The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Notes on the Trinity

Featured Writers James Goetz
#7

Hi Jeff, others have mentioned to me those ideas about multiple personality disorder (MPD) and and even the three headed knight. I certainly need to address these issues while I explain the Trinity in terms of partnership. And I picked up an idea from Jason. I’ll embrace that conjoined triplets and multiple personality disorders are disorderly analogies of the Trinity while business partnership can be highly functional analogy of the Trinity. I mean no disrespect to conjoined siblings and people suffering from MPD while I refer to then from a medical perspective for the purpose of this discussion, especially since we all have the same creator.

Here are points about multiple personality disorder that differ from the Trinity:

  1. A person with MPD started with one personality but personalities mulpitplied after childhood psychological trauma typically before the age of seven, which has nothing to do with the Trinity
  2. Multiple personalities rarely co-exist while they typically take turns controlling the body, which has nothing to do with the Trinity
  3. A person with MPD suffers extraordinary dysfunction while the Trinity has no dysfunction

Here are points about conjoined triplets that differ from the Trinity:

  1. Conjoined triplets share the same biological substance while the persons of the Trinity share the same supernatural substance
  2. Conjoined triplets suffer physical dysfunction while the Trinity has no dysfunction

Here are some important theological points. The Bible teaches to worship only the Lord God while the Bible teaches to worship Jesus. If we’re suppose to worship Jesus but we don’t, then we dishonor Jesus. If we worship Jesus while we believe that Jesus was not God from eternity past, then we are polytheists and reject what the Bible teaches about monotheism. And if the Trinity didn’t always exist, then God was lonely and loveless during eternity past. But God is love and has always been love.

I suspect that my model will look better the more that I pound it out after listening to feedback. Jeff, does my model make any more sense to you?

By the way, it took me way too many years of Christian growth to get the Monty Python parody of “Go Tell it on the Mountain” out of my mind while trying to sing it in a church setting during the Christmas season. And 25 years into Christian maturity, I still have to hold back smirks when somebody asks me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. And I’m sure that there a few other similar things, but by God’s grace, they aren’t plaguing my mind at this moment. I guess I made some progress.: )

#8

Jim,

I suppose the problem is that we always need to compare new/unfamiliar concepts to existing models that we feel we can understand and they are by definition not the thing we are struggling to conceptualise. When I use the 3 headed knight as an example apart from always looking for some humour in a situation (I had considered the conjoined triplet analogy but passed it over for the Python reference :smiling_imp: ) I am only looking at the similarities not the differences to the difficult concept of the trinity. So it is really only the one substance but 3 personalities that can interact (ignoring that they can act unlovingly unlike the persons in the trinity) that i take from that analogy and nothing else (I now think the multiple person disorder example less good). Similarly with your partnership analogy I seemed to instinctively know what you meant as being similar to the trinity and had not thought to include the list of things you stated as not applying.

I think I have some idea of the concept as you and Jason see it as opposed to WilleH’s position.

Thanks

#9

I’ve never encountered a Trinitarian who quoted the following words of our Lord; nor have I encountered one who has harmonized these words with the Trinitarian concept:

John 17:3 … this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, AND Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Not only does Jesus address His Father as “the only true God” but by use of the conjunction “and” indicates that He, Jesus Christ, is not included in this “only true God” but is something other.

#10

Hi Paidion,

Calling the Father the one true God and distinguishing the Father from the Son are all consistent with what I and many others throughout history have written about the Trinity. The word and distinguishes the Father from the Son. And this same Gospel of John teaches that worship of Jesus is acceptable (John 9:38).

#11

They’re quoted in that galumphing huge scriptural digest I posted up somewhere else recently, as part of the overall scriptural case for trinitarian theism. Trinitarians quote them to modalists who deny that there are distinct persons of God (with the Son, Father and Holy Spirit all being variant ways of speaking of God on a par with Judge, King, Husband, etc.)

If you aren’t a modalist, it isn’t surprising trinitarians have never quoted them to you. There wouldn’t be any point quoting them to someone who already accepts the existence of at least the Father and the Son as distinct persons, even if the acceptance was different than the trinitarian acceptance of the distinction of the Persons.

The Final Discourse contains a lot of material distinguishing the Father from the Son, of course (and quite a few places distinguishing either of them from the person of the Spirit/Comforter, too), but trinitarians do include that material in the total scriptural case.

I’m close to being caught up with the various challenges and complaints against trinitarian theism on the board recently, and will be posting two threads of comments when I’m done. This is aside from discussing the doctrinal history of Christianity, which is something of another topic you’ve brought up, but which I’ll be catching up with, too, after I finish my current round of catch-ups. :slight_smile:

#12

Wow, I guess I am learning that many on this forum still hold to the tenants of the organized church which is apostate in almost all their beliefs. A teacher I know has a saying I often smile at, as I know it holds truth. He says, “if the church teaches it, it is a lie.” First I discovered many here believe in “fee will” and then a bit ago I see the “trinity doctrine” being espoused.

God help us to see how much we have learned is but the traditions of man and a product of a corrupt system that has kept most that name Christ afar from His grace. Not nearly a hindrance is a trinitarian view as is the belief in free moral agency but still I pray you might suffer me to share what I know as truth with regard to the make-up of God.

Friends, beyond the eons Jesus is FATHER

“Hear O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord” Mark 12:29

I believe you might find some truth in this which a friend of mine put together. Yes, God is even a family!

#13

John, if you don’t believe in free will, then how did you choose to write a response, in hope that it would bring change. If it is all already predetermined, why bother?

#14

I’ll give a response as someone who can see both sides. The carnal mind is the enemy of God, is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be. That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit and cannot sin. The idea that there is a third entity involved who is completely neutral and simply freely chooses to follow either the flesh (sin) or the Spirit (life/righteousness) is what many challenge as non-scriptural/nonsensical.

Every decision has a cause or influence and so cannot fit the definition of free choice. That doesn’t mean nothing can change it just means that people are hemmed in until someone opens their eyes ala the Pauline commission: “to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me”. That’s why the gospel is never presented as “use your free will to do the right thing” but it is presented as a sovereign decree of freedom from God.

“… he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love”

In this view - the only one with free will is God and He is free to influence all other wills as well (and John may be hopeful to act as God’s influencing agent on these matters… :smiley: )

#15

Firstborn, it might be better said “I am driven to act as God’s influencing agent on these matters” :wink:

Always enjoy your thoughts brother!

John

#16

Hi John,

Please review “Board Rules and Policies”. This isn’t a forum where you may declare some people have apostate beliefs. You certainly may argue in favor of Modalism instead of the Trinity and argue against the existence of free will, but you need to do it without disrespect per the rules.

I hope you’ll be comfortable with our rules and policies and introduce yourself in SOCIAL HALL Introductions.

(When I have more time, I’ll amicably discuss with you about your criticism of Trinitarian doctrine in this thread.)

#17

Yes, Jesus would have been kicked off alot of these forums. :mrgreen:

Jim, Lord willing I’ll do my best to play by the rules as I am enjoying myself here.

God bless,

John

#18

1.) You aren’t Jesus.

2.) A charge of technical error is one thing–few if any people agree entirely as to the details of their beliefs, and where anyone happens to be incorrect (even if they don’t know it) they’re going to be engaging in ‘heresy’ (or ‘error’) to that extent.

A charge of apostasy might only be a very strong way of indicating error; but usually it’s a charge of ethical misbehavior, where people are acting as traitors. Which happens to be the kind of language you’ve been presenting it as, too–you aren’t qualifying that you’re only talking about extensive technical error. At the very least, this kind of charge is not conducive to friendly discussion on the topic. In effect, you’re saying that we’re being willfully stupid in a sinful way. This denies any possibility of rational discussion from the outset, by accusing us of having already shut down fair discussion in some cheating way.

When Jesus makes the kind of ethical charges in the scriptures, that you’re making of us, He has one or both of two things in mind: condemnation of those who are being uncharitable (especially to their enemies), and condemnation of those whom He knows have the advantages and indeed who know the real truth but who don’t want to face the real truth so who are engaging in intentional (and hateful) unreason in order to protect their own position.

If you have specific accusations to make to any of us along one or both of those lines, then make them–please abstain from general condemnations of people on this forum. And if you do have specific accusations to make against someone on this forum for ethical misbehavior (including some kind of intentional unreason), I recommend remembering that there is still a condemnation for whoever is being uncharitable to their enemies.

Or, if you want to actually discuss various points of theology, you’re welcome to do that, too. :slight_smile: I don’t think we’ve had a modalist poster since we started operation last year, and if you want to discuss various topics related to universalism from a modalist perspective, then do so; including if you think universalism follows more logically from some kind of modalistic theology and so want to theologize and exegete in favor of that.

Or even, if you are concerned that some other theology (like trinitarian theism) ends up logically requiring a denial of universalism, you can go that route, too, as a technical discussion.

Of course, apologetics and analysis above the level of universalism are important for sake of finding and understanding truth, and so are worth doing without reference to universalism–but this is a forum about universalism more particularly within broader theology, where the creators of the forum and the guest authors happen to be trinitarians who routinely present universalism within that theological framework when we’re doing work elsewhere. But we have the same responsibility of connecting back to the topic of ‘universalism’ wherever we can feasibly do so, not only for the sake of presenting the ‘good news’ of the gospel, but also in order to stay within the topical scope of the forum. If you only want to discuss and dispute larger theological positions, you should probably find another forum to work in; theologyweb, for example.

#19

Jeepers !

just when I thought we had become fast friends, Jason. :wink:

#20

That’s ok John, Jason is never friendlier than when attempting a demolition of a point expressed on the forum - I have been demolished many times but still survive :smiley:

#21

Oh, I like someone with some steel. I have been reading some of Jason’s responses in the different forums and enjoying them immensely. He certainly has a treasure trove of Biblical knowledge.

Be blessed

#22

Well, discouraging the oppositional rhetoric language helps us all become and stay friends while being able to actually dispute with one another, pro and con, on the issues we care about. That’s the point to the board rules (or #3 anyway); and it was the point to James’ remark.

It’s much harder to have a friendly discussion on something, pro and con, when one person starts out accusing the other side of treachery to God, slavish unthinking devotion to godless systems of religion, etc. We allow a little leeway on that, but not much, precisely because it tends to kill actual discussion of issues. The moderators and admins would have the same responsibility in your favor to yellow-card a trinitarian engaging in similar rhetorical barrages against you, too, whether particularly or generally.

Just dial back on the rhetoric, is all we’re asking.

As to the substantial portions of your comment, I hope to address those later (this weekend if my plans hold together. They didn’t last weekend. :wink: ) I owe Mel some replies on similar topics, too.

#23

Mind you! - you can always vent your righteous anger on me as I truly AM a Godless apostate :smiley:

My fees:
£1 for 5 minutes of wrathful fury.
£5 for a full half hour’s hellfire sermon (Conscious Eternal or otherwise) - including tea and biscuits.
£50 buys a full day of railing and raging interspersed with 2 tea breaks and a light lunch.

Flagellation extra (given not reveived).

:smiling_imp:

#24

:laughing:

Though more seriously: we’d rather you not do that to the agnostics and atheists on the board, either. :wink: We value all our guests and want to protect civility for everyone’s sake so that everyone is as comfortable as possible making their contributive cases and engaging in critique (or just paging around reading things, which most visitors do.)

#25

Oh my, just when I was going to take Jeff up on his offer. :mrgreen:

Jason don’t bother with me as far as a “trinity” discourse. If I tire with the sovereignty/free will discussions I have no concentration at all for the “trinity” exposes. I read your response on the trinity to Justin in the grace thread and it just isn’t there for me. Being hard headed most of my knowledge of God is experiential rather than intellectual. This is especially true when it comes to knowing God as One. A sincere thank you, for the offer though.

The untamed soul loves complexity. While the Spirit bids us “simplify, simplify, we are become One.”

How strange it should be,
That we who seemed four,
Are now become Three.
And We Who are Three
Are yet become One,
Father, Spirit and Sons in the Son.

Peace and blessings,

John

#26

1 Trin. 4:18 - “For if the Trinitarian scarcely be saved, where shall the modalist and the unitarian appear?” :wink: