It's Futile to Argue The Trinity

[Webers_Home]

-
During a scene in the movie "A Beautiful Mind" Jennifer Connelly's character
Alicia Larde asks Russell Crowe's character John Nash: How big is the
universe?

He answers: Infinite.
Then she asks: How do you know?
He answers: I know because all the data indicate it.
Then she replies: But it hasn't been proven yet?
He says: No.
Then she says: You haven't seen it. How do you know for sure?
He replies: I don't. I just believe it.
Then she replies: Mmmm. It's the same with love, I guess.

The so-called Trinity is like that. Though no one can prove it beyond question:
all the data indicate it.

I watched an educational series on NetFlix in September of 2014 called "The
Inexplicable Universe: Unsolved Mysteries" hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson
Ph.D. director of the Hayden Planetarium. Mr. Tyson said, in so many words;
that in the study of physics, one must sometimes abandon sense and accept
discoveries as they are no matter how contrary to logic they may seem.

The NASA teams that sent Pioneers, Voyagers and Mariners out to explore
the solar system came to the very same conclusion: they learned to
abandon their logical expectations and instead expect the unexpected; and
they encountered plenty.

In the field of Christianity, as in the fields of physics and planetary
exploration, faith believes what's revealed to it rather than only what makes
sense to it. I readily admit that the idea of someone existing as a superior
form of life and as an inferior form of life simultaneously, and as a spirit
form of life and as a physical form of life simultaneously; makes no sense
whatsoever. But just as science admits to many unsolved mysteries; so does
Christianity. And there's no shame in that. The shame is in pretending to
have complete understanding of a supernatural religion that by its very
nature defies reason and common sense.

===========================================

 

[sjmopas]

Webers_home

Although I believe that the topic "Who is God?" is important to study; ultimately God is beyond human comprehension, and language, to fully describe. Not only do we have limitations on understanding what God reveals, due to sin, but we only have a certain number of words to describe specific things. I think this is what you are alluding to in your post.

I am not a trinitarian, but I do believe in a Father, a Son, and the Holy spirit. There's no other way to say it. I sat in a meeting where there was this group of people who were getting bent out of shape because the presenter sounded like he was presenting a trinitarian view. What's interesting is that there was another group that was applauding him for what they thought was a presentation supporting a binitarian view. I think the guy was actually unitarian.

Although there are many passages in the gospels, and Acts that lean towards the idea of the Holy Spirit having a personality; it is still significant that the Holy Spirit is not worshiped anywhere in Scripture. If the Holy Spirit is a 3rd person in the trinity, I think we would have at least a few passages or verses that speak to God's worshipers worshiping the Holy Spirit. Scripture is full of the worship of the Father and Son, but it is silent about the worship of the Holy Spirit, either through prayer or praise.

As I said earlier, I believe that God the Father is Spitit, and that God the Son is both Spirit. I believe to say God is to speak to both the Father and the Son, and to say, "Holy Spirit" is to do the same. I believe that God is One, yet we use words that sometimes leads sceptics to think we are saying that we have two Gods, sometimes three. Add to that all the biterness we, as Christians, have held towards one another becuase we don't see everything alike. We forget that we are all at different places in our individual walk with the Lord, and there are some issues He will lead some to study their whole lives, and others He will lead to focus on other issues. This is one of the beautiful things I see in the diversity within the body. If we could apply this cross denominationally, that would be awesome.

I really appreciate your post.

blessings to you.

 

[Wormwood]

In the field of Christianity, as in the fields of physics and planetary
exploration, faith believes what's revealed to it rather than only what makes
sense to it. I readily admit that the idea of someone existing as a superior
form of life and as an inferior form of life simultaneously, and as a spirit
form of life and as a physical form of life simultaneously; makes no sense
whatsoever.

Weber's, I agree that the Trinity is complex and beyond understanding for sure. However, the quote above seems to miss the fact that God is three distinct persons with one essence. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that God can be both spirit and flesh, and take a superior and inferior role if they are distinct persons with one nature. The above only seems to not make sense if one is a Modalist and sees God as one person trying to wear all these different hats.

sjmopas,

Why do we have to have a Scripture that shows people worshipping the Holy Spirit in order to prove He is both a person and God? The Bible specifically declares the Holy Spirit to be both a person and God...so to me it seems that mandating a text where the Holy Spirit is worshipped seems to be a very arbitrary demand in order to prove what the Bible specifically declares.

 

[sjmopas]

Wormwood,

I see what you are saying. I will try to rephrase my thought.

Perhaps it is the fact that I have experienced animosity because I am not a trinitarian, as if I am not a "true" believer. Nowhere does scripture tell me that I have to believe in the personhood of the Holy Spirit to be saved, or to truly worship God. I can't say that the HS is absolutely not a person, but neither can I say that the HS absolutely is. What I can say is that scripture leaves the totality of the personhood of God a mystery. I believe that the HS is the power and presence of God in my life, is Jesus in me, is the Father in me. How that works out in personhood, is beyond me to explain absolutely. I can say, that God loves us whether we have a perfect understanding or not, and that we will not all come to the same conclusions until Christ's 2nd coming. If we are truly following Christ all the differnces we may have will not hinder our ability to carry out the mission, and will in no way hinder anyone's entrance into the eternal Kingdom. In some areas we will discover we were right, and in other areas we will discover we were wrong, but ?I don't think it will really matter at that point.

The verses that you believe declare the HS to be both a person and God, I may understand differently. That is why I am still open to learning other interpretations, but I don't swicth to new mindsets easily, it takes a lot of prayer, study, and a clear presentation.

My intention is to point out that the differences of opinion are nothing to divide and fight over.

Now if someone says that Jesus and the devil are brothers and that they are both Sons of God, therefore the devil is a fourth person in the godhead, and should be worshipped (there are people who believe this), then I would say we are not part of the same fellowship, and are not worshiping the same God.

I hope I answered your question. I keep telling my self, "KISS!" =)

 

[Wormwood]

sj,

I understand. This issue has obviously been a difficult one throughout church history. I think people are on high alert on this topic because there are some pretty unfortunate consequences theologically throughout history for people who deviated from what the church determined to be the orthodox view. Now obviously, some views pose more problems than others and its not all neatly spelled out in the Bible. I agree we need to approach one another in love and grace on these issues. However, these are very important issues and brilliant people in the church wrestled deeply with them because they understood that they impact our understanding of the nature of God and the person of Christ. Moreover, they felt the Scriptures were most clearly understood from the Triune understanding of God.

So while I agree that they are differences of opinion that we should be gracious about, I would disagree with the idea that they "nothing" and are unworthy of contending over. The person and nature of God are core ideas that have far-reaching implications about how we understand God as well as how we read the Scriptures. I think this is why early Christians were determined to spend long hours wrestling over these issues.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
†. Gen 1:1 . . In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

One need not begin with the idea that the Scripture is the infallible, and
inerrant source of revelation in order to easily, and clearly, see for
themselves that the Bible says God created the heavens and the earth
because the language and grammar of Gen 1:1 is on a very elementary
level.

Now the problem is with the Trinity: there is no easy, clear, elementary
language and grammar saying such a thing in the Bible. Hence both sides of
the aisle-- among those who can reason and have the ability to read --can make
just as strong a case for the pros as well as for the cons; viz: the pros begin
with the premise that there is a Trinity and then dig up verses to that seem
to support their premise. Meanwhile, the cons are doing the very same
thing; with an equal amount of success.

There is a commandment that moderates Trinity disputes that goes like this:

†. Rom 14:1 . . Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment
on disputable matters.

Without question, the Trinity qualifies as a disputable matter. Now of course
everybody always thinks the other guy's faith is the weak faith and theirs
the strong, Since that's the case I think it's fair to assume that both guys'
faith is weak because both are disobeying Rom 14:1 by embroiling
themselves in a disputable matter.

†. Rom 14:5 . . Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

FYI: non Christians are of course under no obligation to comply with either
Rom 14:1 or Rom 14:5 so my advice is to give them a wide berth seeing as
how they love nothing better than a perpetual bull session that never gets
to the bottom of anything.

=========================================

 

[Wormwood]

Webers,

I assure you that the church has not strongly argued and defended the position for thousands of years because they started with the premise and sought to find verses to support it.

 

[sjmopas]

Wormwood,

I didn't intend to give off the impression that they are not worthy of wrestling over. Along with the wrestling, we need to understand that we are not wrestling each other. Unfortunately, and I've been guilty of this, sometimes we are more concerned about being right, and getting someone to say, "You're right, I'm wrong, I need to change. Thank you for being the best all knowing person in my life. I'll go and live out my personal relationship with Christ by your dictates now". When we wrestle with these motivations, even though we may speak the truth and be right, we are wrong, we lose out.

 

[Enquirer]

Weber's, I agree that the Trinity is complex and beyond understanding for sure. However, the quote above seems to miss the fact that God is three distinct persons with one essence. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that God can be both spirit and flesh, and take a superior and inferior role if they are distinct persons with one nature. The above only seems to not make sense if one is a Modalist and sees God as one person trying to wear all these different hats.

sjmopas,

Why do we have to have a Scripture that shows people worshipping the Holy Spirit in order to prove He is both a person and God? The Bible specifically declares the Holy Spirit to be both a person and God...so to me it seems that mandating a text where the Holy Spirit is worshipped seems to be a very arbitrary demand in order to prove what the Bible specifically declares.

I couldn't have said it better ... short, sweet, simple and truthful... good response.

 

[Questor]

In the field of Christianity, as in the fields of physics and planetary
exploration, faith believes what's revealed to it rather than only what makes
sense to it. I readily admit that the idea of someone existing as a superior
form of life and as an inferior form of life simultaneously, and as a spirit
form of life and as a physical form of life simultaneously; makes no sense
whatsoever. But just as science admits to many unsolved mysteries; so does
Christianity. And there's no shame in that. The shame is in pretending to
have complete understanding of a supernatural religion that by its very
nature defies reason and common sense.

===========================================

Many cannot visualize paradoxes...the Physics people use Schrödinger's cat as an example of being and not being at one and the same time, yet it hardly encompasses the idea of a G-d so massive that this magnificent universe of ours is inside of Him, and outside of Him at one and the same time. Every dimension added by G-d creates yet another 'place' that G-d can be at one and the same time. Once adding in the dimension of time, there is no limit to how many places Abba can be at once, nor, because of His massive energy production, no limit to where, and in what form G-d can choose to be in, presuming He even wants a form.

With Yeshua, there was a need for G-d to send a part of Himself into human form to be the 2nd Adam in order for Yeshua to live and die a Human existence, and thus be our Kinsman Redeemer. The Ruach haKodesh has always been a part of Himself that Abba uses to both connect Him with people on an intimate spiritual level, and also to empower, and even use a willing human to affect our universe. I wouldn't tell the Ruach He is not a person...He'd laugh in my face! Yet do I envision Him as a 'man' kind of person? No, I tend to see Him as innumerable silver strands coming from the Father into the universe to connect with us.

YHVH is echad, but YHVH can be all places in all forms all the time, because He is a plural unity of His Self. I, not being the interfering type, tend to allow G-d to do and be whatever He wants to do or be...He's GOD!

The difficulty of the matter for the early Church was that it is very hard to explain concepts that many physicists can't wrap their head around, much less explain!

It has taken me a great many years to even be able to see in my mind any real separation between YHVH and Yeshua...to me they are so spiritually blended as one Being that seeing Yeshua in human form in my mind's eye is difficult except for the short period of time Yeshua spent on earth, and yet, I know that they can be both together, and apart, and in different forms at the same time. And the Ruach...I assume, being G-d, that the Holy Spirit is a person, and speak of Him as He, rather than 'it', which sounds contemptuous. Again, though I can see the Pneuma/Nephesh as being G-d's breath reaching from outside our universe into our universe for the purpose of counsel, comfort, indwelling and empowerment.

Do either Yeshua or the Ruach actually separate from one another, or G-d? I can't see it. Even when Yeshua was bearing the crushing weight of all our sin, and felt abandoned by Abba to the point of quoting Psalm 22 He was not separated from YHVH.

At about three, Yeshua uttered a loud cry, “Eli! Eli! L’mah sh’vaktani? (My God! My God! Why have you deserted me?)”.
Yeshua was not ever abandoned by or disconnected from G-d...even as we are not, no matter what pit we fall into. Yeshua remained connected in a Spiritual sense while His body was dead for three days, or He would not have been able to raise Himself. Yeshua didn't even ascend to the Father in the interim, but went to announce His victory over sin and death to the demons in the pit, and perhaps even to those that are dead, and waiting for the resurrection,

Technically, I am not Trinitarian in my viewpoint, as in three separate G-ds, but I don't think even the Catholic or Eastern Churches really saw them as three separate and Equal gods...just three manifestations of the same, eternal G-d. I could be wrong...I constantly discuss the matter with Abba, Yeshua and the Holy Spirit at differing times, and get the same answer...Echad.

But if the 'Church' wanted a specific explanation taught, I might think them very controlling, but not necessarily wrong, because none of us knows exactly how YHVH chooses to disport Himself in and out of the universe...only that He does. I could disagree with them, as well, on how they describe G-d officially, but such conversations simply ruin the peace between people. Either way, would I need to dispute it with them?

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,

I didn't intend to give off the impression that they are not worthy of wrestling over. Along with the wrestling, we need to understand that we are not wrestling each other. Unfortunately, and I've been guilty of this, sometimes we are more concerned about being right, and getting someone to say, "You're right, I'm wrong, I need to change. Thank you for being the best all knowing person in my life. I'll go and live out my personal relationship with Christ by your dictates now". When we wrestle with these motivations, even though we may speak the truth and be right, we are wrong, we lose out.

I understand, sj. I am not trying to be contentious. I am simply saying that the church, throughout history, has seen this as a major issue. I think there are good reasons for this. So, this isn't just about one of us being right and one being wrong. It is about an issue that the church formally wrestled with for thousands of years and saw it as a important issue for determining Christian orthodoxy.

 

[sjmopas]

Wormwood,

No worries, I din't feel like you were being contentious. I hope I am not coming across as if I am trying to establish the way I see things as "the way" things have to be seen.

I think there are a lot of important issues, like salvation through Christ alone, where there is no room for differences of opinion. At the same time I think there are important issues that the church will struggle with coming to a universal agreement about how some doctrines will be taught until Christ returns; thus denominations. I'm also sure that there is some brother or sister who may disagree with everything I've just written. And I will still love and serve them; and not question their salvation.

 

[aspen]

This is an interesting thread. I believe in the construct of the Trinity because I have no other way to explain my belief in Monotheism and the divinity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the HS. I think it will be interesting to hear what God believes about Himself. In my case I think of God as three - the Mind, the Heart and the Spirit, however I totally see the incompleteness of this line of thinking. I have also pondered the Trinity as our perception of One God in motion - we view His complete nature as three - sort of like we view our reality, dualistically.

Guess we will find out someday.

 

[Wormwood]

I would encourage everyone to read Richard Hays new book, "Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness." It deals powerfully with how the Gospel's address the person of Christ from a literary perspective. It specifically looks at how Christ is perceived from the authors allusions to the OT. Very insightful.