The Trinity

[appleman2006]

Back in 2001 and than again in 2005 I was asked to teach a 3 week course on the Trinity. Needless to say it forced me to do far more studying on the subject than I had done up to that time. I still do not claim to be an expert on the subject, not even close, but here are a few thoughts from some of my memories of doing that study.
I remember wondering what all the fuss was about that has caused so much disunity down through the ages. Other than the obvious fallacies of not seeing Christ as Devine and such, I saw many of the slightly different beliefs as being semantic at the most in their differences and usually simply the human's attempt at trying to define someone who is not definable based on our present limited knowledge of God. Each attempt is not perfect but I believe is as good as we are going to get this side of eternity. God simply cannot be understood in the fullest sense now.
Having said that, the study did bring a greater appreciation for me of the amazing nature of God, the all knowing, all powerfulness of the Father, the loving sacrificial work of the Son and the incredible caring and guidance of the Spirit all produced in a unity and oneness that add to and compliment, is awe-inspiring for me.
I so well remember Dennis Martin telling me as I went into this study that if this study of God does not get me fired up than obviously my wood is wet. And after doing the study I tend to concur.
Folks, we can argue for ages (almost 2000 to be exact) as to the exact nature of the Trinity or whether we should even use that word. I would instead urge you to simply spend that time and energy to get to know God better. Of course we cannot fully know now but there is no sense in not attempting at getting a head start.
Well over 30 years ago I recall the very first chapel of one of my terms at Bible School starting out with this plea from the principal that year, John Coblentz. He stated to each of us young students something I will never forget. I can still hear his earnest voice saying. "I would have you know God".
That is my prayer for all of us. I am still working on it.

[gcdonner]

Back in 2001 and than again in 2005 I was asked to teach a 3 week course on the Trinity. Needless to say it forced me to do far more studying on the subject than I had done up to that time. I still do not claim to be an expert on the subject, not even close, but here are a few thoughts from some of my memories of doing that study.
I remember wondering what all the fuss was about that has caused so much disunity down through the ages. Other than the obvious fallacies of not seeing Christ as Devine and such, I saw many of the slightly different beliefs as being semantic at the most in their differences and usually simply the human's attempt at trying to define someone who is not definable based on our present limited knowledge of God. Each attempt is not perfect but I believe is as good as we are going to get this side of eternity. God simply cannot be understood in the fullest sense now.
Having said that, the study did bring a greater appreciation for me of the amazing nature of God, the all knowing, all powerfulness of the Father, the loving sacrificial work of the Son and the incredible caring and guidance of the Spirit all produced in a unity and oneness that add to and compliment, is awe-inspiring for me.
I so well remember Dennis Martin telling me as I went into this study that if this study of God does not get me fired up than obviously my wood is wet. And after doing the study I tend to concur.
Folks we can argue for ages (almost 2000 to be exact) as to the exact nature of the Trinity or even whether we should even use that word. I would instead urge you to simply spend that time and energy to get to know God better. Of course we cannot fully know now but there is no sense in not attempting at getting a head start.
Well over 30 years ago I recall the very first chapel of one of my terms at Bible School starting out with this plea from the principal that year, John Coblentz. He stated to each of us young students something I will never forget. I can still hear his earnest voice saying. "I would have you know God".
That is my prayer for all of us. I am still working on it.

AMEN and this is the same passion with which I teach on the Holy Name of God and his attributes which are attached. There is no point arguing over who is right...which, btw, was my point, which no one seemed to catch (I guess I didn't articulate it very well). I fear that the Councils of the church did a great disservice in this regard, making the acceptance of a particular creed to define orthodoxy, rather than encouraging Godliness. Thank you appleman for the timely reminder.

[Neto]

At this point I think there seem to be different working definitions of what the doctrine of the trinity is; specifically, what claims are necessary for any given description to be considered "the doctrine of the Trinity". Maybe this was done in the early pages of this thread, but if so, many of us have not kept that agreed-upon definition in mind, or, as I suspect, this was never done, or at least never agreed upon. I have realized that I am thinking of a more developed doctrine that some others are, so we are to some extent seeming to disagree while we actually are saying the same things.

I realize that there may well be disagreement on this as well, but I looked on Theopedia, and found the following statement, which illustrates my hesitancy to support this doctrine.

Each person of the Trinity is God
The doctrine of the Trinity must remain grounded in God's Word. Roger Olson sums it up when he says,

"While it is true that no passage of Scripture spells out the doctrine of the Trinity, it is also true that the whole of Scripture's witness to who God is and who Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are makes no sense at all without the model of the Trinity and that all alternative concepts end up doing violence to some essential aspect of revelation, Christian experience and possibly even reason itself," ( The Mosaic of Christian Belief, p. 139).

(emphasis mine.)
[Taken from: http://www.theopedia.com/trinity.]

The part I underlined especially reveals the attitude that these people have toward Scripture - they regard its teachings as something which makes no sense at all without their human philosophical musings.

[lesterb]

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.

I think it was Karl Barth who promoted the idea that there was one God, and that He revealed himself through three different channels, as it were. The Fundamentalist view of the trinity was a direct response to this view, which many felt was heretical.

At this point I think there seem to be different working definitions of what the doctrine of the trinity is; specifically, what claims are necessary for any given description to be considered "the doctrine of the Trinity". Maybe this was done in the early pages of this thread, but if so, many of us have not kept that agreed-upon definition in mind, or, as I suspect, this was never done, or at least never agreed upon. I have realized that I am thinking of a more developed doctrine that some others are, so we are to some extent seeming to disagree while we actually are saying the same things.

I realize that there may well be disagreement on this as well, but I looked on Theopedia, and found the following statement, which illustrates my hesitancy to support this doctrine.

Each person of the Trinity is God
The doctrine of the Trinity must remain grounded in God's Word. Roger Olson sums it up when he says,

"While it is true that no passage of Scripture spells out the doctrine of the Trinity, it is also true that the whole of Scripture's witness to who God is and who Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are makes no sense at all without the model of the Trinity and that all alternative concepts end up doing violence to some essential aspect of revelation, Christian experience and possibly even reason itself," ( The Mosaic of Christian Belief, p. 139).

(emphasis mine.)
[Taken from: http://www.theopedia.com/trinity.]

The part I underlined especially reveals the attitude that these people have toward Scripture - they regard its teachings as something which makes no sense at all without their human philosophical musings.

Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." He also said, referring to the Holy Spirit, "I will come to you." We don't understand how this can work out, and I'm really not interested in moot arguments about the "substance of God". I don't pay a lot of attention to Creeds put together by a church that had already drifted far from the simple interpretation and practice of the Gospel.

But in a sense, I agree with the quote you gave. The Bible shows us all three parts of the Trinity in action, yet according to Jesus, all three are one.

The Aryan view that Jesus came into existance at his birth was debunked by Jesus himself when he told the Pharisees, "Before Abraham was, I am."

Just some thoughts. Any confession of faith should deal with God, and recognize all three parts of the Trinity. Once you get beyond that, you get into useless speculation which only divides.

[silentreader]

Was reading through the 'Lord's Prayer' in John 17, noticed v.5,

And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Had to think, yes it is futile for us to attempt to fit what is called 'The Trinity' into a human sized box of understanding.

[RZehr]

In John 10:30 I always thought that when Jesus said that I and the Father are one, Jesus wasn't saying that they were the same person, but rather that they were in unity one with another. Jesus is saying that no one can take His sheep from his hand, and no one is able to take them from the Fathers hand.
Jesus also prayed that His followers would be one, even as he and God are one in John 17:11, 21,22

[Valerie]

In John 10:30 I always thought that when Jesus said that I and the Father are one, Jesus wasn't saying that they were the same person, but rather that they were in unity one with another. Jesus is saying that no one can take His sheep from his hand, and no one is able to take them from the Fathers hand.
Jesus also prayed that His followers would be one, even as he and God are one in John 17:11, 21,22

Basically it is the "Godhead" God in 'Three Persons" why the usage of Trinity-
But consider what Jesus said here in John 8:

57Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?” 58“Truly, truly, I tell you, Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59At this, they picked up stones to throw at Him. But Jesus hid Himself and slipped away from the temple area.…

That is part of what Arius got wrong- why the need to convey this teaching against heresy-

[Josh]

What, exactly, are the practical implications in how I follow Jesus in my day to day life of believing in his preexistence or not?

I am content to say "I don't know."

(And Arianism is not a belief in no preexistence, it's a lot more than that.)

[RZehr]

What, exactly, are the practical implications in how I follow Jesus in my day to day life of believing in his preexistence or not?

I am content to say "I don't know."

I don't think we will be graded on how complete our understanding is on this subject either.

[Josh]

What, exactly, are the practical implications in how I follow Jesus in my day to day life of believing in his preexistence or not?

I am content to say "I don't know."

I don't think we will be graded on how complete our understanding is on this subject either.

Well said.

Of course, that also means that I don't see much point to making a big deal out of saying "I don't know" over and over. I feel pretty comfortable going to church with people who believe in pre-existence, and even having it in our statement of faith. I don't intend to divide or stir up controversy over it.