same identity/entity.

Notice: I fully subscribe to the wording of the Nicene Creed (325 AD).

In the Bible we find the following titles/descriptions for Jesus:

• Son of God
• Son of Man
• Holy One of God
• Angel/messenger of YHWH / God
• Servant of God
• Judge of God
• Christ of God
• Apostle
• High Priest

These titles for the Messiah to me make little sense if one defines God the Father to be the exact same identity/entity as Jesus. And usually there is very little attention paid to the opening line of the Nicene Creed - but it's a powerful unambivalent statement.

This makes sense to me. Thank you.

As stated, I am happy to reconsider the Trinity as it is usually explained, but I just can't do it unless and until someone comes along and explains it in a way that it makes sense.

My brain tells me that if something doesn't make sense, and others can't explain it in a way that it makes sense, that is because it's not understood or is false.

I feel like there is a fault in me because I keep rejecting the Trinity explanation based on logic but God gave me logic, right? I'm not saying others are illogical because they believe in the Trinity but perhaps they are reading in the way they are taught to read instead of objectively without being aware?

I don't know!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This makes sense to me. Thank you.

As stated, I am happy to reconsider the Trinity as it is usually explained, but I just can't do it unless and until someone comes along and explains it in a way that it makes sense.

My brain tells me that if something doesn't make sense, and others can't explain it in a way that it makes sense, that is because it's not understood or is false.

I feel like there is a fault in me because I keep rejecting the Trinity explanation based on logic but God gave me logic, right? I'm not saying others are illogical because they believe in the Trinity but perhaps they are reading in the way they are taught to read instead of objectively without being aware?

I don't know!

Some of us fortunately refer to textbooks on Logic as well as Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis. These, along with various treatments of Systematic Theology, should help anyone to work through the apparent paradoxes or apparent contradictions we think we find in the concept of the Trinity.

 

[Lukaris]

I would carefully read the Gospel of John to understand that Jesus Christ is God and that the Trinity is a sound, basic understanding of God revealed to us. In John 8:48-59, the Lord declares His deity most clearly in verse 58. In John 10:33, the Lord’s accusers denounced Him for claiming to be God. Going back to John 8, look at what the Lord Jesus Christ says in John 8:42-47 about Himself that He “proceeds” from God in verse 42.

Jesus Christ later declares the divinity of the Holy Spirit who “proceeds” from the Father in John 15:26. Indeed John chapters 14, 15, & 16 are an extended explanation & revelation of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit as God. Look at John 14:15-18, this shows the God we are to worship and live by His commandments ( compare Matthew 22:36-45 & Deuteronomy 6:1-9).

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

I would carefully read the Gospel of John to understand that Jesus Christ is God and that the Trinity is a sound, basic understanding of God revealed to us. In John 8:48-59, the Lord declares His deity most clearly in verse 58. In John 10:33, the Lord’s accusers denounced Him for claiming to be God. Going back to John 8, look at what the Lord Jesus Christ says in John 8:42-47 about Himself that He “proceeds” from God in verse 42.

Jesus Christ later declares the divinity of the Holy Spirit who “proceeds” from the Father in John 15:26. Indeed John chapters 14, 15, & 16 are an extended explanation & revelation of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit as God. Look at John 14:15-18, this shows the God we are to worship and live by His commandments ( compare Matthew 22:36-45 & Deuteronomy 6:1-9).

Those are all wonderful verses detailing several aspects of our Messiah indeed. I concur with the immediate conclusions you draw from those versions. Yet I still see a collision of St. Augustine's Christology (reflected in the later Athanasian Creed) with John (and Paul) - and he noticed that collision himself as well (as I mentioned earlier related to John 17:3). I don't find that collision in the Nicene Creed (325 AD) - and neither the Nicene or Apostles' Creed (very early, probably already 1st century AD) even use the term 'trinity'. Therefore I refrain from using it - it seems unnecessary.

The Greek (and even Hebrew word) for 'god' was more flexible than just referring to identity of the one God. You mentioned John 10:33; in John 10:34-36 Jesus responds to the accusation of blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God (John 10:36). And just that claim was already interpreted by the Jews as an attempt to 'make Himself God' (John 10:33). Fascinatingly Jesus replies with a reference to Psalm 82:6 and implies the term 'elohim' (Hebrew: god) in that verse refers to human beings ('to whom the word of God came') - deflecting the accusation with a master stroke.

The Gospel of John is famous for its seven 'I am' statements by Jesus (I am the bread of life, I am the light of the world, I am the door of the sheep, I am the good shepherd, I am the resurrection and the life, I am the way, and the truth, and the life, I am the true vine), and on top of that John 8:58 (Before Abraham was, I am) and John 18:4-6 (I am he). For readers of the Septuagint translation of the TNK/OT in those days that would have been taken as a direct association with the Greek translation of YHWH - the very name of God.

As His Son, as His Messiah, in whom 'the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily', the visible human image of the invisible God (the Father), His messenger/apostle, having received all power in heaven and on earth - Jesus represents YHWH and in line with the Jewish concept of Shaliah, He acts with the authority/name as if He were YHWH himself. For me that understanding lines up directly with TNK/NT scriptures, is easy to reflect on, and avoids the inconsistencies of St. Augustine's framework. When speaking to non-believers, when doing mission, speaking with Muslims, this helps greatly.

Yeshua (shorthand for Yehoshua) refers to the name of God ('YHWH is salvation'), but is not the new name of God Himself - that remains YHWH; as early Church Fathers also confirm. It is sad that as time passed and the Jewish Church was wiped out, the memory/recognition of God's Name faded even to the point where most Christians nowadays don't know that name at all.

Be blessed .. !

 

[FireDragon76]

Thank you all for your thoughtful answers, but I didn't see the question fully addressed. While it's true that something does not need to be explicitly named in order for it to be described, but why is the Trinity never explained or described in the Bible? For example, God is never described as three, or three-in-one, nor does the Bible say God is the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

In that exact phrasing? No. But it does state that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That's completely biblical.

With something as important who God is, why did they not mention who God is using the Trinitarian formula?

Because the Bible isn't primarily interested in scholastic theology, it comes from a worldview where relationships are more important than abstractions.

There are ways to interpret the Trinity, such as John Zizioulas's Being as Communion, that don't emphasize philosophical abstraction and metaphysical obscurantism.