Is there an official Trinity doctrine?

[LightofTruth]

As far as I remember, that verse is written after Jesus rose from the dead? Therefore ot cam be interpreted that God cannot die as Jesus is immortal when that verse was written.

What verse are you referring to?

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe then that I am a modalist and the "Trinitarians are wrong. However that does not alter the fact that I believe in the Trinity as i is in the Bible.

 

[Muffled]

Have you ever checked out why Modalism is not Trinitarianism?

What is the SBC stand for by the way?

I had a study on that but I forget. I wasn't concerned about what they believed.

 

[Jane.Doe]

I believe then that I am a modalist and the "Trinitarians are wrong. However that does not alter the fact that I believe in the Trinity as i is in the Bible.

This is one of those points where using full-blown explanations of what we mean is really more useful than using single term (since people uses such different definitions for terms).

Also, I do find it useful to remember that a person is as disciple of God via their relationship with Him. Not by there ability to pass a theology test. I get very tired of those "oh you're not saved because you don't pass this theology test" arguments I see out there.

 

[Muffled]

What was their rationale vs yours?

They believed that speaking in tongues went away because of I Cor 13. However I believe their timing is incorrect because it says when the perfect comes and He hasn't come yet.

 

[Muffled]

This is one of those points where using full-blown explanations of what we mean is really more useful than using single term (since people uses such different definitions for terms).

Also, I do find it useful to remember that a person is as disciple of God via their relationship with Him. Not by there ability to pass a theology test. I get very tired of those "oh you're not saved because you don't pass this theology test" arguments I see out there.

I believe seeing Jesus as a separate person in the godhead is idolatry.

 

[Jane.Doe]

I believe seeing Jesus as a separate person in the godhead is idolatry.

Would you declare a person to not be a Christian because they have a different understanding of the One-ness between the Father/Son/Spirit than you?
And how shall you feel if they did the same to you?

 

[Muffled]

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

I believe He meant their position on the Trinty. It appeared to be a bit general to me. I believe their statement was in error regarding the Paraclete. They state it as the Holy Spirit that has always been God but the Paraclete is the Spirit of God in believers.

 

[Muffled]

Would you declare a person to not be a Christian because they have a different understanding of the One-ness between the Father/Son/Spirit than you?
And how shall you feel if they did the same to you?

I believe a person is a Christian if he has received Jesus as Lord and Savior. As a Baptist I believe in the priesthood of believers so I expect Jesus to correct a person if He needs to. Since I have Jesus in me then that can happen through me as well.

I had this happen. My views were not in agreement with the denomination's views (not saying which denomination). I said let's look at what the Bible says and they replied what the church says is right is right. End of discussion. I was not thrown out but told not to express my views so I left because I wasn't interested in being muzzled.

A different church non-denominational but Baptist in background reviewed what I had to say. They let it be what it was and I continued to attend.

 

[Jane.Doe]

I believe a person is a Christian if he has received Jesus as Lord and Savior. As a Baptist I believe in the priesthood of believers so I expect Jesus to correct a person if He needs to. Since I have Jesus in me then that can happen through me as well.

I had this happen. My views were not in agreement with the denomination's views (not saying which denomination). I said let's look at what the Bible says and they replied what the church says is right is right. End of discussion. I was not thrown out but told not to express my views so I left because I wasn't interested in being muzzled.

A different church non-denominational but Baptist in background reviewed what I had to say. They let it be what it was and I continued to attend.

*thumbs up*

It is indeed our acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Savior and King that makes a person a Christian.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I believe then that I am a modalist and the "Trinitarians are wrong. However that does not alter the fact that I believe in the Trinity as i is in the Bible.

But.... you being a Modalist by definition means that you don't believe in the Trinity.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I had a study on that but I forget. I wasn't concerned about what they believed.

There are two versions of the Trinity. The Western Trinity is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The Eastern Orthodox Trinity is that both the Holy Spirit and the Son proceed from the Father. The constant in the Trinity doctrine is that God exists as 3 persons in one being simultaneously.

Modalism is different. It means that the same person, God, has three different roles which do not exist at the same time. He wears different "masks" at different times. So when Jesus was on earth, the whole of God was in him at the time according to Modalism. According to the Trinity one person in the Godhead was in Jesus while the other two existed somewhere else at the same time.

 

[Samael_Khan]

They believed that speaking in tongues went away because of I Cor 13. However I believe their timing is incorrect because it says when the perfect comes and He hasn't come yet.

Sob they are cessationists. I have heard both viewpoints and both make sense.

 

[Shiranui117]

That may be the case, and if so the version I've quoted would be the mainstream (Western) view; but it's true that I haven't examined the views of Eastern Orthodoxy on the Trinity question.

First off, you have my profuse apologies for not getting back to this for a while. You ask excellent questions that push my understanding of the Orthodox doctrine on the Trinity to its limits, so I've had to go back and read the Fathers and better my knowledge, so thank you for that. (I also had to move house but y'know).

No, I agree with the churches that their view is incoherent. I don't pretend to have a picture in my head of how it could work in reality, any more than they do.
I note the evolution of the God concept through the bible ─ the primitive alpha male of Genesis; the tribal deity among tribal deities of the Torah and early Tanakh; the monogod of Isaiah, who's still a tribal deity; Paul's concept of universalizing a gnostic version of that God according to a prophet Jesus whom Paul never actually met and about whom as a real person Paul knows virtually nothing, but who for Paul is also a pre-existing heavenly being, the demiurge; Mark's different take on a messianic tradition by which he devises a biography of Jesus by having God adopt him (an ordinary Jew) as Son just as God had adopted David as Son, and moving his hero through a series of purported fulfillment-of-prophecy adventures so he'd qualify for the title 'messiah', much or even all of it therefore fiction; Matthew's and Luke's synoptic development of that Jesus as God's literal offspring by an inseminated virgin in the Greek tradition, but having no more knowledge of a real Jesus than Mark did; then John's demiurge; and then from the time of John to the fourth century the attempt to devise a monogod theology by which Jesus could nonetheless be elevated to god status, which in the 4th century produces the Trinity doctrine.

I would disagree with your characterization of how the concept of God radically changed from Gospel to Gospel, and I would again note that not one sane Christian would ever say that the Holy Spirit had sex with and inseminated the Virgin Mary, but that's ultimately neither here nor there.

I think Strong's 'elohim' can be condensed to the idea of 'divine beings' and 'godlike/ powerful beings'. If that's on the right track then 'ruler' would be one in a large range of possibilities ─ prince, judge, master, &c

I don't think anything hangs on the point, but I respectfully disagree with Greg's etymology.

Yeah, it's a bit of a Greek folk etymology. Even if he has the linguistic origins of the two words wrong, he can still make the argument for the definition.

He's also the only god there is, says Isaiah. And this is the problem facing those pushing to elevate Jesus to god status.

The problem is largely avoided if we understand that the Trinity is one in essence, will, power and glory, and if we understand that to be God also means to have rulership. There is only one rulership and one Kingdom which is ruled over by the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

I don't understand that. An omnipotent omniscient being does involuntary acts? The Son and the Ghost come into being (as aspects distinct from God himself) even though God never intends this? Surely not.

I wouldn't say that it happens outside of the Father's control, because ultimately He does whatever He wills. His Nature and His will are in perfect accord. It's an interesting point,

If they don't have their own will, they'd have to be either the Father himself, just in another manifestation, or mere automata, surely? What third possibility is there?

This is a good question. But we do know that the three Persons have communion with each other and relate to one another, so it's not the case that They're merely the Father's puppets. I might have to read more on this. Maybe St. John of Damascus or St. Maximos the Confessor have answers here...

You said above that that they 'share the Divine Will'; now you seem to be saying they don't. Either they're capable of disagreeing with the Father, and the evidence for that would be disagreements of each of them with the Father, or they don't have their own will, no?

I think framing things in terms of capability is odd. The three Persons of the Trinity are in perfect accord and harmony with one another and they share one will. They abide in perfect communion and they each indwell the other--the Father in the Son, the Son in the Father, both in the Spirit, and the Spirit in both. Why would they want to break that and devolve to the level of feuding pagan gods? To be any other way would be to go against Who They are. The difference between the God and humanity is that the three Persons of the Trinity always remain true to Who They are.

This is, by the way, how we will be one with the Trinity as the Trinity is one in itself. St. Hillary of Poitiers says that by partaking of the Eucharist, in which the Body and Blood of Christ are mystically present, Christ comes to be in us. And by being united to Him in communion with the Church, we are in Christ. By being baptized and chrismated, the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in us, and we have communion with each other by all being together in the Spirit. Christ shares both our humanity and the Trinity's Divinity. Christ is both in us, and in the Father and the Spirit. If we are in Christ, then we are also in the Father and the Spirit. Thus we have true perichoresis--we are in the Trinity and the Trinity is in us, just as Christ is in the Father and the Spirit and vice-versa.

If God does not consist solely of the Father, then it follows (does it not?) that God is not present just because Father or Son or Ghost or Father+Son or Father+Ghost or Son+Ghost is present. God is only present when all three are present. God might be represented there by his agent or envoy or vicar but God himself isn't there.

(This is the problem I think the version I quoted tries to address.)

And that's the point--there is never a time when all three are not present, because of two reasons: One, God is omnipresent. Two, we have to remember the perichoresis (or mutual in-dwelling) of the Persons of the Trinity. They all abide in each other, just as the faithful abide in God and God in the faithful.

 

[blü 2]

(I also had to move house but y'know).

I have great sympathy, nay, great pity, for anyone who has to move house ─ including myself, history shows.

The problem is largely avoided if we understand that the Trinity is one in essence, will, power and glory [...] There is only one rulership and one Kingdom which is ruled over by the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
[...]
the three Persons have communion with each other and relate to one another, so it's not the case that They're merely the Father's puppets.

[...] The three Persons of the Trinity are in perfect accord and harmony with one another and they share one will. They abide in perfect communion and they each indwell the other--the Father in the Son, the Son in the Father, both in the Spirit, and the Spirit in both.

Thanks for your reply.

That means that there's no way to distinguish the Father from the Son from the Ghost, no? There's simply no difference between them. They're the one entity, not three.

This is, by the way, how we will be one with the Trinity as the Trinity is one in itself.

John's Jesus says the same thing about God, not about the Trinity ─ that he, Jesus, wants everyone to be one with the Father in the same way he's one with the Father (John 17:20-23, where Jesus is the gatekeeper to God).

Christ is both in us, and in the Father and the Spirit. If we are in Christ, then we are also in the Father and the Spirit. Thus we have true perichoresis--we are in the Trinity and the Trinity is in us, just as Christ is in the Father and the Spirit and vice-versa.

And that's the point--there is never a time when all three are not present, because of two reasons: One, God is omnipresent. Two, we have to remember the perichoresis (or mutual in-dwelling) of the Persons of the Trinity. They all abide in each other, just as the faithful abide in God and God in the faithful.

Again, no distinction can be made between Father, Jesus and Ghost. That would only be possible if each had his/its own will. But if there's only one will, there's only one entity. If the entities are indeed separate in some unclear way, they're automata, tools, puppets, something less than beings capable of independent intention, surely?

 

[Shiranui117]

That means that there's no way to distinguish the Father from the Son from the Ghost, no? There's simply no difference between them. They're the one entity, not three.

To reiterate, we do say that they are one in essence and undivided. So it looks like you see the oneness of the Trinity as the Fathers express it--they are one in power, glory, nature and will.

John's Jesus says the same thing about God, not about the Trinity ─ that he, Jesus, wants everyone to be one with the Father in the same way he's one with the Father (John 17:20-23, where Jesus is the gatekeeper to God).

Yes, precisely.

Again, no distinction can be made between Father, Jesus and Ghost. That would only be possible if each had his/its own will. But if there's only one will, there's only one entity. If the entities are indeed separate in some unclear way, they're automata, tools, puppets, something less than beings capable of independent intention, surely?

You'd be right, if not but for the fact that we clearly see the three Persons interact with and relate to one another throughout the Scriptures and in the life of the Church. We see Christ express fear and trepidation about what He knows He will go through on Good Friday. We see the Father testifying of the Son. We see the Spirit sending Christ into the world at the Incarnation and in turn being breathed by Christ upon the Apostles. We see Christ praying to the Father over and over, and we see the Spirit leading people to testify of Christ.

As for the subject of will, St. Maximus the Confessor lays out why humans all have different wills that desire different things even though we all share the same human essence, in contradistinction to how the Trinity has but one divine will. I'm sure if I had more time I could parse out his extremely dense reasoning and explanations and give you a much more definitive answer about exactly how the Trinity shares one will, but for now, here's just a taste of what I'm grappling with:

"In reply, Maximus denies that there must be a one-to-one correspondence between wills and willing agents, given that the orthodox have long confessed that there are three subjects or persons (πρόσωπα), but only one will, in the Trinity. A plurality of wills is therefore not incompatible with Christ’s singularity as an existing agent (289D-292A). Shifting tactics, Pyrrhus objects thirdly that two wills in a single person would conflict with one another. Maximus replies that any contrariety would have to come either from nature or as a result of sin. But since God is the creator of all natures, there cannot be any natural conflict between God and any creature; nor can there be any conflict on account of sin, since Jesus was sinless. Conflict between Christ’s two natural wills is therefore ruled out (292B). Fourth, Pyrrhus questions whether willing belongs to nature at all. Maximus simply asserts that it does, and Pyrrhus grants the point for the time being (292B). The next three objections give rise to the first of Maximus’ two major definitions of natural willing. Pyrrhus objects, fifth, that since God and the saints share a single will, according to the tradition, then, if willing is natural, God and the saints must share a single nature, which is absurd (292B). And sixth, since humans regularly will different things from one another, they must have different natures and even change their natures with their changing wills, which is also absurd (292D). Maximus replies that, in order to understand situations like these, it is necessary to recognize that willing involves four distinct things:

1.The willing subject, or one who wills (ὁ θέλων, the ‘willer’).
2. The will itself (τὸ θέλημα, ἡ θέλησις, τὸ θέλειν) as a faculty, capacity, or activity that belongs to nature. Sometimes these terms refer to the will as a faculty or capacity in general, while at other times they denote the multi-stage process of willing in a more active sense.
3. The manner in which one wills (τὸ πῶς θέλειν), particularly in the moral sense of whether one wills the good or not, or righteous versus sinful willing.
4. The aim or object of one’s willing (τὸ θελητόν). Sometimes in Scripture
or in everyday speech this is what is meant by the term ‘will’ (τὸ θέλημα).

(292D) Maximus stresses that each of these terms functions in a different way, and to confuse them can lead to doctrinal error. For example, the will (τὸ θέλημα) belongs to the willing subject (ὁ θέλων) by nature, or essentially (οὐσιωδῶς), and as such is internal to the one who wills; however, the object of one’s will (τὸ θελητόν) – the thing that one aims to do – is external (ἐκτός) to the willer. For this reason, two different subjects can will the same thing, in terms of outcome, without thereby sharing the same natural will, and this is how we should understand Pyrrhus’ example of God and the saints. Similarly, the manner in which one wills (τὸ πῶς θέλειν) – the quality of our willing, including its righteousness or sinfulness – does not belong to the willing subject by nature alone, but to the particular way (τρόπος) in which each individual (ὑπόστασις) makes use of his or her natural faculty of willing. Accordingly, the ways in which we each will, our particular choices and motivations, can differ considerably, even though all humans share the same natural capacity of willing; and even though the objects of our willing come and go, the faculty of willing always remains (292C-293B). In addition to answering Pyrrhus’ fifth and sixth objections, this analysis is meant to support the fourth point as well, that willing is natural (292D). Pyrrhus’ seventh objection draws out Maximus’ second major definition, which focuses on the natural basis of willing and the multi-stage process that completes it. If willing is natural, Pyrrhus asks, then it must be necessitated (ἠναγκασμένον), in the ancient sense of involuntary or caused from without, in which case Christ could not possess a human will, since his movement was purely voluntary. Maximus retorts that nothing natural is necessitated, i.e., dictated from without, in the case of either God or created rational beings."​

Yeah. We can explain why the Trinity has one will while humanity has a multitude of wills. The explanation may make my brain cry, but by God there is one as far as human minds are capable of defining what exactly a "will" is and all the things that go along with it. On the plus side, I'm giving myself a course on graduate-level theology.

 

[David J]

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?

There is no official doctrine to any biblical text.

I got naked and got immersed in a swimming pool believing that's the only way to get baptized and saved.

Indoctrination is a *****.

 

[Samael_Khan]

There is no official doctrine to any biblical text.

I got naked and got immersed in a swimming pool believing that's the only way to get baptized and saved.

Indoctrination is a *****.

Oh well. You are right. But I am referring to what people made official after the fact.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you want the foundational texts of Trinitarianism, you have to go to two church Councils. The first is the Council of Nicea in 325. It ruled that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, defeating Arianism. In 381, the Church convened the Council of Constantinople to make sure that everyone knew the Holy Spirit was also included in the God-head, and determine Trinitarian dogma once and for all.

With the defining of Trinitarianism by a Church Council, other competing beliefs became heretical, such as Modalism. Baptisms not done in Trinitarian form are considered invalid.

I've tried to listen to various Christians tell me their particular church's unique take on Trinitarianism, but I get lost. It has always seemed to me that they are trying to split hairs. But that's just me, a non-Christian, thinking. Maybe if I had a horse in the race I'd feel different.

 

[Shad]

. Just as there was never a time where our sun wasn't radiating heat and light, there was never a time in which the Son was not yet begotten or in which the Spirit had not yet proceeded. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

Poor analogy. Best not to use it really.