The Trinity

[Judas Maccabeus]

Great topic, Wade.

In our church we have the illustration of St Patrick who used the three lobed clover leaf to explain the concept of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as 3 in 1.

Max, you may need Resuscitation after this.

Actually, the catholic church gave us one of the great statements of what the Trinity is and is not. It is called the Athanasian Creed, and yes, we all know he did not write it, likely his "school" of students, many years later. It can be found here:

https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/c ... sian-creed

It is important to remember, the Trinity is a doctrine of revelation, not a doctrine of reason. We believe this because this is what Jesus taught, this is what the Apostles taught. We do not believe it because it sounds good or makes sense.

To understand how the Trinity works, one would need ability to comprehend the infinite, timeless and immeasurable. We cannot.

J.M.

[MaxPC]

Great topic, Wade.

In our church we have the illustration of St Patrick who used the three lobed clover leaf to explain the concept of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as 3 in 1.

Max, you may need Resuscitation after this.

Actually, the catholic church gave us one of the great statements of what the Trinity is and is not. It is called the Athanasian Creed, and yes, we all know he did not write it, likely his "school" of students, many years later. It can be found here:

https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/c ... sian-creed

It is important to remember, the Trinity is a doctrine of revelation, not a doctrine of reason. We believe this because this is what Jesus taught, this is what the Apostles taught. We do not believe it because it sounds good or makes sense.

To understand how the Trinity works, one would need ability to comprehend the infinite, timeless and immeasurable. We cannot.

J.M.

No resuscitation necessary.

You're right, Judas M: it is indeed a doctrine of revelation (fully revealed truth). Yet the RCC also has scholars such as Pope Emeritus Benedict 16 who set out a case for a doctrine of reason for that faith via Scripture - just as many of you have already done in this thread with your excellent Scripture references. The Scripture points to the existenceof the Trinity; it doesn't mean we'll understand it.

Knowing about it and understanding it are two different mental exercises. Ex: We know about nuclear reactors but few understand fully how they work unless they have a specialized Doctoral degree. None of us have a doctoral degree on the nature of God. That will have to await "revelation".

[MaxPC]

Great topic, Wade.

In our church we have the illustration of St Patrick who used the three lobed clover leaf to explain the concept of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as 3 in 1.

Max, you may need Resuscitation after this.

Actually, the catholic church gave us one of the great statements of what the Trinity is and is not. It is called the Athanasian Creed, and yes, we all know he did not write it, likely his "school" of students, many years later. It can be found here:

https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/c ... sian-creed

It is important to remember, the Trinity is a doctrine of revelation, not a doctrine of reason. We believe this because this is what Jesus taught, this is what the Apostles taught. We do not believe it because it sounds good or makes sense.

To understand how the Trinity works, one would need ability to comprehend the infinite, timeless and immeasurable. We cannot.

J.M.

No resuscitation necessary.

You're right, Judas M: it is indeed a doctrine of revelation (fully revealed truth). The RCC has scholars such as Pope Emeritus Benedict 16 who set out a case for a doctrine of reason for that faith via Scripture - just as many of you have already done in this thread with your excellent Scripture references. The Scripture points to the existence of the Trinity; it doesn't mean we'll understand it.

Knowing about it and understanding it are two different mental exercises. Ex: We know about nuclear reactors but few understand fully how they work unless they have a specialized Doctoral degree. None of us have a doctoral degree on the full and complete nature of God. That will have to await "revelation".

[gcdonner]

When I first started reading scripture I was quite confused. People would always point to the book of John (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.) and when someone has no previous learning of scripture it couldn't have been more confusing for me...????
Please point newcomers to the book of Matthew!

But I think people point to the book of John to show the deity of Christ. Comparing these verses with beginning verses in Genesis and Colossians gives a strong impression of that oneness with God and the Son and certainly the deity of Christ

So where does the Spirit fit in? As I said earlier He is still the Father.

I do believe that we can misconstrue our understanding of how to understand being one with Him if we aren't careful and confuse the whole matter.

So far by simple looking at scripture and nothing complex we see the Son and God are certainly one but so is God and the Spirit.
So how do we not accept the oneness of the three without taking away from the scriptures rather than adding anything to it?

Sounds like we need to go back to the thread on "Who is God?"
Would you agree with the Nicene Creed?

I went back and read the entire "Who is God," thread. The things you point out about His name YHWH, Jevovah, etc. and the different LORD, Lord, and lords in scripture I have been aware of for a bit now. But some how the approach goes right over my head of what you are trying to portray...

I don't mean to disagree but rather I want to hear about this as my understanding isn't settled completely - I don't want to imply I will ever have a full understanding ever with my finite mind, but am curious to hear more especially from some conservative Anabaptist's too.

You are wondering about my view of the Name of God or of the trinity doctrine?
The name of God (YHWH or Jehovah in English) is clearly defined in scripture, but the doctrine of the trinity is not, especially since the term is missing in scripture.
Sometimes the terms can be more confusing than helpful in a discussion of trinity doctrine. Suffice it to say that the discussions and arguments, anathemas, and condemnations of fellow believers over this issue carried on for hundreds of years, which in itself demonstrates that it is not as "clear cut" as some proponents would have us to believe.

[temporal1]

Wade:
.. I don't mean to disagree but rather I want to hear about this as my understanding isn't settled completely - I don't want to imply I will ever have a full understanding ever with my finite mind, but am curious to hear more especially from some conservative Anabaptist's too.

You are wondering about my view of the Name of God or of the trinity doctrine?
The name of God (YHWH or Jehovah in English) is clearly defined in scripture, but the doctrine of the trinity is not, especially since the term is missing in scripture.

Sometimes the terms can be more confusing than helpful in a discussion of trinity doctrine.
Suffice it to say that the discussions and arguments, anathemas, and condemnations of fellow believers over this issue carried on for hundreds of years, which in itself demonstrates that it is not as "clear cut" as some proponents would have us to believe.

i think i'm with Wade here.

... the English language only confuses people who try too hard to understand it...
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=172&start=30

and with george here.
i believe confusion can last hundreds of years, certainly!

i have tried to imagine if the word, "trinity" simply vaporized, would anything be changed?
specifically, would scriptures be changed? i think "no."

so, i think (dangerous habit!) .. this word neither adds-to, nor detracts-from God's Word.
it's just a word that means: 3. i'm ok with that.

could this be a case of over-thinking?

i appreciate Judas M's link to the beautiful Athanasian Creed.
it enhances understanding, through revelation. i appreciate what he is saying about the revealed Word. and our human inability to comprehend the infinite (and much less than the infinite!)

again, if it did not exist, it would not add-to or detract-from God's Word.

my 2 cents. not expected to get anyone very far for very long.

[Ernie]

I like some of the early church concepts of the Godhead.

They saw Jesus as proceeding from the Father, similar to the way sunbeams proceed from the sun, or the way a stream proceeds from a spring. For as long as there has been one, there has been the other.

This view lines up the most closely with what I read in the New Testament. (Shouldn't be surprising since many in the early church was not comfortable making up their own theories, and instead tried to stick closely to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.)

[temporal1]

a father could say, "i have three sons, Allen, Henry, and Murphy."
he could also say, "i have triplets."
likewise, "i have triplet sons, named, Allen, Henry, and Murphy."

if the word, "triplet" disappeared, this father would still have three sons, unchanged.

[temporal1]

I like some of the early church concepts of the Godhead.

They saw Jesus as proceeding from the Father, similar to the way sunbeams proceed from the sun, or the way a stream proceeds from a spring. For as long as there has been one, there has been the other.

This view lines up the most closely with what I read in the New Testament. (Shouldn't be surprising since many in the early church was not comfortable making up their own theories, and instead tried to stick closely to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.)

Jesus introduced/revealed the existence of the Holy Spirit, first, when He lived on earth, then recorded in the NT.

He did not suggest it was a newly-created entity, but, certainly, newly-revealed Truth to us, on earth.

again, like Wade, i'm wondering/asking, not attempting to state fact, or conclude.

[gcdonner]

I like some of the early church concepts of the Godhead.

They saw Jesus as proceeding from the Father, similar to the way sunbeams proceed from the sun, or the way a stream proceeds from a spring. For as long as there has been one, there has been the other.

This view lines up the most closely with what I read in the New Testament. (Shouldn't be surprising since many in the early church was not comfortable making up their own theories, and instead tried to stick closely to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.)

They are both Divine, have the same attributes, but the sunbeam is NOT the Father, but as Paul said a representation of the Father and the Holy Spirit is the warmth that proceeds from both, still Divine, of the same essence, but neither the former or the latter.
I like that Ernie, thanks.

[Josh]

My experience around non-Trinitarian people (Oneness Pentecostals) is that they are indistinguishable from Trinitarians in terms of how they feel about and follow Jesus. I think seeing how people live their lives is a good test of how important a certain theology is; my conclusion is that orthodox Trinitarianism just isn't that important.

My experience around Church of God of Abrahamic Faith-esque people and Christadelphians is that even one's christology is not overwhelmingly important provided one chooses to follow Jesus and act as though you believe he is the son of God - but I also see great danger to go down the path of eventually not believing Jesus is anything more than a prophet, then just a historical figure, then not believing in God at all. But those two groups haven't done that.

My personal feeling is that the opinions around this aren't particularly important. Menno Simons had fringe beliefs about christology, but since he kept on returning to plain reading of scripture, it didn't make much day to day difference. I would put all of this things in the same category as eschatology - there is room for differences of opinion. But in my own life I don't plan to hold to so many fringe beliefs that I can't fellowship with any church anymore.