Is there an official Trinity doctrine?

[Shiranui117]

My Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church gives the Trinity doctrine as:

The One God exists in Three Persons and One Substance.
​

The Catholic Encyclopedia says

in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed : "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."​

Wikipedia (the highest spiritual authority, as you know) says

God is one God, but three coeternal consubstantial persons or hypostases—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as "one God in three Divine Persons". The three Persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).
​

The formulation was devised in the 4th century CE, to solve a longstanding problem in the politics of the early church, namely how to raise Jesus to god status but at the same time avoid the charge of polytheism, which was associated with paganism.

Therefore a number of earlier ideas are excluded by the formulation eg

that the one God has three manifestations, as the Father, as the Son, and as the Ghost

that the Father + the Son + the Ghost = God as with, for example, ⅓+⅓+⅓=1

that the Father is a god, the Son is a god, and the Ghost is a god (and there are no other gods)
​

nor is God a corporation with a board of three,

nor a partnership of three partners

and so on.

Instead, as the Catholic Encyclopedia entry above expressly states, "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.". That is, the Father is 100% of God, the Son is 100% of God, and the Ghost is 100% of God. Yet 100%+100%+100% = 300% = 3 Gods, and in insisting that 100%+100%+100%=100% (and only 100%, one god) the doctrine is incoherent.

Yes, because that is a horrible way to formulate it. The Father is fully divine, as is the Son, as is the Spirit, but to say that each Person is 100% of God makes little sense. You and I are 100% human, but we are not each 100% of humanity. The Trinity is one in common nature, in will, and in action.

The churches do not deny this. Instead they say that the Trinity doctrine is "a mystery in the strict sense", and that means it "can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason once it has been revealed" ─ their words, not mine. But if you unpack that wording, the only meaning is that the doctrine is incoherent, is in plain words a nonsense.

What Messaien is actually saying is that the Trinity is revealed to us in the Scriptures and in the teachings of the Apostles. I would, however, disagree with him about the idea that the Trinity cannot be reasonably defended and demonstrated from the Scriptures and from careful consideration of what it means to be God.

(It also leads to nonsensical consequences. In the NT Jesus never once claims to be God, and through Paul and in all four gospels expressly denies that he's God, being instead God's envoy and, implicitly, and in John expressly, having only such powers as God allows him.

Christ did say that He is not the Father. He did, however, say that He and the Father are one, and before Abraham was, I AM. He also said that he would come riding on the clouds of Heaven (imagery used in the Old Testament almost exclusively for God).

So if the doctrine is correct and Jesus is God, then Jesus is at all times a self-conscious and deliberate deceiver. Moreover, all versions of Jesus must be taken to be talking to themselves on each occasion when Jesus prays to God;

You're confusing Trinitarianism for Sabellianism. We literally quote the parts where Jesus prays to the Father as a refutation of this faulty theology on the regular.

Mark's and Matthew's Jesuses on the cross must be understood to have cried out, Me, me, why have I forsaken me?

Jesus was crying out to the Father. Please note that Jesus=/= the Father.

Also, I see you haven't read Psalm 21 yet? Christ was referencing that Psalm to prophesy about His own death and resurrection.

And since Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses are the genetic offspring of God, and have his Y-chromosome,

I hope you don't imagine that's how we think this works. Because this is clearly not how this works.

and since under the doctrine Jesus is 100% of God, and the Ghost is 100% of God, each has as good a claim to the title the Father as the Father has. And so on.)

Each of them have as good a claim to the title of "God" as the Father does, because they all share in His kingship and dominion over all creation. However, only the Father is Father, because only the Father begets the Son and causes the Spirit to eternally proceed. The Son does not beget, nor does He cause the Spirit to eternally proceed.

Thanks for this. Those exclusions from the formulation are extremely useful.

When they say the Trinity is a mystery, then there is no reason to accept that their formula is correct because they are actually admitting that they don't know, so I don't know how they logically came up with the formula.

We should properly define the term "mystery" first.

The word "mystery", or in Greek μυστήριον, properly means something else. As Metropolitan Kallistos Ware explains in his book The Orthodox Way,

“In the Christian context, we do not mean by a "mystery" merely that which is baffling and mysterious, an enigma or insoluble problem. A mystery is, on the contrary, something that is revealed for our understanding, but which we never understand exhaustively because it leads into the depth or the darkness of God. The eyes are closed—but they are also opened.”​

A good analogy would be trying to see in the ocean. We can see the water around us, we can see the sand at the bottom, we can observe many things about the creatures that live in the ocean. However, when we try to go into the deep, open ocean, we cannot see past a certain point. Everything around us disappears into blue, and eventually black. Things may come into view, but we can never see the entirety of it.

The Trinity is like this. We can experience it, we know it is true from revelation because we have seen it and we can explain it and comprehend it inasmuch as humans can comprehend the Eternal Creator, but our understanding is never complete, no matter how long we spend in communion with God. There is always more depth to be explored.

I suspect that this is the difference between the Catholic view and Orthodox view. It seems that the conflict between the eastern and western Christian church is that the east says that the Holy Spirit and the Son proceed from the Father, whereas the Western church says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Also, apparently the Western Christians added words or changed words of the Nicene Creed, so they don't strictly follow it.:

Filioque - Wikipedia

So i think the Eastern Orthodox Trinity is very different to the Catholic one. I do not know if the east has that problem because they say that both the Holy Spirit and Son are subordinate to the Father. The Father would be the source of them.

For us, the problem is as follows: To say that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son is to confuse the Persons of Father and Son. The Father alone is the source and beginning of the Trinity, and it is from Him that the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. To have the Spirit proceed from the Son as well is to assign to the Son a quality unique to the Father--namely, being the source of the Trinity. The Spirit cannot eternally proceed from two different eternal points of origin. The Son can send the Spirit into the world, so the Spirit can "proceed" in a temporal sense, but the Son is not the cause of the Spirit's eternally proceeding. The Father alone is the eternal source of the Spirit, just as the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.

I think the biggest problem with the idea of Jesus from the scriptures themselves is what is meant by everything being created by God and through Jesus. How did God do it and why did he need Jesus to create? Or did he even need him? If Jesus is the word then could that be the creative word?

As St. Gregory of Nyssa explains in his treatise On Not Three Gods, the Persons of the Trinity do not act separately like three separate humans. They share the same Divine Will and they all participate in the same divine action. You do not have three coordinated Divine wills and three coordinated Divine actions as the Mormons teach, but one Divine Will and one divine action that all three share in. So when everything was created, God the Father used His Word (God the Son) and His Spirit to create all things. The Fathers teach that grace comes from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit. All three Persons shared in the same divine act of creation.

It is the explanation of Jesus preexistence in the bible that are the strongest points for the idea that he was more than a mere man, if not God.

And this is where we get to John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This "in the beginning" is a reference to eternity, before time began and outside of time as we know it. "The Word was with God" shows that the Word was there with the Father in the beginning. "The Word was God" is easy to misinterpret in English. It's not saying that the Word is the Father. Rather, it's saying that the Word is what the Father is--i.e. the Word shares the same qualities as the Father. God, divine, eternal, king of all.

I don't know whether the Eastern version involves the idea that each of the persons is 100% of God.

I don't know anybody who says that the three Persons are each 100% of God. I know plenty who say that they are each truly God and not semi-divine or merely angelic or a creature. "God" in this context denotes not a Person but a Nature. They are all God the same way that you and I are both Human. They are one God because they share one common divine Nature, one divine Will, one divine action and one divine kingship.

 

[Shiranui117]

Did you mean to quote yourself? @Jim

 

[Jim]

Did you mean to quote yourself? @Jim

No. Sorry. I meant to edit that post, and accidentally replied to it instead. I’ll delete that quote.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, because that is a horrible way to formulate it. The Father is fully divine, as is the Son, as is the Spirit, but to say that each Person is 100% of God makes little sense.

Unwritten rule 1: There has to be only one god.

Political problem: to raise Jesus to God status despite his never once claiming to be God and despite his repeated express denials via Paul and in all four gospels.

Solution: As is innate in the idea, and as the Catholic Encyclopedia spells out, there is only one God (see Rule 1), and the Father is God and Jesus is God and the Ghost is God.

Note 1: When you pray to Jesus, you're not praying to 1/3 of God, you're praying to 100% of God. Ditto if you pray to the Father or to the Ghost. They are each the entirety of God, although there is only one God, see Rule 1.

Note 2: The idea of three 'persons' each of whom is the entirety of God, and each of whom is entirely distinct from the other two, is an incoherent formulation, but a necessary one: see Political problem. But 'incoherence' being too close to the bone, let the official expression be 'a mystery in the strict sense'.

If you don't agree with that, then I'm interested to hear what aspect of the doctrine, in your view, is indeed 'a mystery in the strict sense', unable to be demonstrated by reason even when revealed.

You and I are 100% human, but we are not each 100% of humanity. The Trinity is one in common nature, in will, and in action.

What you say is reasonable, therefore it can't be a 'mystery in the strict sense', therefore we know it's not the Trinity doctrine.

What Messaien is actually saying is that the Trinity is revealed to us in the Scriptures and in the teachings of the Apostles.

I point out again, in the NT Jesus never once claims to be God, and through Paul and in all four gospels expressly denies that he's God. The Trinity doctrine does not exist before the 4th century CE, even if the desire to raise Jesus to god status goes back much earlier.

I would, however, disagree with him about the idea that the Trinity cannot be reasonably defended and demonstrated from the Scriptures and from careful consideration of what it means to be God.

Since Jesus says clearly that he's not God, why would anyone think he was? What part of what it means to be God could require an incoherent response anyway, let alone God dividing himself into three while claiming not to?

Christ did say that He is not the Father.

He also said he was not God at all (Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good? None is good but God alone.”). He also said that the Father is the 'only true god' (John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”) and is the god he Jesus worships (John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”). And since Jesus is a circumcised and observant Jew, what else would you expect?

Indeed, if he was God all the time, what could he possibly tell his followers that was more important than that? And if he was God all the time then the whole of his ministry was one long, deliberate deceit. In my view, that would not be an admirable attribute for either a prophet or a god to have.

He did, however, say that He and the Father are one

Yes, John 10: 30 “I and the Father are one”.

He makes the meaning of “one” plain in John 17:

20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.​

That is, Jesus and the Father are one in the manner that Jesus wishes all his followers to be one with the Father. Oneness, in other words, is available to all.

and before Abraham was, I AM.

Yes, John 8:58. The Jesus of John, like the Jesus of Paul (but unlike the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew or Luke) existed in heaven before coming to earth eg John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.” But Jesus' denials that he's God, simply God's envoy, are too repeated and express to support the idea that in this passage he's making any claim to be God.

You're confusing Trinitarianism for Sabellianism.

Ah, I know it as monarchianism. And it's the view expressed by both Paul and the author of John, whether the 3rd century church fathers found that view convenient or not.

Jesus was crying out to the Father. Please note that Jesus=/= the Father.

No, Jesus was crying out to Eloi ─ God. Not that it matters much ─ as I mentioned, in Jesus' view the terms Father and God meant the same thing ─ the God who in heaven had given Jesus his orders to come to earth, and allowed to him all the powers that he had (John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”, also John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; [...] I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”).

Also, I see you haven't read Psalm 21 yet? Christ was referencing that Psalm to prophesy about His own death and resurrection.

Psalm 21? You mean eg Psalm 21:10 You will destroy their offspring from the earth, and their children from among the sons of men. ? Only joking: but mapping Mark's gospel onto the Tanakh, hence all the gospels, is an entirely different discussion, and not a short one.

I hope you don't imagine that's how we think this works. Because this is clearly not how this works.

Luke's Jesus is born of a virgin, but is a male. Where do you say he got his Y-chromosome, if not from God? Or are you saying it's just a story?

Each of them have as good a claim to the title of "God" as the Father does, because they all share in His kingship and dominion over all creation. However, only the Father is Father, because only the Father begets the Son and causes the Spirit to eternally proceed. The Son does not beget, nor does He cause the Spirit to eternally proceed.

As I read the manual, it says that the Holy Ghost did the deed with Mary, and under the Trinity doctrine, the Ghost is 100% of God, just as Jesus is; ergo Jesus is his own father, and the Ghost is also his father, and the Father is also his father. None of them has a better claim to the title Father, which was my point.

We should properly define the term "mystery" first.

No, we need to define 'mystery in the strict sense', which is the correct label for the Trinity doctrine. As I said, it means that the Trinity doctrine 'can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason once it has been revealed.' My source is The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (under 'Trinity'), but if you check the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia under 'Trinity' and 'mystery' you'll find that it agrees, though less succinctly.

I don't know anybody who says that the three Persons are each 100% of God.

I addressed this in my first paras above.

The alternative is that Jesus NOT 100% of God, meaning Jesus is only a bit of God. Is that your view? If so, then please tell me what IS the 'mystery in the strict sense'?

 

[Katzpur]

You do not have three coordinated Divine wills and three coordinated Divine actions as the Mormons teach, but one Divine Will and one divine action that all three share in.

Apparently there were two wills when Jesus prayed to His Father in Gethsemane because even He distinguished between "my will" and "thy will" -- which, for that moment, were at odds with each other. One of those wills had to surrender to the other.

 

[Muffled]

I have been having discussions recently involving the Trinity. Many people have various views regarding the details of it.

I have said that the Trinity is a specific set of ideas. So saying that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is God does not mean that one is a Trinitarian.

The reason why I say this is because James White says that the Trinity is a specific set of beliefs and the various councils came to official conclusions from what I have read.

The question I would like Trinitarians and those who know church doctrine and history to answer is this:

In order for one to be a Trinitarian, must they have specific beliefs about the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit apart from them being God?

For instance Modalists belief that all three persons are God, yet they aren't Trinitarian. Also I believe there is a difference between the Catholic view and the Greek Orthodox view?

If there were a central Christian authority it could define the Trinity but there is no such authority recognized by every Christian. The last I knew the RC Church followed the Athanasian creed which I believe is in error. I don't agree with a lot of RC views so that is no big surprise.

For me I believe the people are Trinitarians if they believe in the Trinity even if they are wrong about the way they view it. including the Modalists.

 

[Muffled]

He is a known Christian apologist and scholar. He wrote a book called "The Forgotten Trinity". Anyway, his viewpoint could be wrong for all i know. I am interested in if anybody knows if there is an official Trinity doctrine to stick to.

I have been called on the carpet twice for my Trinity beliefs. Once in an independent Baptist church whose pastor learned his Trinity beliefs from Pensacola Christian College. They considered me to be a Modalist but they allowed me to continue attending. A Four Square church found my Trinity beliefs to not be in agreement with the doctrine of their church but I don't remember specifically why. I was instructed not to talk about religion in their church and that was too constrictive for me so I left. I presently attend an SBC church and it tends to be a little less doctrinal (priesthood of believers). I believe the pastor has a three person view of the Trinity that does not square with God being one but we agree to differ. He went to the SBC Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

 

[Muffled]

A Reformed Baptist professor, debater, radio show host, etc. He's actually a pretty alright guy. I don't agree with his theology, but I do appreciate the fact that he keeps things above the belt when dealing with opponents, doesn't engage in ad hominem, does his homework and makes very logically sound arguments.

I believe I attended a Reformed Baptist church. They didn't believe in speaking in tongues so while I was there I didn't. I believe their rationale was illogical.

 

[Samael_Khan]

If there were a central Christian authority it could define the Trinity but there is no such authority recognized by every Christian. The last I knew the RC Church followed the Athanasian creed which I believe is in error. I don't agree with a lot of RC views so that is no big surprise.

For me I believe the people are Trinitarians if they believe in the Trinity even if they are wrong about the way they view it. including the Modalists.

Just looked it up. The RC, Western Christianity does follow the Athanasian creed.

The Trinity is just a word used to describe a concept. When the concept of the Trinity was brought up, it was in direct opposition to Modalism as modalism is another concept which is in opposition to the Trinity concept. If those who termed the Trinity concept said that Modalism is not Trinitarianism, then I would have to agree with them.

The Trinity is: God is one God, but three coeternal consubstantial persons

Trinity - Wikipedia


Modalism: Modalistic Monarchianism (also known as Oneness Christology) is a Christian theology that upholds the oneness of God as well as the deity of Jesus Christ. It is a form of Monarchianism and as such stands in contrast with Trinitarianism. Modalistic Monarchianism considers God to be one while working through the different "modes" or "manifestations" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Following this view, all the Godhead is understood to have dwelt in Jesus Christ from the incarnation. The terms Father and Son are then used to describe the distinction between the transcendence of God and the incarnation (God in immanence). Lastly, since God is a spirit, it is held that the Holy Spirit should not be understood as a separate entity but rather to describe God in action.

Modalistic Monarchianism - Wikipedia

Therefore, Modalism contrasts Trinitarianism. Just believing that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God does not mean that one is a Trinitarian.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I have been called on the carpet twice for my Trinity beliefs. Once in an independent Baptist church whose pastor learned his Trinity beliefs from Pensacola Christian College. They considered me to be a Modalist but they allowed me to continue attending. A Four Square church found my Trinity beliefs to not be in agreement with the doctrine of their church but I don't remember specifically why. I was instructed not to talk about religion in their church and that was too constrictive for me so I left. I presently attend an SBC church and it tends to be a little less doctrinal (priesthood of believers). I believe the pastor has a three person view of the Trinity that does not square with God being one but we agree to differ. He went to the SBC Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

Have you ever checked out why Modalism is not Trinitarianism?

What is the SBC stand for by the way?

 

[Samael_Khan]

I believe I attended a Reformed Baptist church. They didn't believe in speaking in tongues so while I was there I didn't. I believe their rationale was illogical.

What was their rationale vs yours?

 

[Samael_Khan]

` They have in common that they make sense ─ unlike the winner.
Instead of useful admissions, we meet such notions as that 'the mystery is above reason but not contrary to it' ─ to which the only reasonable reply is, 'Really? What objective test will tell us whether any particular incoherence is above reason but not contrary to it or not?' Or perhaps, 'Don't be silly' cuts to the chase.
I don't know whether the Eastern version involves the idea that each of the persons is 100% of God. But if (as I'd more or less expect) it does, then it has the same problems as the Western version ─ the basic incoherence doesn't go away whether the Ghost proceeds from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son. If the persons aren't each 100% of God then God has to be collegiate in some way, and I'd be interested to know how that's expressed.

Shiranui117 has a good response to this.

 

[Shiranui117]

Unwritten rule 1: There has to be only one god.

Political problem: to raise Jesus to God status despite his never once claiming to be God and despite his repeated express denials via Paul and in all four gospels.

Solution: As is innate in the idea, and as the Catholic Encyclopedia spells out, there is only one God (see Rule 1), and the Father is God and Jesus is God and the Ghost is God.

Yes, and the unity of the Persons is as I have outlined elsewhere in the thread.

Note 1: When you pray to Jesus, you're not praying to 1/3 of God, you're praying to 100% of God. Ditto if you pray to the Father or to the Ghost. They are each the entirety of God, although there is only one God, see Rule 1.

Note 2: The idea of three 'persons' each of whom is the entirety of God, and each of whom is entirely distinct from the other two, is an incoherent formulation, but a necessary one: see Political problem. But 'incoherence' being too close to the bone, let the official expression be 'a mystery in the strict sense'.

Again, you are operating off of a faulty understanding of the Trinity. Reread what I've said in this thread and get back to me with any questions you have. They are not each 100% of God, they each possess the fullness of the Divine Nature. You and I possess the fullness of the human nature, but each of us individually is not the entirety of humanity.

If you don't agree with that, then I'm interested to hear what aspect of the doctrine, in your view, is indeed 'a mystery in the strict sense', unable to be demonstrated by reason even when revealed.

Let's try again. A mystery is not "something that we have no clue about and no answers for". A mystery is, literally, that which we are initiated into and that which is revealed to us. We can demonstrate it by reason after the fact, but we cannot demonstrate it by reason alone apart from the revelation. It is like attempting to demonstrate by reason the existence of a wolf. Sure, one can speculate what sorts of predator might potentially arise in a given environment, but until you come to know of a wolf's existence, you will not fully understand why exactly a wolf makes more sense to exist in that niche in that environment over and above, say, some manner of dromaeosaur.

What you say is reasonable, therefore it can't be a 'mystery in the strict sense', therefore we know it's not the Trinity doctrine.

Either that or you just don't understand the actual doctrine itself. I've presented primary source documents from the Church Fathers to back up my claim, and I can present more along with Scripture.

I point out again, in the NT Jesus never once claims to be God,

Debatable. John 8:58 "Before Abraham was, I AM." Luke 21:27 "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." His Apostles also confessed Him as God as well.

We can do the 1278904136th debate on this site about whether the Trinity bears out in the New Testament, or we can just compile what the historical doctrine of the Trinity is, what sources we use in favor of this, and what the reasons are. I'm just here to explain the Trinity, not to win Internet brownie points.

and through Paul and in all four gospels expressly denies that he's God.

If I understand you right, you're saying that St. Paul denies Christ's divinity? We would heartily disagree.

The Trinity doctrine does not exist before the 4th century CE,

It most certainly does. I can give you proof from St. Justin Martyr, St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius of Antioch, not to mention St. Irenaeus and the rest of the Apostolic Fathers.

He also said he was not God at all (Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good? None is good but God alone.”).

He also said that the Father is the 'only true god' (John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”) and is the god he Jesus worships (John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”). And since Jesus is a circumcised and observant Jew, what else would you expect?

I addressed this earlier in the thread. If you can't be bothered to read upstream I'll repost what I've already written.

Indeed, if he was God all the time, what could he possibly tell his followers that was more important than that? And if he was God all the time then the whole of his ministry was one long, deliberate deceit. In my view, that would not be an admirable attribute for either a prophet or a god to have.

If Jesus had openly proclaimed Himself God before the proper time, He would have been summarily executed on the spot. Indeed, the handful of times He did reveal Himself as God, people either tried to kill Him on the spot or actually condemned Him to death on the cross. He had to speak in parables just to explain virtue and the nature of faith.

He makes the meaning of “one” plain in John 17:

20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.​

That is, Jesus and the Father are one in the manner that Jesus wishes all his followers to be one with the Father. Oneness, in other words, is available to all.

Yes, the Trinity is a communion of Persons indwelling in love. We are called to share in that communion, even though we remain creatures with a created nature. Christ also called us to be perfect as the Father is perfect. Yet His perfection is infinite, so we will also continue infinitely drawing ever deeper into the mystery of the communion of the Trinity and into God's perfection and likeness. Theosis never ends, even in eternity.

Yes, John 8:58. The Jesus of John, like the Jesus of Paul (but unlike the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew or Luke) existed in heaven before coming to earth eg John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.” But Jesus' denials that he's God, simply God's envoy, are too repeated and express to support the idea that in this passage he's making any claim to be God.

He denies that He is the Father. Jesus is properly said to be an envoy of the Father--or as St. Paul said it, "the image of the invisible God".

Ah, I know it as monarchianism. And it's the view expressed by both Paul and the author of John, whether the 3rd century church fathers found that view convenient or not.

No, Sabellianism is the view that the three Persons of the Trinity are merely three finger puppets, or God wearing three different masks at three different times. In the Sabellian view, Jesus was praying to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane.

No, Jesus was crying out to Eloi ─ God. Not that it matters much ─ as I mentioned, in Jesus' view the terms Father and God meant the same thing ─ the God who in heaven had given Jesus his orders to come to earth, and allowed to him all the powers that he had (John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”, also John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; [...] I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”).

And this highlights exactly what we teach about the One Divine Will. Jesus' divine will is not His own, but it is shared with Him by the Father. The will of Christ is the will of the Father.

Psalm 21? You mean eg Psalm 21:10 You will destroy their offspring from the earth, and their children from among the sons of men. ? Only joking: but mapping Mark's gospel onto the Tanakh, hence all the gospels, is an entirely different discussion, and not a short one.

Yeah I've got no interest in that rabbit hole either lol.

Luke's Jesus is born of a virgin, but is a male. Where do you say he got his Y-chromosome, if not from God? Or are you saying it's just a story?

The Y-chromosome was created. God (outside of Christ) has no physical body and therefore has no chromosomes to pass on.

As I read the manual, it says that the Holy Ghost did the deed with Mary, and under the Trinity doctrine, the Ghost is 100% of God, just as Jesus is; ergo Jesus is his own father, and the Ghost is also his father, and the Father is also his father. None of them has a better claim to the title Father, which was my point.

Yours is a unique reading. None of the Fathers claim that the Spirit or the Father had sex with Mary. In fact, they rebuke that idea quite strongly for its perversion.

No, we need to define 'mystery in the strict sense', which is the correct label for the Trinity doctrine. As I said, it means that the Trinity doctrine 'can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason once it has been revealed.' My source is The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (under 'Trinity'), but if you check the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia under 'Trinity' and 'mystery' you'll find that it agrees, though less succinctly.

And the Catholic version of the Trinity has a few subtle but key differences to the actual Patristic view of the Trinity.

The alternative is that Jesus NOT 100% of God, meaning Jesus is only a bit of God. Is that your view? If so, then please tell me what IS the 'mystery in the strict sense'?

The whole language of "100% of God" is wrong for reasons I have already outlined. It's a mystery, not because we have utterly no way of explaining it or defending it or understanding it, but because we are attempting to understand the eternal and infinite Godhead.

Apparently there were two wills when Jesus prayed to His Father in Gethsemane because even He distinguished between "my will" and "thy will" -- which, for that moment, were at odds with each other. One of those wills had to surrender to the other.

Yes, Jesus' human will and divine will. Jesus is truly man and truly God. His two wills were perfectly united, yet His human will retained human emotions and passions. It's like being fully prepared to go into war or ride a really crazy rollercoaster or visit your mother-in-law, but you're still crapping your pants and shaking and sweating like a pig anyway because you know it's gonna suck. (Except the rollercoaster. Rollercoasters are awesome.)

Out of curiosity, if you have time to read through the doctrine of the Trinity as I've outlined it in this thread, how close are Mormons to the Orthodox view of the Trinity? I know you guys don't believe that the Son or the Spirit are from eternity, but what about the rest of it?

 

[Shiranui117]

What is the SBC stand for by the way?

Southern Baptist Convention. One of the largest (maybe the largest?) Protestant groups in the US.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Having formerly been Catholic myself, I wouldn't call Catholicism a cult. They're genuinely convinced that they are the unchanged Church established by Christ and the Apostles, and many of them are genuine, faithful Christians who taught me a lot. The Pope calls himself the Vicar of Christ on earth (which is a whole other topic we can maybe get into some other time), but that's as far as it goes. If any Pope were to claim to be God, they would be kindly and swiftly thrown out of the Vatican in short order.

By "cult" I am in no means saying that they are a destructive cult. I was also Roman Catholic and the rituals and veneration of the Pope as being infallible when it comes to doctrine are very cultish. I might actually be succumbing to ant-Catholic propoganda when I say that certain Popes declared themselves God:

The Pope Claims to be God on Earth | Papal Infallibility
The Truth About Papal Claims to be God

It's because Protestantism branched off of Roman Catholicism, so for the most part Christians in the West are only familiar with Western Christianity and have no exposure at all to Orthodoxy. This is a geographic problem that goes all the way back to the collapse of the western half of the Roman Empire.

That is a shame because they are missing out on a lot of their heritage.

As for the Muslims, it's easy for them to attack the Western Christians in a day and age when many Western Christian churches are on the decline. They are able to exploit people's already-present distrust of their church and their lack of knowledge of Christian history and theology. Protestants and Catholics of 400 years ago are rolling over in their graves. The Muslims don't bother with apologetics against us Orthodox because Orthodoxy in the Middle East and Asia Minor has been under the boot of various caliphates since the 600's. We're allowed to continue on in our own villages and neighborhoods until the next wave of Islamism hits.

It doesn't seem like it is so easy for Muslims to attack the faith these days. There are many Youtube channels setting them straight. In fact their script is based on the writings of a South African called Ahmed Deedat. I read some of his books before I became a JW. I actually read the Bible too and I could easily refute what he said. His reasoning was based on ignorance. Once one knows the formula it is easy to refute muslims. The majority in fact have not read the Bible themselves so they do not know how intricate the book is. I have read up on the Crusades and know the history between the Eastern Christians and the muslims. I would like to hear the Eastern Orthodox viewpoints on the conquest of those lands, such as what were the conditions of the Christians at the time and how good or bad muslim rule was. It would help me in discussions with muslims.

I do know a good number of more conservative and anti-ecumenist Orthodox who would absolutely say that Western Christians believe in a different Trinity than we do. For my part, having been on both sides of the matter, I would certainly call them both Trinitarian and Christian, but with a flawed and innovative understanding of the Trinity.

OK. That is good to know.

You're exactly right. They decided they wanted to reinvent the wheel, and ended up making it pear-shaped. Close, but not quite.

In some cases not even close.

Probably because, historically, the Islamic caliphates cut us off from contact with the West. Add to this the fact that the Russians and other Orthodox Slavic peoples were geopolitical rivals with some of the leading Central European powers of the day, especially Hungary, Austria, Poland and Lithuania. It's only been in the past couple centuries that Orthodoxy has been able to spread to the West via Russian colonization of Alaska and immigration of Greeks, Arabs and Slavic peoples to the English-speaking nations, in particular the US and Canada. And it's only been in the last century that serious headway has been made in English-language Orthodox research and literature. Things have been picking up the pace since the 1980's when 3,000 Evangelicals (including some of the founders of Campus Crusade for Christ) all decided to join the Orthodox Church en masse.

That sounds awesome. I am very fascinated with Eastern Christianity after studying the Crusades, Islamic Conquests and the Dark Ages. 3000 Evangelicals joined the Orthodox Church? That is crazy!

 

[Samael_Khan]

You just need to learn the right words to say, without trying to understand what it all means. As soon as you try to understand what it means, you will fall into one heresy or another. There is no way to explain what it means, without falling into some kind of heresy. Anyone who thinks they understand it is thinking of it in some heretical way. That’s what it means to say that it’s a mystery: It’s impossible to understand. Don’t even try. Just learn the words to say.

Also, I think that there are differences between the official version and the ones that people most often use, because the official version uses some uncommon words. The everyday version is confusing because it uses the words “is,” “distinct,” “person” and “essence” in ways that they are never used in any other context.

You should check out Shiranui117's on what "mystery" means. I am beginning to understand the concept more actually but it requires heavy research. I have always been exposed to Western understanding of the Trinity which never made sense to me because they explain it in nonsensical terms. The Eastern Orthodox view actually does make sense to me. And that view was official before the Western Church changed the relationship between the three persons in their formula, which is what doesn't make sense to us. My recent understandings of the relationship between the three from reading the Bible conflict with Western Trinitarianism, but Eastern Trinitarianism actually gels pretty well with it.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Again, you are operating off of a faulty understanding of the Trinity. Reread what I've said in this thread and get back to me with any questions you have. They are not each 100% of God, they each possess the fullness of the Divine Nature. You and I possess the fullness of the human nature, but each of us individually is not the entirety of humanity.

Question about your reasoning here: Are you comparing the Divine Nature to human nature and thus comparing divinity to humanity? So it is a species? If so, that would be the same as the different Gods in paganism since they all have the same Divine Nature, as they are from the same family.

Let's try again. A mystery is not "something that we have no clue about and no answers for". A mystery is, literally, that which we are initiated into and that which is revealed to us. We can demonstrate it by reason after the fact, but we cannot demonstrate it by reason alone apart from the revelation. It is like attempting to demonstrate by reason the existence of a wolf. Sure, one can speculate what sorts of predator might potentially arise in a given environment, but until you come to know of a wolf's existence, you will not fully understand why exactly a wolf makes more sense to exist in that niche in that environment over and above, say, some manner of dromaeosaur.

Ah, so it is terms used then, that mean something different now in everyday language that is causing the confusions.

We can do the 1278904136th debate on this site about whether the Trinity bears out in the New Testament, or we can just compile what the historical doctrine of the Trinity is, what sources we use in favor of this, and what the reasons are. I'm just here to explain the Trinity, not to win Internet brownie points.

I started this thread specifically for the reason of understanding the concept of the Trinity and whether there is an official one or not. I did not start it so that we can debate whether it is in the Bible or not as the concept exists apart from that. In fact your explanations Shiranui117 have helped me understand it much more than I ever have and it has been more enlightening than any thread about whether the Trinity is in the bible or not that i have come across. Keep up the good work. The only debate that should be had on here is which Trinity is correct, if the debate needs to be had at all.

No, Sabellianism is the view that the three Persons of the Trinity are merely three finger puppets, or God wearing three different masks at three different times. In the Sabellian view, Jesus was praying to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane.

I am finding that many people who believe that they are Trinitarian are actually modalist. It is why I started this thread. They even consider Modalists to be Trinitarians. This thread is to educate all of us on that.

Out of curiosity, if you have time to read through the doctrine of the Trinity as I've outlined it in this thread, how close are Mormons to the Orthodox view of the Trinity? I know you guys don't believe that the Son or the Spirit are from eternity, but what about the rest of it?

This is interesting. It would be cool to hear the Mormons viewpoint. From what I understand they believe that every man can become a God and that God was himself once a mortal who attained Godhood. They also have the Book of Mormon separate to the bible, so their viewpoint isn't limited to the Bible's view.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I have been having discussions recently involving the Trinity. Many people have various views regarding the details of it.

I have said that the Trinity is a specific set of ideas. So saying that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is God does not mean that one is a Trinitarian.

The reason why I say this is because James White says that the Trinity is a specific set of beliefs and the various councils came to official conclusions from what I have read.

The question I would like Trinitarians and those who know church doctrine and history to answer is this:

In order for one to be a Trinitarian, must they have specific beliefs about the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit apart from them being God?

For instance Modalists belief that all three persons are God, yet they aren't Trinitarian. Also I believe there is a difference between the Catholic view and the Greek Orthodox view?

Hi Guys. This thread IS NOT intended to be a platform for debate about whether the Trinity is in the bible or not. It is just discussing what the concept is and whether there is an official version or not as well as its history. There are many threads discussing whether the concept is in the Bible or not. What would be more beneficial to debate is whether there is an official Trinity or not and what the Trinity doctrine actually is.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The Trinity is like this. We can experience it, we know it is true from revelation because we have seen it and we can explain it and comprehend it inasmuch as humans can comprehend the Eternal Creator, but our understanding is never complete, no matter how long we spend in communion with God. There is always more depth to be explored.

How does one experience the Trinity? I agree with the rest.

For us, the problem is as follows: To say that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son is to confuse the Persons of Father and Son. The Father alone is the source and beginning of the Trinity, and it is from Him that the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. To have the Spirit proceed from the Son as well is to assign to the Son a quality unique to the Father--namely, being the source of the Trinity. The Spirit cannot eternally proceed from two different eternal points of origin. The Son can send the Spirit into the world, so the Spirit can "proceed" in a temporal sense, but the Son is not the cause of the Spirit's eternally proceeding. The Father alone is the eternal source of the Spirit, just as the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.

I understand this now. And it is a concept that I get close to from my understanding of scriptures independently. My problem was always with all three each being 100% God and them being equal in their relationship.

As St. Gregory of Nyssa explains in his treatise On Not Three Gods, the Persons of the Trinity do not act separately like three separate humans. They share the same Divine Will and they all participate in the same divine action. You do not have three coordinated Divine wills and three coordinated Divine actions as the Mormons teach, but one Divine Will and one divine action that all three share in. So when everything was created, God the Father used His Word (God the Son) and His Spirit to create all things. The Fathers teach that grace comes from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit. All three Persons shared in the same divine act of creation.

I still have to read that. Your explanation is actually a good way of explaining the scriptures that say that God created existence through Jesus.

And this is where we get to John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This "in the beginning" is a reference to eternity, before time began and outside of time as we know it. "The Word was with God" shows that the Word was there with the Father in the beginning. "The Word was God" is easy to misinterpret in English. It's not saying that the Word is the Father. Rather, it's saying that the Word is what the Father is--i.e. the Word shares the same qualities as the Father. God, divine, eternal, king of all.

Thats is why many Bibles interpret "the word was god" as "The Logos was Divine". Makes sense.

I don't know anybody who says that the three Persons are each 100% of God. I know plenty who say that they are each truly God and not semi-divine or merely angelic or a creature. "God" in this context denotes not a Person but a Nature. They are all God the same way that you and I are both Human. They are one God because they share one common divine Nature, one divine Will, one divine action and one divine kingship.

I have come across many who say that each persons are 100% God. It is often said amongst laymen and apologists of Western Christianity.

 

[Shiranui117]

By "cult" I am in no means saying that they are a destructive cult. I was also Roman Catholic and the rituals and veneration of the Pope as being infallible when it comes to doctrine are very cultish. I might actually be succumbing to ant-Catholic propoganda when I say that certain Popes declared themselves God:

The Pope Claims to be God on Earth | Papal Infallibility
The Truth About Papal Claims to be God

Yeah, the Popes are said to be the Vicar of Christ on earth--but a "vicar" is just a representative.
That is a shame because they are missing out on a lot of their heritage.

It doesn't seem like it is so easy for Muslims to attack the faith these days. There are many Youtube channels setting them straight. In fact their script is based on the writings of a South African called Ahmed Deedat. I read some of his books before I became a JW. I actually read the Bible too and I could easily refute what he said. His reasoning was based on ignorance. Once one knows the formula it is easy to refute muslims. The majority in fact have not read the Bible themselves so they do not know how intricate the book is. I have read up on the Crusades and know the history between the Eastern Christians and the muslims. I would like to hear the Eastern Orthodox viewpoints on the conquest of those lands, such as what were the conditions of the Christians at the time and how good or bad muslim rule was. It would help me in discussions with muslims.

Hoo boy could I get into that. The Ottomans were big fans of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the native Orthodox populations of the Middle East, Anatolia and the Balkans. The Janissaries were recruited almost exclusively by kidnapping Orthodox boys, forcibly converting them to Islam and indoctrinating them into Ottoman culture. The Ottomans would also kidnap Orthodox boys and turn them into sex slaves and cross-dressing prostitutes. And then you get to the Armenian and Greek genocides committed by the Turks in the late 1910's, the forced population trades between Greece and Turkey that liquidated Orthodox communities that had lived in Anatolia since the first centuries of the Church, and the almost 20-year-long trend of Christian populations in the Middle East being under near-constant attack from Islamic terrorists in one country or another (thanks Obama, and thanks Bush).

The various caliphates have always sought to stamp out Christianity--if not by the sword, then by slowly applying socioeconomic pressure, closing down our seminaries, or taking our churches and turning them into mosques.

That sounds awesome. I am very fascinated with Eastern Christianity after studying the Crusades, Islamic Conquests and the Dark Ages. 3000 Evangelicals joined the Orthodox Church? That is crazy!

Yup! They were known as the Evangelical Orthodox. They were received into the Antiochian Orthodox Church in the late 80's after they had spent 10-20 years researching the history of Christianity and seeking to find, if at all possible, the original Church founded by Christ and the Apostles. There's a whole book about it written by Fr. Peter Gillquist called "Becoming Orthodox". Fr. Peter was one of the leaders of the Evangelical Orthodox from the beginning, back when they were just Evangelicals who decided to study the primary source documents and the history of the early Christian Church. It's a really good read (or listen if you have a spare Audible credit lying around).

Question about your reasoning here: Are you comparing the Divine Nature to human nature and thus comparing divinity to humanity? So it is a species? If so, that would be the same as the different Gods in paganism since they all have the same Divine Nature, as they are from the same family.

An excellent question. As I said before, the Persons of the Trinity do not have three separate coordinated wills, but rather they share the one and the same Divine Will. If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each had a separate divine will, you would be absolutely right that that would be no different than paganism; all the various pagan gods have their own wills, their own goals and their own ambitions, and so they often come into conflict with one another. However, the three Persons of the Trinity abide together in perfect communion of love and in one shared Divine Will. During the Divine Liturgy, we call the Holy Trinity "one in essence and undivided". There is no division between the three Persons when it comes to will or essence (nature) or authority.

Ah, so it is terms used then, that mean something different now in everyday language that is causing the confusions.

Yes. Religion has a way of fossilizing language such that a word used in a religious context has a very different definition than when the same exact word is used in everyday speech. Especially when you're dealing with Eastern Christianity, where Greek words retain the same meaning as they had in the first centuries of the Church.

I started this thread specifically for the reason of understanding the concept of the Trinity and whether there is an official one or not. I did not start it so that we can debate whether it is in the Bible or not as the concept exists apart from that. In fact your explanations Shiranui117 have helped me understand it much more than I ever have and it has been more enlightening than any thread about whether the Trinity is in the bible or not that i have come across. Keep up the good work. The only debate that should be had on here is which Trinity is correct, if the debate needs to be had at all.

I'm glad I could be of service.

I am finding that many people who believe that they are Trinitarian are actually modalist. It is why I started this thread. They even consider Modalists to be Trinitarians. This thread is to educate all of us on that.

Yes, and it was something I was unaware of as well. It wasn't until a few other Orthodox and inquirers into Orthodoxy highlighted these differences that I came to understand that I was still holding to a Western view of the Trinity. I had to forcibly unlearn everything I thought I knew about the Trinity and start over from scratch. And boy did that make my brain hurt.

This is interesting. It would be cool to hear the Mormons viewpoint. From what I understand they believe that every man can become a God and that God was himself once a mortal who attained Godhood. They also have the Book of Mormon separate to the bible, so their viewpoint isn't limited to the Bible's view.

I've heard the first bit but I don't know if that's true. You're free to go to the Latter-Day Saints DIR and see what threads have already been started about this (because oh boy trust me they have).

How does one experience the Trinity? I agree with the rest.

By the life, death and especially the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are several theophanies of the Trinity throughout the Gospels--the Incarnation, the Baptism of Christ, the Transfiguration, and Christ being tempted in the desert.

I still have to read that. Your explanation is actually a good way of explaining the scriptures that say that God created existence through Jesus.

Naturally--the doctrine of the Trinity is, after all, also part of the Apostolic Tradition, just as the Scriptures themselves are.

Thats is why many Bibles interpret "the word was god" as "The Logos was Divine". Makes sense.

Yes. If one understands Greek grammar, one understands that "God" in John 1:1c is to be interpreted qualitatively. For example, to swap out the word "God" for "American" and go with the literal grammatical translation and meaning of the Greek, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the American, and the Word was American". When it's laid out like this, the meaning is plain as day.

I have come across many who say that each persons are 100% God. It is often said amongst laymen and apologists of Western Christianity.

I suspect that this terminology arose as a way to assert that each of the three Persons is truly divine and can truly be called "God", rather than being a demigod or an ascended angel or whatnot. One must always keep in mind for what purpose these theological formulations are made, otherwise one will take a perfectly okay statement and turn it into something heretical without meaning to.