Why I Am a Trinitarian: Part One

[Wrangler]

It is my thesis that the early Christian Church DID believe that "God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh" (to quote the Apology of Aristides, circa 125 C.E.).

One of the things that strike me in reading the Bible several times now is how figurative the language is. Abraham having more descendants than grains of sand in the world and if all of Jesus works were written, the world could not contain them all are but 2 examples.

IMO, our dumbed down society is less capable of reading figurative language and demand it be taken as literally true. Some trinitarians claim YHWH in heaven is called the Father but when he comes to Earth in flesh, he is called the Son. This is specious. It is unprecedented language usage that a Being's name changes depending on their location.

In normal language usage, people say things like "Hitler killed 4M Jews" when the truth is he killed no one. The expression is about agency. Scripture is not void of agency but filled with it. Moses parted the Red Sea. Isaiah said "I am the first and last" (or is it alpha and omega?). God is with us or with a character in the Bible is expressed numerous times but only with Jesus is that demanded to mean, contrary to Scripture, God in the flesh.

And when I say contrary to Scripture, I mean to include going beyond the direct and explicit words of the Bible as Mark 7:13 warns.


And so you cancel the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition.
Mark 7:13 NLT

 

[farouk]

I hope, Farouk, that we are discussing the same thing here -- the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit (rather than mere Scriptural references to their existence) and how to square that notion with Jewish monotheism while still retaining separate "personhood" for each.

Trinitarians believe that Jesus Christ was literally God incarnate. But reasonable minds can differ over whether such a notion can be distilled from John 1:14 and other Scriptural passages -- and if you can manage to put confirmation bias aside, I think you will acknowledge these passages as being somewhat ambiguous on the issue. So, what is the right interpretation?

It is my thesis that the early Christian Church DID believe that "God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh" (to quote the Apology of Aristides, circa 125 C.E.). I am focused on the currency of the notion within the early Church as a whole -- a subject which few of us pay enough attention to -- because I think discerning how the early Church understood these passages is an important datum in picking the right interpretation. But a logical defense of the notion still remains to be mounted. And I'm happy to weigh your $0.02 on that subject, unless you just think it is likewise "futile to argue about."

I sense a desire to deny God in three Persons, so I am not going to argue.

 

[Wrangler]

I sense a desire to deny God in three Persons, so I am not going to argue.

What a wonderful addition your contributions are to this thread, which is about making a logical argument. Simply say, there is so much evidence, I'm not going to argue. Brilliant!

 

[RedFan]

I sense a desire to deny God in three Persons, so I am not going to argue.

Please don't presume that. I'm not denying it at all. I simply asked whether and how your observation, from Scripture, of the reality of Father, Son and Holy Spirit ties in to the ultimate question "How are the three persons one God?"

It is likely that we differ on whether "persons" is the right word here, but so be it, we can use the Cappadocian formula "one ousia in three hypostases" if you prefer. Lay it out however you wish, but if you have something to contribute to the ultimate question, please don't deprive us of it. I'm not hung up on semantics.

 

[Matthias]

Has the lack of response from trinitarians surprised you @RedFan?

 

[RedFan]

Has the lack of response from trinitarians surprised you @RedFan?

Maybe a little. There are a billion Trinitarians on the planet, and maybe a hundred of them might have glanced at this OP -- half of whom probably were turned off by its length. I won't assume the remaining fifty to be representative of the billion, of course. But yes, I was hoping for at least one or two Trintarians to take the rationality bull by its logical horns with me. If nobody else besides me wants to try to wrestle this bull to the ground, that's fine.

But without meaning to sound pompous, I think some of them may not have the intellectual strength to take on the task, and really just accept the Trinity because it feels right to them. As Sir Isaac Newton once commented, “It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least.”

 

[Enoch111]

I was hoping for at least one or two Trintarians to take the rationality bull by its logical horns with me

Your fundamental fallacy is the assumption that Gospel truth and Bible truth is based upon "rationality". Everything about Christianity is supernatural and supra-rational. So anyone trying to use rationality to explain God or the Trinity or salvation is basically delusional. Furthermore the natural (or rational) man cannot receive or understand the things of the Spirit. Unless a man is born again he can neither enter nor see the Kingdom of God.

 

[RedFan]

Your fundamental fallacy is the assumption that Gospel truth and Bible truth is based upon "rationality". Everything about Christianity is supernatural and supra-rational. So anyone trying to use rationality to explain God or the Trinity or salvation is basically delusional. Furthermore the natural (or rational) man cannot receive or understand the things of the Spirit. Unless a man is born again he can neither enter nor see the Kingdom of God.

It's actually the opposite assumption that I (and, I think, all intellectually honest Trinitarians) must adopt. The Trinity is a facially irrational concept (as your bolded sentence above perhaps concedes). Therefore, the support that it does find in Scripture (equivocal though it be) means that Gospel truth and Bible truth do not have to be rational, at least as we humans reckon rationality.

But a facially irrational concept will often exhibit rationality once we scratch below the surface. (Einstein's theory of relativity comes to mind here. A century ago scientists weaned on Newtonian physics declared the notion that meter sticks shrink and clocks slow down as they approach the speed of light irrational on its face.) So, I am scratching. If we are to hold to a facially irrational concept like the Trinity, we ought at least try to explain it rationally. For if we simply declare the concept ineffable and beyond the ken of human understanding, we will never convince non-Trinitarians -- who can cite as many Scriptural passages as we can to support their position -- that we are right.

Your "born again" reference will illustrate my point. Nicodemas immediately recognized that entering his mother's womb a second time was irrational. And of course he was right. One must re-define "born again" for it to make sense. But you don't throw up your hands and declare "it's an ineffable concept;" you point to Jesus' redefinition of the concept as being born of water and the Spirit rather than of the flesh. And then it makes sense. In like vein, my OP suggests that we must redefine equivalency and identity when speaking of the Trinity in order to understand it rationally. Please re-read it.

 

[Wrangler]

Your fundamental fallacy is the assumption that Gospel truth and Bible truth is based upon "rationality". Everything about Christianity is supernatural and supra-rational.

To reject this assumption, is to presume God is irrational.

 

[Monte McGuire]

Hab 1:12, says God cannot die. Who died on the cross? God or Jesus? These appear to be mutually exclusive.

 

[RedFan]

Hab 1:12, says God cannot die. Who died on the cross? God or Jesus? These appear to be mutually exclusive.

"Jesus" is the name given to the incarnate Son of God, and upon becoming incarnate he was human. Humans physically die. That particular human we call Jesus Christ physically died on the cross. I certainly agree with you that "God cannot die," but God is not physical (John 4:24), so that proposition shouldn't be surprising. I'm not seeing any mutual exclusivity. Maybe Philippians 2:6-8 will help you here, but I don't think you need those verses to understand the difference between perishable physical nature and imperishable spiritual nature. I don't see what Calvary has to do with the latter.

Do you believe your soul will still exist after your heart stops beating and your lungs stop breathing? If your answer is Yes, then I think you can see for yourself that only Jesus' body died on the cross. Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians alike should agree with that much.

 

[Wrangler]

That particular human we call Jesus Christ physically died on the cross.

This is the biggest logical fallacy trinitarians embrace; that the death of Jesus on the cross does not represent total and complete death in every literal manner, shape and form. If he did not die in the literal sense of the word, his sacrifice was in vain.

There is absolutely nothing in Scripture to suppose Jesus died a metaphorical death.

 

[RedFan]

This is the biggest logical fallacy trinitarians embrace; that the death of Jesus on the cross does not represent total and complete death in every literal manner, shape and form. If he did not die in the literal sense of the word, his sacrifice was in vain.

There is absolutely nothing in Scripture to suppose Jesus died a metaphorical death.

I completely agree.

 

[Monte McGuire]

"God is not physical" (John 4:24)

So why do you think Jesus is God?.... God is not physical, you just said it, mediate on that. Do you believe God sent his Son, like John 3:16 says, or do you think God came himself? I believe what scripture says, he sent his son in every sense of the word.

 

[RedFan]

So why do you think Jesus is God?.... God is not physical, you just said it, mediate on that. Do you believe God sent his Son, like John 3:16 says, or do you think God came himself? I believe what scripture says, he sent his son in every sense of the word.

We agree that God is not physical. But the "person" of the eternally-existent Son, through some process that Paul vaguely thought of as "emptying" himself, did become physical for a little over thirty years some two millennia ago, when taking on flesh and when given to humanity as our Savior.

I would translate ἔδωκεν in John 3:16 as "gave" rather than "sent," but I agree that either way the action necessarily suggests distinctiveness between sender (Father) and sendee (Son). You are right about that. And Trinitarians express this distinctiveness as distinct "person"hood (I will adopt that terminology for present purposes, as a first approximation). But Trinitarians also maintain that it is the non-physical and unique essence/substance/ousia of eternal Father and eternal Son, shared in common, that characterizes the one God. The possibility of such dual nature is the question to be debated, but on both sides of that debate the need for distinctiveness of "persons" is conceded. So in raising your "missive" argument from John 3:16, you affirm what I do not deny.

You "believe what scripture says," and I do as well (although you and I may translate or interpret an occasional passage differently). But my belief in the Trinity is, to a great extent, not premised on scripture, and it may be difficult for the two of us to find common ground if your contrary belief is premised entirely on scripture. I understand your use of John 3:16 for your missive argument, just as I am sure you can appreciate Trinitarians' use of John 1:1 and John 1:14 for their homoousian argument, but in my view neither argument is conclusive. This issue cannot be resolved by amassing Biblical texts on both sides and seeing which way the scale tips. The early church fathers knew this, and they worked out the triune nature of God despite the equivocalness of scripture.

It's late, but tomorrow I will find the time to explain why I think they got it right.

 

[Matthias]

"Jesus" is the name given to the incarnate Son of God, and upon becoming incarnate he was human. Humans physically die. That particular human we call Jesus Christ physically died on the cross. I certainly agree with you that "God cannot die," but God is not physical (John 4:24), so that proposition shouldn't be surprising. I'm not seeing any mutual exclusivity. Maybe Philippians 2:6-8 will help you here, but I don't think you need those verses to understand the difference between perishable physical nature and imperishable spiritual nature. I don't see what Calvary has to do with the latter.

Do you believe your soul will still exist after your heart stops beating and your lungs stop breathing? If your answer is Yes, then I think you can see for yourself that only Jesus' body died on the cross. Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians alike should agree with that much.

You say that “upon becoming incarnate he was human.”

The non-philosophically trained tend to hear this as “upon becoming incarnate he was a human person” - an understanding which historical orthodox trinitarianism adamantly and unequivocally opposes.

In my experience, roughly 8 out of 10 persons who self-identify as trinitarian say they believe “Jesus is a human person.”

What do you say to such persons?

 

[RedFan]

You say that “upon becoming incarnate he was human.”

The non-philosophically trained tend to hear this as “upon becoming incarnate he was a human person” - an understanding which historical orthodox trinitarianism adamantly and unequivocally opposes.

In my experience, roughly 8 out of 10 persons who self-identify as trinitarian say they believe “Jesus is a human person.”

What do you say to such persons?

I say they are correct. Jesus -- a being who had a dual nature, one human and the other divine -- became a human person upon incarnation, and whatever deity he retained upon "emptying himself" (as Paul describes it in Philippians) did not detract from his status as a human being. And all human beings are distinct persons.

If "orthodox trinitarianism adamantly and unequivocally opposes" this view, it is news to me. Eutyches opposed this view, but his brand of Trinitarianism was quashed at Chalcedon in 451, and ever since then the orthodox view -- certainly in the West, and with a few hiccups ultimately in the East -- has been that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. The latter status requires personhood, an attribute of any human being.

The Chalcedon formulation follows:

"Following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer, as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us."

I'm calling this "orhodoxy." If you know differently, please share!

 

[Matthias]

I say they are correct. Jesus -- a being who had a dual nature, one human and the other divine -- became a human person upon incarnation, and whatever deity he retained upon "emptying himself" (as Paul describes it in Philippians) did not detract from his status as a human being. And all human beings are distinct persons.

If "orthodox trinitarianism adamantly and unequivocally opposes" this view, it is news to me. Eutyches opposed this view, but his brand of Trinitarianism was quashed at Chalcedon in 451, and ever since then the orthodox view -- certainly in the West, and with a few hiccups ultimately in the East -- has been that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. The latter status requires personhood, an attribute of any human being.

The Chalcedon formulation follows:

"Following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer, as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us."

I'm calling this "orhodoxy." If you know differently, please share!

Thanks. Have you ever Googled “Jesus is not a human person”?

 

[Matthias]

“There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus is a divine person, and medieval theologians were careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person.”

(William Lane Craig, “Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?)

Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?

Bold is mine.

 

[Matthias]

“The anhypostasia, impersonality, or, to speak more accurately, the enhypostasia, of the human nature of Christ. This is a difficult point, but a necessary link in the orthodox doctrine of the one God-Man; for otherwise we must have two persons in Christ, and, after the incarnation, a fourth person, and that a human, in the divine Trinity.”

(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, §142. The Orthodox Christology - Analysis and Criticism)

HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*