Non-Trinitarians: What's wrong with the Trinity?

[sojourner]

I think we have a hard time detaching “God” from “Father.” IOW, we will many times talk about “God” when we really mean “Father.” God isn’t always Father. Sometimes, God is Son, but not always. Sometimes, God is Holy Spirit. God (at least for me) is more a descriptor than a name. Jim is always human being. Human being is not always Jim. Human being is not the name, it’s the descriptor. In the case of God, God is a descriptor of essence and of action. Father is always God. So are Son and Holy Spirit. When we talk about any of them, we understand that person to be God. But we don’t always understand God to be that particular person, as in the example of Jim above. Sometimes, human being is Bruce and not Jim.

Interestingly, for Christians, it’s nigh impossible to talk about the Persons alone; they always seem to interact. Where one is present and acting, another is usually there, either very imminent, or in the background.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think we have a hard time detaching “God” from “Father.” IOW, we will many times talk about “God” when we really mean “Father.” God isn’t always Father. Sometimes, God is Son, but not always. Sometimes, God is Holy Spirit.

It seems like you're saying now that "Father" (or "Son" or "Holy Spirit") isn't synonymous with God, then.

God (at least for me) is more a descriptor than a name. Jim is always human being. Human being is not always Jim. Human being is not the name, it’s the descriptor. In the case of God, God is a descriptor of essence and of action. Father is always God. So are Son and Holy Spirit.

So Tritheism, then (as opposed to Trinitarianism)?

When we talk about any of them, we understand that person to be God. But we don’t always understand God to be that particular person, as in the example of Jim above. Sometimes, human being is Bruce and not Jim.

Your grammar is a bit funky. Bruce is a human being. Jim is a human being. Both are distinct, separate human beings all the time even if the particular human being I'm referring to is one of them and not the other.

And neither is "human being" in the sense that either of them embodies everything it means to be a human being. Each of them is only one particular expression of how someone could be a human being.

 

[sojourner]

So Tritheism, then (as opposed to Trinitarianism)?

That's not what I said, now is it?

Bruce is a human being. Jim is a human being. Both are distinct, separate human beings all the time even if the particular human being I'm referring to is one of them and not the other.

That's what I said. When we say "God," we're not always talking about "Father."

 

[sojourner]

And neither is "human being" in the sense that either of them embodies everything it means to be a human being. Each of them is only one particular expression of how someone could be a human being.

But then, we're not God, are we?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not what I said, now is it?

Not explicitly, no, but it's what you implied.

That's what I said. When we say "God," we're not always talking about "Father."

So then the terms aren't synonymous. "Father" may be an example of something that can be called "God," but there are two others... i.e. three "Gods" in total.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But then, we're not God, are we?

It was your analogy. If it doesn't work, I'd be happy not to use it.

 

[sojourner]

So then the terms aren't synonymous. "Father" may be an example of something that can be called "God," but there are two others... i.e. three "Gods" in total.

No. you're making a leap that's not implied. God is One. There are three Persons that are God Three in One.

It was your analogy. If it doesn't work, I'd be happy not to use it.

Fine. Supply another analogy that is equal to God, and I'll be happy to use it. Until something equal to the Supreme Being shows up, however, we have to use the tools at our disposal, imperfect though they may be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. you're making a leap that's not implied. God is One. There are three Persons that are God Three in One.

Sounds like God is a committee... kinda like the Mormon Godhead (which isn't trinitarian either).

Fine. Supply another analogy that is equal to God, and I'll be happy to use it. Until something equal to the Supreme Being shows up, however, we have to use the tools at our disposal, imperfect though they may be.

I'd rather skip the analogies altogether, but if you absolutely need an analogy for a triune god, "square circle" comes to mind. I think it captures the inherent contradiction of the "3 = 1" assertion of trinitarianism.

 

[coconut theology]

I do not know Latin, so your chart doesn't mean much to me.
My problem is that nobody can explain it in a fashion that is coherent. Can you do that?

No, because the Council of Trent (Roman Catholic) dogmatic philosophy of "trinity" is logically incoherent and thus not of the truth as defined in scripture.

Knowing Latin wouldn't make it (the idolatrous image in OP, which is a false representation of JEHOVAH Elohiym) any more coherent, neither in any other known languages (English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, etc). Logical incoherency deals more with mathematics, which language is superior to all other languages.

The Bible (KJB) speaks of the coherency of "three Persons/Beings":

[1] The Father (aka the Ancient of Days. and many other names)

[2] The Son (aka Jesus, and many other names/designations)

[3] The Holy Ghost/Spirit (aka 'another Comforter', and other such names/designations)​

These three Persons/Beings are not the same Person/Being (ever). In fact, in a single verse (and numerous others) we can see all three Persons/Beings which work together (as like a "chord" in music, three distinct that work together to make a harmonious note, this is known as a "trio"):

Isa_48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.​

The confusion that many have is in how the Bible uses the word "one" (such as in Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29; 1 John 5:7; etc) and "God" (Genesis 1:1, John 1:1, etc They get into confusion why then use their own definition, rather than the one set forth in the text.

 

[sojourner]

Sounds like God is a committee

Well, no. Not a committee. We can't have a committee with only one person. But the Father is fully God. So is the Son. So is the H.S.

I'd rather skip the analogies altogether, but if you absolutely need an analogy for a triune god, "square circle" comes to mind. I think it captures the inherent contradiction of the "3 = 1" assertion of trinitarianism.

You may be on to something. God is "both/and," like a square circle.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, no. Not a committee. We can't have a committee with only one person. But the Father is fully God. So is the Son. So is the H.S.

So back to modalism? If we were talking about trinitarianism, there would be 3 persons.

You may be on to something. God is "both/and," like a square circle.

Or a contradiction in terms, like a square circle.

 

[sojourner]

These three Persons/Beings are not the same Person/Being (ever). In fact, in a single verse (and numerous others) we can see all three Persons/Beings which work together (as like a "chord" in music, three distinct that work together to make a harmonious note, this is known as a "trio"):

No, not a chord. Each note of the chord cannot be the chord. However, the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, the H.S. is fully God.

 

[sojourner]

So back to modalism? If we were talking about trinitarianism, there would be 3 persons.

Why is this "modalism?" And why "back" to modalism? I've never asserted that the One God manifests in different forms. There are three Persons, and each one is fully God. Together, all are God. I don't see why you have a problem with that, unless you're just yanking my chain, in which case, I have no more time for you.

Or a contradiction in terms, like a square circle.

Only if you're using dualist thinking. I don't think this is a dualist issue.

 

[coconut theology]

No, not a chord. Each note of the chord cannot be the chord. However, the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, the H.S. is fully God.

False equation. I didn't imply that the "chord" was "God". The "chord" is Godhead. "God" and "Godhead" are two things, not the same thing.

 

[sojourner]

False equation. I didn't imply that the "chord" was "God". The "chord" is Godhead. "God" and "Godhead" are two things, not the same thing.

Godhead? I thought we were talking about the Trinity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is this "modalism?" And why "back" to modalism?

"Back" in terms of the thread, not necessarily your position.

I've never asserted that the One God manifests in different forms. There are three Persons, and each one is fully God. Together, all are God. I don't see why you have a problem with that, unless you're just yanking my chain, in which case, I have no more time for you.

I'm trying to see how trinitarianism doesn't contradict itself. So far, you've been no help.

When you say "each one is fully God," I take this to mean that each one fully qualifies as a god in its own right. That means 3 gods, not 1, but then you say "together, all are God," which implies 1 god, not 3.

Only if you're using dualist thinking. I don't think this is a dualist issue.

What do you mean by "dualist thinking?"

 

[coconut theology]

Godhead? I thought we were talking about the Trinity.

I was showing the error of (Roman Catholicism's dogmatically defined) "trinity" and contrasting it to what scripture does teach.

 

[metis]

I was showing the error of (Roman Catholicism's dogmatically defined) "trinity" and contrasting it to what scripture does teach.

Most Protestant denominations also believe in the Trinity, such as the one I used to belong up until the 1970's.

Also, in order to better understand the Trinitarian concept, it is important to understand the use of "essence" in that context. If one doesn't, then it is of no wonder they would have a problem with it theologically.

 

[sojourner]

"Back" in terms of the thread, not necessarily your position.

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm trying to see how trinitarianism doesn't contradict itself. So far, you've been no help.

I'm not sure I can be. I think part of the problem is that we've been conditioned to think of "God" as a particular being. We might do better to think of God in broader terms than those of particularity.

When you say "each one is fully God," I take this to mean that each one fully qualifies as a god in its own right. That means 3 gods, not 1, but then you say "together, all are God," which implies 1 god, not 3.

See above. You've used the article "a" -- each one qualifies as a god... And yes, that would mean 3 gods. But if you don't treat the concept of God as a particularity, but rather as a broader concept, 3 persons can easily be incorporated into the God concept. The concept of "one" God also contributes to this particularity. I'm not so sure that the Shema -- "Hear, O Israel, our Lord is One" means particularity so much as it means unity. Do you see what I mean? Perhaps not. But "one" as in particularity (as opposed to the gods of other people) would certainly make it more difficult to think of God in any larger terms.

I think that's what the emerging Trinity concept did -- it indicates that we were beginning to think of God in larger terms, other than the tribal mountain God of the Pentateuch. God isn't just "a" God, rather, God is broader than just that. God means the Father of Judaism, but God also means the Savior, and God also means the H.S.

What do you mean by "dualist thinking?"

Either/or. it must either this or that. Why can't it be both/and? Why can't God be both One God and God in three Persons?

 

[sojourner]

I was showing the error of (Roman Catholicism's dogmatically defined) "trinity" and contrasting it to what scripture does teach.

I don't believe the doctrine is in error.