Why I Am a Trinitarian: Part One

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
9,387
4,501
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
“For, Jesus is not a human person; he is a divine Person who has taken himself a human nature.”

(Fr. Kenneth Baker, quoted by Deacon Steven D. Greydanus, “Is Jesus a Human Person?”, National Catholic Register)

Is Jesus a Human Person?

Bold is mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: APAK

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
1,137
525
113
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thanks. Have you ever Googled “Jesus is not a human person”?

I just did; thanks for sharing. And what I see is completely out of the main stream, if you ask me.

We have here yet another example of what I call "casualty of the internet." This twist of orthodoxy is completely dependent on the internet to attract adherents. Forty years ago when books and periodicals were published on paper rather than bits and bytes, such musings could never gain traction, because true scholarship and peer-review were insisted on by publishers whose profit motive and reputations required that vetting first. Now, it is all to easy for anyone to post anything, and instantly get thousands of viewers through a dozen search engines . . .

The idealist in me likes to think that in the free marketplace of ideas made possible by the internet, cream will always rise to the top. The realist in me understands that there is no guarantee of this, and delusions can gain footholds. (The Proud Boys and the Oath Takers are still worshiping Trump, right?)
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
9,387
4,501
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I just did; thanks for sharing. And what I see is completely out of the main stream, if you ask me.

We have here yet another example of what I call "casualty of the internet." This twist of orthodoxy is completely dependent on the internet to attract adherents. Forty years ago when books and periodicals were published on paper rather than bits and bytes, such musings could never gain traction, because true scholarship and peer-review were insisted on by publishers whose profit motive and reputations required that vetting first. Now, it is all to easy for anyone to post anything, and instantly get thousands of viewers through a dozen search engines . . .

The idealist in me likes to think that in the free marketplace of ideas made possible by the internet, cream will always rise to the top. The realist in me understands that there is no guarantee of this, and delusions can gain footholds. (The Proud Boys and the Oath Takers are still worshiping Trump, right?)

I quote from the Internet whenever possible because it’s easy to provide links for people to follow and read it for themselves. I also quote from trinitarian books which don’t have internet links but I’ve found that most people don’t have the books and have little to no interest in obtaining access to them.

The logic behind the historical orthodox trinitarian teaching is simple enough - Jesus is only one person, a divine person. If Jesus is also a human person then Jesus would be two persons.

The second person of the Trinity, a divine person, took upon himself impersonal human nature at the Incarnation. Trinitarianism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: APAK

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
1,137
525
113
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I quote from the Internet whenever possible because it’s easy to provide links for people to follow and read it for themselves. I also quote from trinitarian books which don’t have internet links but I’ve found that most people don’t have the books and have little to no interest in obtaining access to them.

The logic behind the historical orthodox trinitarian teaching is simple enough - Jesus is only one person, a divine person. If Jesus is also a human person then Jesus would be two persons.

The second person of the Trinity, a divine person, took upon himself impersonal human nature at the Incarnation. Trinitarianism.

Ah, the multiple person bugaboo! Putting the irony aside (God can be three persons, but the Son cannot be two!), we may be quibbling over nothing more than the definition of personhood here. If not -- if our issue really boils down to choosing between prosopic union and hypostatic union as our guiding principle -- this discussion is going to take far longer than I have time to devote!

By the way, I'm fine with you quoting trinitarian books that are reproduced on the internet, and from trintiarian books that aren't (I've got a decent collection, and who knows, I might just have it on my shelf). And I've got a subscription to JSTOR, so I can check any periodicals you want to cite pretty easily. So feel free to hit me up with anything.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
9,387
4,501
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Ah, the multiple person bugaboo! Putting the irony aside (God can be three persons, but the Son cannot be two!), we may be quibbling over nothing more than the definition of personhood here. If not -- if our issue really boils down to choosing between prosopic union and hypostatic union as our guiding principle -- this discussion is going to take far longer than I have time to devote!

There is no “multiple person bugaboo”. Jesus is only one person.

By the way, I'm fine with you quoting trinitarian books that are reproduced on the internet, and from trintiarian books that aren't (I've got a decent collection, and who knows, I might just have it on my shelf). And I've got a subscription to JSTOR, so I can check any periodicals you want to cite pretty easily. So feel free to hit me up with anything.
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
1,137
525
113
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is no “multiple person bugaboo”. Jesus is only one person.

The "bugaboo" is the concern that that one person might need to sacrifice his singularity if viewed simultaneously as both a human person and a divine one.

I am not claiming that Jesus Christ is two "persons" (although I am claiming that he has two "natures"). I am saying that we don't need to think of the human "person" of the Incarnate Son as subsumed into the divine person of the pre-existent/eternal Son in order to make sense out of the Incarnation (or out of the Trinity).

But we may need to retreat from using "person" as the right word to describe this notion -- something I've said on this post and its companion Part Two post several times now.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
9,387
4,501
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
The "bugaboo" is the concern that that one person might need to sacrifice his singularity if viewed simultaneously as both a human person and a divine one.

I am not claiming that Jesus Christ is two "persons" (although I am claiming that he has two "natures"). I am saying that we don't need to think of the human "person" of the Incarnate Son as subsumed into the divine person of the pre-existent/eternal Son in order to make sense out of the Incarnation (or out of the Trinity).

But we may need to retreat from using "person" as the right word to describe this notion -- something I've said on this post and its companion Part Two post several times now.

Retreating from using “person” involves retreating from historical orthodox trinitarianism. I’m all for that. Are trinitarians?

The trinitarian clergy? Not the hundreds whom I’ve spoken with.

The trinitarian theologians? Some few are, but they are a distinct minority and face fierce opposition from fellow trinitarian theologians when they express it.

The trinitarian scholars? See my comment on trinitarian theologians.

The average trinitarian sitting in the pew week by week, year by year, decade by decade?

The cavalcade of trinitarians posting on Internet forums?

I know you’re not claiming that Jesus is two persons. I’m sure you’re aware that neither I nor trinitarianism claim that Jesus is two persons. None of the trinitarians I’ve quoted, or will ever quote, claim that Jesus is two persons.

I think you’ve accurately identified the historical cause of the problem - Greek philosophy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedFan

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
9,387
4,501
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
“… it’s own conception of the Trinity was looked upon by the Fathers themselves as a combination of Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism, except that to them this combination was a good combination; in fact, it was to them an ideal combination of what is best in Jewish monotheism and of what is best in pagan polytheism, and consequently they gloried in it and pointed to it as evidence of the truth of their belief. We have on this the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa - one of the great figures in the history of the philosophic formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity - and his words are repeated by John of Damascus - the last of the Church Fathers.

The Christian conception of God, argues Gregory of Nyssa, is neither the polytheism of the Greeks nor the monotheism of the Jews and consequently it must be true, for ’the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.’”

(Henry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 362-363, Second Edition, Revised)

@RedFan do you agree with Gregory of Nyssa?

*

The conception, the heresy of, polytheism, indeed.

The conception, the heresy of, Jewish monotheism, wowzer!

Trinitarianism isn’t the original Christian conception of God.

Jewish monotheism is the original Christian conception of God.
 
Last edited:

Wrangler

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2021
13,352
4,989
113
55
Shining City on a Hill
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
we may be quibbling over nothing more than the definition of personhood here.
Quibbling?! The man-is-god thesis goes back to The Original Sin. Eve and Adam, humans, sought to make themselves god. The same of trinitarians. They seek to make a man Jesus.

Inherent in trinitarianism is contradiction upon contradiction.

God can be three persons, but the Son cannot be two!

No. Neither can be AND definitions, logic, language usage and Scripture to hold.

There are 2 species of life in question, man and god. They are mutually exclusive species, by definition. One is mortal. The other is NOT mortal.

Parsing synonyms also cannot be; Being and person. God is called the Supreme Being, meaning he is like other Beings in some way. Our species is called Human Beings (not human persons). A synonym for these other Beings besides God is people, in the collective, and person in the singular.

Numbers is a real problem for trinitarianism. Not only do they hold 3 is 1 but 2 is 1 also and 1 is 1. God is a 3-person being but one of these persons is 2 persons. If you are counting correctly, this makes trinitarianism is 4-person Being.

EQUALITY: The nonsense of equality means whatever you want continues. While God and his Holy Spirit did not die, the man Jesus did. While Jesus is said to be 2 persons or a Being with 2 natures, God and his Holy Spirit only have 1 nature. Equal means being equal in all ways not 1 way.

I do love the Appeal to Ignorance trinitarians throw in about now. The human mind is too small to understand it. No. Nonsense is not understandable. Big difference.
 

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
9,387
4,501
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
The contradictory twists of this doctrine make me wonder how in the world could a modern, educated person who grasps reading comprehension embrace it.

I’m a modern, educated person who grasps reading comprehension. I formerly, and sincerely, embraced the doctrine.

“This is my beloved son, my chosen one: listen to him.”

(Luke 9:35, NTE)

What follows is a reflection on my own personal experience. I speak here only for myself.

Reading comprehension wasn’t my problem; listening was.

Jesus doesn’t sound like a trinitarian when I truly listen to him.

Trinitarianism doesn’t sound like Jesus when I truly listen to it.

Only after I began to truly listen to both did I become aware that there is a difference and, having become aware of it, I had to decide what to do about it.

I’m sure you’ve heard me recommend reading scripture, trinitarian commentary and Church history. (Many non-trinitarians have expressed their consternation over it.) Doing so helped me to see that there is a difference. I believe doing so can help others see the difference too.

Having seen that there is a difference is one thing. Deciding what to do in response to it is another. My response was to abandon trinitarianism, not Christianity. (That’s incomprehensible to the majority of trinitarians as they commonly believe “trinitarianism” and “Christianity” are synonymous terms.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr E

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
9,387
4,501
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
… why I think they got it right.

That’s what it boils down to, and that’s the main (not the only) reason you have my attention.

You think they got it right and you’re trying to explain to your readers why you think they did. I appreciate that.

I think they got it wrong; the Church gradually and inexorably jumped the rails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr E

Matthias

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2022
9,387
4,501
113
Kentucky
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
“The Biblical witness to God, as we have seen, did not contain any formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, any explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. Rather it contained data from which a doctrine of this kind could be formulated. And it would take three centuries of gradual assimilation of the Biblical witness to God before the formulation of the dogma of one God in three distinct persons would be achieved.”

(Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, Part Two introduction)

The history of the post-biblical development / formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is very well documented in Church history. That’s not an issue at all for me; it’s simply indisputable.

The issue of interest is the question asked by Dr. Harold O.J. Brown and author of Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church.

”Was the transition from the personal monotheism of Israel to the tri-personal theism of Nicaea a legitimate development of Old Testament revelation?”

This is disputable. Dr. Brown, as the reader will see, asserts that it was. My position as a Jewish monotheist is that it wasn’t.

“Christians affirm that it is, holding that Nicaea represents a fuller unfolding, not a distortion, of the self-disclosure of the God of Israel. Indeed, the trinitarianism of Nicaea and the Christological definitions of Chalcedon are seen as the valid and necessary interpretation of the claims of Jesus Christ in the context of the Old Testament witness to the God who is One. Without Nicaea and Chalcedon, it would not have been possible to maintain that Christianity is a biblical religion, the legitimate daughter of Old Testament Judaism.“

(Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The Church, p. 431)

I have multiple objections to his argument.
 
Last edited:

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
1,137
525
113
69
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The contradictory twists of this doctrine make me wonder how in the world could a modern, educated person who grasps reading comprehension embrace it.

Well, Wrangler, I guess that makes me uneducated and/or illiterate. All that wasted time and money on two Ivy League degrees . . . Ouch!