The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How Do You Explain the Trinity?

Theology Christology
#21

To me, Trinitarian doctrine as well as Trinitarian statements do not make sense. Here as some problems I have in trying to comprend it. I quote some of the statements posted on this thread.

But a man isn’t “three persons”, is he? So it does not seem to be a good analogy.

Is that the definition of “God”? Do you ever, even once, find that the word “God” in the scriptures means “the Trinity”? Also when Trinitarians say “God was born as a man” are they saying “The Trinity was born as a man” or have they changed the definition of “God” in that utterance?

If they are coequal, what did Jesus mean when He said, “The Father is greater than I”?
If they are copowerful, why did Jesus say that He could do nothing of Himself ? (John 5:19)
They must not be co-omniscient either since Jesus said He didn’t know the day or the hour of His coming — that only the Father knows that.

“… but does not believe that he is God”. In order to understand this statement we have to know what you mean and what your brother means by “God” before we can evaluate your brother’s belief. Even Trinitarians do not believe “Jesus is God” when “God” is defined as “The Trinity.” For clearly Jesus is not “The Trinity.” So what DO Trinitarians mean when they affirm that Jesus is God? It is clear what Modalists mean when they make this statement. They are affirming that Jesus is God in the sense of being an expression of the one and only divine Individual — of of three expressions of that Individual, the other two being the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

Unitarians do not believe that Jesus is God in any sense.

But first and second century Christians frequently called Jesus “theos” (God) not in the sense of His being the Father, but in the sense that He was divine just as the Father is divine. John 1:1 in affirming “Jesus was God” uses “theos” in this sense. (The grammar of the sentence indicates this) It should be translated “The Logos was Deity” or “The Logos was divine”. The early Christians spoke of Jesus being “begotten” or “generated” by God. They believed this begetting was a single act of God before all ages. Even the original Nicene Creed formulated in 325 A.D. referred to the Son as having been “begotten before all ages.” But later Trinitarians, realizing this conflicted with their beliefs, rewrote the Nicene Creed and made it say “eternally begotten” (whatever that means).

After the begetting of the Son, there was then God the Father, and the Son of God (never called “God the Son” in the first two centuries). Jesus was divine in virtue of being the only-begotten Son of God — every bit as divine as the Father. Yet the Father is greater than Jesus as Jesus Himself affirmed. And when the Son of God was born on earth, He had divested Himself of all His divine attributes (Heb 1:3) and became TOTALLY human with all the weaknesses of humanity, and yet without sin (because of His own choices in unity with His Father). He said He could do nothing by Himself. The Father who dwelt within Him did the works. As a human being, He could do no miracles, but the Father wrought miracles THROUGH Him. This total trust and unity with His Father is an example of what is possible for us to accomplish when we, “working together with Him”, are enabled to overcome sin because of Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf — His sacrifice both during His life and in His death.

Justin Martyr (110 A.D. - 165 A.D.) discussed scriptures for days with a group of Jewish men headed by Trypho. Throughout their discussions, both Justin and Trypho made refefence to the Holy Spirit. Clearly Trypho did not have in mind a person other than God, for the Jews believed in one divine Person only. But did Justin have in mind a “third person of the Trinity”? What follows is one of the most interesting conversations between Justin and Trypho. Justin asked the following question:

*“Do you think that any other one is said to be worthy of worship and called ‘Lord’ and “God’ in the scriptures, except the Maker of all, and Christ, who by so many scriptures was proved to you to have become man?”

And Trypho said, “How can we admit this, when we have instituted so great an inquiry as to whether there is any other than the Father alone?”

Then I [Justin] said, “I must ask you this also, that I may know whether or not you are of a different opinion from that which you admitted some time ago.” (Dialogue with Trypho ch 68)
*
Now if Justin had believed that the Holy Spirit is a third divine Person, this would have been the ideal opportunity to present this belief — but Justin didn’t do so. From that fact, one could infer that he didn’t in fact view the Holy Spirit in that way.

Now Jesus said to his disciples:

"If anyone loves Me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and We will come to him and make our dwelling with him.”

The Father dwells in some special way in Heaven, and Jesus at His right hand. So how would they make their dwelling in those who love Jesus and keep his word? Is it not that the Father and the Son can and do extend their Personalities anywhere in the universe, and especially in the hearts of the faithful? Is not that inwelling of the Father and the Son “The Holy Spirit”, not a third divine person, but the very persons of the Father and the Son, so united that they are One Spirit?

#22

Jesus said, “Who do people say that I am?”

His disciples replied, “Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elijah or another of the prophets.”

Jesus replied, “But who do you say that I am?”

Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as his rationality and then, by an act of his will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only because Scripture speaks of a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple.”

And Jesus answered, saying, “What?”

#23

If Christ is a creation, God can make a million before breakfast. Mass-produced messiahs. The value of God’s gift drops like a stone. God doesn’t come to us himself. He doesn’t give himself to us in love, or sully his soft hands. He sends an unfortunate creature to do his dirty work, and calls this sacrifice. God no longer knows what it is like to be a man. Jesus pays with his life. God pays nothing, yet demands our worship and praise.

All the wonderful things that make the Christian God uniquely worthy of love… evaporate. God becomes contemptible (in my eyes, at least), yet another version of Allah.

I’m not too fussed about the number 3, but I see God as a loving community of distinct persons, sharing one mind and purpose; a boundless, positive, self-reinforcing feedback loop. Mankind is made in his image, and (at it’s best) is a loving community of persons. But our fall into sin has isolated us from one another. We no longer share one mind and will, but are spiritually deaf, dumb, blind and crippled. We are forced to hobble along in the dark as best we can with prosthetic devices like speech, writing, mobile phones and google. We must guess and infer the minds of others. We must live by faith. Even in the closest of relationships, we cannot know the other for certain, even in the simplest of things. (Is your perception of blue the same as mine?) But suppose you could plug your brain into another and share your minds directly and completely… Would you do so? With whom? How scary would this be? Think of the level of trust demanded. Your nakedness would be absolute. A day of judgment where the secrets of your heart would be laid bare…

We’re not ready for this sort of unity. Not yet. God clothed Adam and Eve to cover this very nakedness on the day Mankind died (ie. On the day we were no longer a perfectly loving and unified community of minds). God will strip those clothes off on the day we come alive again. A marriage feast. Our true wedding night.

#24

I am unaware of anyone posting to this forum who believes that Christ is a creation. The belief that Christ was begotten by God before all ages, as the first of His acts as the early Christians taught, is not tantamount to the belief that He was created. Even the early Trinitarians believed that He was begotten before all ages. The original Nicene Creed stated this. The later Trinitarians realized that the teaching that Christ was begotten before all ages didn’t fit the Trinitarian model, and so they changed the Nicene Creed to read “Eternally begotten” (whatever that means).

But as the second verse of the old Xmas carol “O Come All Ye Faithful” reads “Begotten not created.”

#25

I’ve no idea what “before all ages” could mean. For me, it fits in the square circle category. As for Christ being begotten, frogs beget frogs and Gods beget Gods. If God is eternal by nature, his begotten would be eternal by nature also. Hence the idea of the Son eternally proceeding from the Father.

Fortunately, we’re saved by the grace of God, not by the subtlety of our God-concept.

#26

Yes, I would say that God begat a divine Son before all ages — indeed, I think this begetting marked the beginning of time. Thus there was never a time at which the Son did not exist.

What do you mean when you say “God is eternal by nature”? If you simply mean He is “everlasting”, then I agree. But if you are saying that either:

1.There is an infinite regression of time into the past during which God existed.
or
2. God exists outside of time.
… then I disagree.

#27

I believe Christ was created. According to Rev. 3.14 “…Now this is saying the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, and God’s creative Original” and Colossans 1. 15 “…Who is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature” I suppose I am somewhat open to these passages referring to his state after resurrection. For instance it would seem Hebrews 1.10-12 is referring to “the impending inhabited earth” (2.5) and not the previous creation?

It seems Christ is called the Son of God due to the virgin birth. "Yet Miriam said to the messanger, “How shall this be, since I know not a man?” And answering, the messanger said to her, “Holy spirit shall be coming on you, and the power of the Most High shall be overshadowing you; wherefore also the holy One Who is being generated shall be called the Son of God” Luke. 1.34-35

Is there a scripture passage that shows Christ as the ‘celestial Son of God’? The Son of God before his birth? I struggle over these questions.

I am also not sure what Paidon means when he says “Yes, I would say that God begat a divine Son before all ages” I do not say this in a sarcastic manner. Do you believe God split himself in two, so that both he and Christ are distinctive but the same? You probably have covered this question in one of your other articles?

#28

On a philosophical note, the blog at Maverick Philosopher has some interesting things along these lines. The current thread can be found here:
maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/ … index.html
Dave

#29

The original Nicene Creed (325 A.D) begins like this:

Well, when I begat my sons, neither I nor my wife split ourselves in two. Yet just as I am man, my wife (she’s deceased now) was man (in the generic sense), and my sons are man, and different individuals from us. Just as I am human, my sons are human.

When God begat His Son as his first act, His son was God, just as His Father was God, and yet He was a different Individual from the Father. Jesus is called, “The only begotten God” in John 1:18 (according to second century manuscripts P66 and p75). Just as the Father is divine, the Son is divine.

Here is the analogy Justin Martyr (second century) used to describe the begetting of the Son:

#30

It seems to me that Christ is called “the son of man”, due to the virgin birth.
As I see it, He was the Son of God from the beginning of time.

#31

I’m sorry I haven’t replied sooner; I just noticed your reply Eric.

Brother, do I understand that!
Yes, sadly so. The church I was raised in was very exclusive, and they were so “Arminian” that one was not “saved” until one died and was actually in heaven because one could fall from grace at any time due to the sin in their lives. So Hell was always held over our heads to keep us inline. The focus was on living right so that one day we could make it into heaven. And of course, only those who were baptized in our group and part of our group really had a chance. Exclusive to the max.

That’s the way a fellowship should work, I think, like a family. In a family, we share the same parent(s) but differ widely in our understanding of and relationships with our father. And concerning the doctrine of trinitarians, binitarians, or oneness, I recognize all as my brothers if they’re seeking to follow Jesus. I would not claim myself to be a trinitarian or oneness, or binitarian. Right now I’m agnostic about the issue. I’ve studied it and can see support for each perspective, and enough against each perspective to not embrace them. When it comes to the wording of trinity I don’t like the word “person” because I don’t think of God having multiple (3) personalities, especially as in God being angry and Jesus being loving, and the Holy Spirit being I don’t know what. To me “they” have the same personality.

I’m thankful that the fellowship I’m in right now is proving to be open to all the body of Christ, even UR and modalists - PTL!

#32

To give reason for the above a little, I have problems with the concept of “Trinity” because of the word “persons”. I do not see God having multiple (3) personalities. Jesus is the perfect revelation of God. He is Emmanuel, God with us, God in flesh. I don’t see Jesus as being loving and God as being angry. And I don’t see the Holy Spirit as having a different personality than Jesus. Rather, I see them having one personality. But then again, I could just need glasses to see more clearly!

#33

Here’s how I “explain” it… :laughing:

youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

#34

That was hilarious :laughing:

The Voltron reference was great :mrgreen: :laughing:

#35

The Trinity is so easy that you won’t believe it when I tell you what it is.
I really mean you won’t believe it.
(The post is long but if it’s interesting you will keep reading it and if not, even if it’s short you won’t)

First the context of what the trinity is and how I discovered the simplicity of it.
The Bible says, God made man in his image.
So we are created in the image of God.
People speculate endlessly on what that means so I decided instead of looking for the nature of God and how we are an image of him, I would look at what the nature of man was and compare that to God.
I didn’t expect what I discovered.
So the simple question I used was, how is man like God?
First the simplistic bullet point theory:
I have a spirit.
God has a Holy Spirit.
I have language.
God has his Word.
I have a mind.
God has a Mind.
We are a mind, word and spirit and so is God.
OK, are we triune just like God is or am I forcing reality to fit some theory?
We are spirit, word (language) and mind.
Each one is separate yet together they constitute a single person.
Not 3 persons in one but rather 3 distinct parts that constitute a person.
(I always felt the 3 person theory was scripturally “forced”)
What if we are missing a part?
Without language we have no way of interacting with the world and are dead.
(more on this later)
Without spirit (breath) we are dead.
Without mind we are dead.
Without any one part we are no longer human or a “living soul”.
(The Bible was my guide in this theory so let me explain in that context)
The Father is the Mind.
The Son is the Word that comes forth from the Father.
We think with our mind which is also the parent of our words.
God interacts with the world with his Word.
We interact with the world with language (word).
Our word doesn’t know anything without our mind first informing it.
Christ (Word) doesn’t know when he will return, only the Father (Mind) does.
God’s Mind is the Father and Christ the Word or Son.
Christ is sent from the Father and Christ only does the will of the Father (as the Word of God, how could he not?).
Our speaking and actions can only do the will of our minds also.

While I have a many questions regarding this theory on the trinity the parallels are incredible.
(If you can’t see what man’s relationship to language is then my post becomes nonsense to you)
Assertions:
What is “Word”?:
Starting with man, what is the relationship with his word as a separate thing?
It’s how we interact with the world outside ourselves yet it’s still from us and is us.
God too uses his Word to interact with his creation.
I assert that the creation and God’s Word came into “physical being” at the same moment.
I assert the Word of God (Christ) became physically expressed the moment God spoke his creation into existence because the moment God spoke, the Word was physically manifested along with the Creation and is the creation but is not a creation (the key words are “physically expressed”).
Christ is the entire creation and is of God and is God.
Mind:
Secular studies are showing that our mind is far more interesting than just brain cells.
In fact we have opened up a lot of heads and never found a mind to study.
I think this next statement sums up the question in an interesting way.
It’s been said that the brain is like a piano and the mind like a pianist.
If the piano (brain) is damaged the mind (piano player) still tries to play music but with a broken and out of tune piano.
(There is a lot of real physical, in the world evidence for this theory)
If we have a damaged brain we still try to play the missing keys.
Why would we if the brain and the mind are the same?
Wouldn’t the song change and become corrupted with missing sections?
Why do we keep trying to play the same song if that part of the song (brain) is missing?
It’s also possible to retrain the mind to play on different functional parts of the brain (good keys) to produce music although somewhat differently.
How is that possible unless the mind is separate from the brain?
Can we see mind?
Nope, but we know it’s there.
Now the interesting part.
God could not exist before the creation without Christ (the Word) so when I say Christ was physically manifested the moment of creation I do not assert he didn’t exist before creation.
A mind doesn’t function without language (word).
Language doesn’t function without a mind (whatever that is).
So when I said “Without language we have no way of interacting with the world and are dead” I really meant, Without language we have no way of interacting with the world (or having a mind) and are dead.
None of it functions without spirit and spirit can’t exist without language and all of it together creates the Living Thinking always existing entity that exists outside time, space and matter that we call God!
None of God’s parts can exist without the other yet all are distinct unique parts.
Triune.
While the Creation is the physical manifestation of the Word of God, the Mind of God, the Spirit of God and the Word of God existed in a non physical/invisible form before the Creation and still does in part. I know the Word of God wasn’t entirely manifested in the physical during creation because God sent Angels to open the tomb of Christ. With what Word did the Father (Mind) send them??? The same Word that allows for a Mind. The Word of God can be physical or not and is both physical as the “creation” and non physical as the Word of God.
Jesus is also physical or not.
He can eat with us in a physical form and also walk through walls.

God has to be Triune just as we have to be in order to be a living soul.
Without the Spirit of God we are dead and that is God’s message to us.
God needs all 3 triune parts to be God and none of the 3 can claim any existence without the other yet all 3 are distinct from each other.
And that’s my theory on the Trinity discovered simply by realizing that we are as the image of God, triune as well.

#36

This view is not Trinitarian. It is Modalist or if you don’t like that term then it is the “Oneness” view.

#37

It’s identical to the “shield of the trinity” so it’s a trinity.
Just interchange Father with Mind and interchange Son with Word/Language on the “shield” and there’s your trinity and what I asserted.
It’s also identical to the Oneness view in that the Mind, Word and Holy Spirit are inseparable yet distinct.
It’s also (kinda) modalistic in the sense that God is one complete person comprising of 3 very different states of “existence” (not mode). God’s Word exists, his Mind exists and his Holy Spirit exists. Add the Oneness view that these 3 distinct states of (non modal) existence cannot exist without each other and then we have a Trinity with a twist.

It’s also not modalistic in that the mind, spirit and language are not modes of anything.

#38

Evidently, Sir Isaac Newton had issues with the Trinity, or at least the Trinitarian formulation. I stumbled across this in looking into something for my wife, who was intrigued about this aspect of his theology when reading a book on his life and accomplishments. It didn’t say any more about it in this particular book, other than it nearly prevented him from taking his professorial position of honor at Trinity college, Cambridge. In this article, credenda.org/index.php/Theol … hesis.html
I found some more precise and useful information about what exception particularly he took to the Trinitarian formulation. Evidently, his main problem with it was the idea of consubstantiality; the notion that the Father and the Son were/ are of the same substance. The article puts it best, so I’ll reproduce the most relevant portion here:

Interestingly, Benjamin Jowett (a progressive Christian voice from over 150 years ago, see below) made an interesting observation. Even though his comment was directed toward atonement theories, I think it also applies here; I have reproduced his quote below his brief bio.

Benjamin Jowett (1817-1893) was a classical scholar at Oxford, renowned for his translations of Plato and of great influence in Balliol College. He became a fellow there in 1838, a tutor in 1842, and its Master in 1870. As an Anglican priest as well as an academic, his progressive ideas as a supporter of the Broad Church movement exposed him to challenges over orthodoxy.
His essay “On Atonement and Satisfaction” published in the mid 1850′s provoked an outcry with its claim that the commonly expounded atonement doctrine was “morally disgusting”. Part of what he wrote says “God is represented as angry with us for what we never did; He is ready to inflict such a disproportionate punishment on us for what we are; He is satisfied by the sufferings of His Son in our stead … He is a victim laid on the altar to appease the wrath of God …

I find this all rather interesting.

#39

You can’t. “Three persons, yet one God.” It is inherently contradictory. Some attempt to make the analogy of a human being who is supposedly a triune being composed of body, soul, and spirit. This won’t do. A human being is one person, not three. A better analogy would be a man who was born with three heads. Then you would have three persons but one man. Such a man would be considered a montrosity. But the Trinity is supposedly the perfect Deity.

However, our strong Trinitarian, Jason, has given his explanation in several threads, I think—long and involved. Yet, I don’t think it clarifies much or makes the concept any more lucid.

I am happy with the historic Christian explanation of the first two centuries. Paul’s explanation of the relation between the Father and the Son, does not sound Trinitarian:

For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1Cor 8:6)

Jesus Himself, saw Himself as someone other than “the only true God” as comes out in His prayer to the Father:

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3)

#40

The trinity is a paradox. It’s both/and not either/or. When we get outside of our rational mind faith arises and opposites come together. Even our rational mind and hearts come together. Reality is both divided and connected. Where I once saw only division within the Trinity I now see One. It’s the paradox of love.