Scripture is clear in teaching that there is One God (Deuteronomy 6:4), yet there are three persons in the Godhead: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. Each person is fully God - they share the same essence (that's how they're One); but each is distinct in his role.
Confused yet? I thought so. People have been knocking this around for a couple thousand years. The doctrine of the Trinity is something that only God Himself knows fully and that we can only understand in part.
Now, while the word 'trinity' doesn't appear in scripture, we clearly see the Triune God in passages like Genesis 1:26 (the use of the 'Us'), Deueronomy 6:4 (the word 'one' is plural), Matthew 3:16-17 (Jesus' baptism where the Father speaks and the Spirit is illustrated as a dove), Matthew 28:19 (where we are to baptize disciples in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and in Jude 20-21 (Pray in the Spirit, keep in the love of God, wait for the mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ).
Why does it matter that God exists as a Trinity? A couple reasons. First, it helps us understand the longing in our lives for relationships. Since we're created in God's image (which is communal), we have a strong, inherent desire for community ourselves. Interestingly, when God ordained the first marriage as recorded in Genesis 2:21-25, the term "one flesh" ( Heb. 'echad') is the same word used in Deuteronomy 6:4. Secondly, and more importantly, the doctrine of the Trinity shows us how holy and perfect God is. 1 John 4:8 plainly tells us that God is love. Now, we all know that love is something that can be given and shared - love always has an object because love is an action more than it is a feeling. For God to be love, God must exist in a communal way for Him to "be love", and therefore to be self-sufficient. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit share this love among themselves.
On a personal note, while I can sit here and write about the systematics of the Trinity, in no way do I comprehend it. But I embrace the mystery of it and praise God all the more for it. For if my limited, finite mind could understand everything about God, to me, He would then cease to be beyond me - cease to be holy - cease to be God.
11 comments:
Greetings Ryan
On the subject of the Trinity,
I recommend this video:
The Human Jesus
Take a couple of hours to watch it; and prayerfully it will aid you to reconsider "The Trinity"
Yours In Messiah
Adam Pastor
You wrote:
"Each person is fully God - they share the same essence...."
On this point we all have to go beyond scripture to describe our *theology* of God. The desription of God as multiple "persons" (prosospon) is not in scripture, and the word "essence" (homoousis) does not appear in scripture, as the 4th century Arians were only to happy to tell those who supported the Nicene Council. There wasn't even a consensus on which books comprised scripture until the late 4th century. The concept of adhering to scripture first, then determining one's doctrine of God, wasn't even considered until Luther did so at the Diet of Worms in 1520.
In reading what you wrote, I couldn't understand why precisely you believe in Trinity. You basically run straight for "faith"; but as St. Gregory the Theologian states.... "Reason completes our faith." You need to develop your reasons further. It's not that I disagree with you, it's just that you left it undeveloped.
Don
StAthanasius373@aol.com
Springfield, IL
Thanks for your responses guys. The goal of these posts is to simply provide an overview, a sort of "Cliff's Notes" on each subject. There's no way that I could tackle all of the issues that surround a doctrine like the Trinity in one blog post.
I recommend the following books for a complete, informed teaching on the Trinity: Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem, God in Three Persons by Millard Erikson, The Attributes of God by A.W. Pink, and The Doctrine of God by John Frame.
And Don, reason has a strong place in Christianity; but you have to admit that God is most unreasonable according to normal human standards. I must run to faith, because nobody can fully comprehend God; and those who say they can are just expressing a form of humanism. According to scripture (which it seems that you don't have a very high view of) our faith is complete not based on our reason, but on the fact that it comes from God (Ephesians 2:8) and is perfected only in Jesus (Hebrews 12:2). But as far as "reason" goes, I think it's pretty clear in scripture to reasonably conclude that the Trinity is a reality, based on the scriptures that I already cited in the post, and others.
Good discussion! I enjoy the opportunity to throw things around a bit!
Grace & Peace all...
You wrote:
"And Don, reason has a strong place in Christianity; but you have to admit that God is most unreasonable according to normal human standards"
Why must I admit that? Humans are made in the image of God; it is only reasonable humans would gravitate to the image impressed upon their very beings. What I believe is reasonable, or else I would abandon it.
"I must run to faith, because nobody can fully comprehend God; and those who say they can are just expressing a form of humanism."
Why must the mind race to "fully comprehend God" in your above formula? You touched on it slightly in your original post.... God revealed Himself as Trinity at Christ's baptism. Has understanding and reason increased on the subject since? Of course. Even you cited "essence" as part your own reasoning, you just didn't explain why. No mention of essence was made at Christ's baptism, yet we now use it as a lithmus test of one's orthodoxy. Ever wonder why?
"According to scripture (which it seems that you don't have a very high view of) our faith is complete not based on our reason, but on the fact that it comes from God (Ephesians 2:8) and is perfected only in Jesus (Hebrews 12:2). "
Saying you love the Bible more than I does not make a very good argument. You have already admitted in forwarding the extra-biblical argument that God has an essence, and also recommending books on the subject, that scripture does not expound at length on the nature or essence of God. Does that make scripture weak because it does not expound upon "essence"? No; that just means it is not being used as it was intended. If anything short of bibliolatry is grounds for having a low view of scripture, then I stand guilty without apologies.
Why "essence? Why "Trinity"? Both are extra-biblical terms. Could it be that to explain the Christian understanding of the nature of God we must go beyond scripture? Such is a scary assult upon Sola Scriptura.
Don
Don...
First, I apologize for any of my remarks that were accusatory or making assumptions about what you believe or don't believe. Those weren't necessary.
Secondly, yes, Scripture does not use the terms "Trinity" or "essence"; but that doesn't make them wrong terms to use in helping people understand things. Perhaps a more biblical term than essence to use would be "fullness", as in Colossians 1:19.
It would seem that we're on the same page with the Father being God. But regarding Jesus, how do you reconcile passages like John 1:1-4; 8:58 and Colossians 1:15-19? And regarding the Holy Spirit, what about passages like Acts 5:3-4 and 2 Corinthians 3:16-18? The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all depicted as possessing the "fullness" of God.
Additionally, how do you respond to the illustration I gave in my original post regarding God being self-sufficient in sharing love? It is an teaching from Augustine. And what about the use of "echad" in Deuteronomy in 6:4?
If you are going to wave the banner of "Sola Scriptura", please begin to state what you believe about God based on Scripture, and not just try to poke holes in what I'm saying.
Ryan
"First, I apologize for any of my remarks that were accusatory or making assumptions about what you believe or don't believe."
Not necessary.You didn't cross any lines.
"Secondly, yes, Scripture does not use the terms "Trinity" or "essence"; but that doesn't make them wrong terms to use in helping people understand things. Perhaps a more biblical term than essence to use would be "fullness", as in Colossians 1:19."
Fullness never would have cut the mustard in refuting the heretics. In 269 the Church excommunicated Paul of Samosota (rightly so) because he used essence to support a heretical doctrine. Then, in 325, the Nicene Council used the exact same word to define the relationship in the Godhead in such a way as to exclude and excommunicate Arius. This highlights that it is not the words themselves, but the sense in which they are used.
"It would seem that we're on the same page with the Father being God. But regarding Jesus, how do you reconcile passages like John 1:1-4; 8:58 and Colossians 1:15-19? And regarding the Holy Spirit, what about passages like Acts 5:3-4 and 2 Corinthians 3:16-18? The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all depicted as possessing the "fullness" of God."
My belief in Trinity isn't something I derived by superior exigesis.It comes from the corporate worship of 2000 years of Christian worship. If somebody proved another god from scripture conclusively, I'd ditch the book in favor of Trinity. God first, Bible a very distant second.
"Additionally, how do you respond to the illustration I gave in my original post regarding God being self-sufficient in sharing love? It is an teaching from Augustine. And what about the use of "echad" in Deuteronomy in 6:4?"
There are pieces of supporting evidence in scripture, but it won't shield you from heresy. Look at Arians and Oneness heretics who use the same scriptures yet read an entirely different god from them.
I'm not a big Augustine fan. His doctrine of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son as a common source causes big problems. He never fully got rid of his neoplatonism, and it worked its way into De Trinitae. His view of Trinity is so close to that of Plotinus it is scary; that the One begat the Demiurge and together they produced the world-soul. Ick.
"If you are going to wave the banner of "Sola Scriptura", please begin to state what you believe about God based on Scripture, and not just try to poke holes in what I'm saying."
I use scripture as evidence for what I believe, not a starting point. It is illogical to use scripture as the starting point, because then I would be at a loss to state how I acquired the scriptures in the first place so as to derive what God is from there (IOW, God is revealed, not exigeted). A 66 book canon never existed until the 16th century, and no Bible ever appeared in one volume until the 8th century. I start with God and then proceed to the book, not the other way around.
I got your blog off of a Springfield, IL website. I'm a northender.
Don
Hey Don...
I understand what you're saying about looking to God first. Honestly, His personal revelation to people like Noah, Abraham, & Moses came before His written revelation. But, I see scripture as His followers recording God's revelation to them. So to me it's somewhat cyclical - yes, we begin with God, but we go to scripture as the primary source to discover the character of who God is and how He has revealed Himself throughout all of human history.
This has been a great discussion. I figured you found this blog off of spfldbloggers.com. Since you're in town, I'd love to have a cup of coffee with you sometime.
Grace & Peace
Ryan
I should have clicked around earlier and I would have found Delta Church. I surfed your sites. I figured you might be more Calvinist based on some of your posts.... apparently I was mistaken. Is pastor a full time gig for you?
I'll quit sandbagging you; in case you haven't figured it out, I am Eastern Orthodox. I go to St. Anthony's over on Glenwood. That gives you a target to hit now:)
I'd love to go for some coffee. I'm a state employee with banker's hours, so I can be flexible. I work for CMS at 201 E.Madison, and I live up by Lincoln Park. Call me sometime on my cell at 720-1840.
Don
Hey Don...
Yes, let's do coffee sometime. I so pastor full-time. We moved to Springfield to plant Delta about 2 1/2 years ago. Funny, our landlady goes to your church...Tanya Kimble. We went to the bazaar back in December. Apparently I led you astray somewhere, I am quite reformed in my theology; but we can talk about that over coffee.
Ryan
When I think Reformed, I think of Calvin, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelburg Catechism, the Westminster Confession and Catechism, etc. American Evangelicalism retains hints of Calvin, but is more dominated by Wesley's Methodism. I have to credit you on a much clearer confession of Trinity on your website than most Evangelicals that tend to make Trinity just another doctrine among doctrines, and even then vaguely. Their minds, and their writings, go straight to soteriology to save the soul of the reader.
The line of that which makes one Reformed, IMHO, is Limited Atonement. Limiting the atonement is a very offensive concept to American sensibiliteies because of twisted notions of "fairness" that exist in our culture. It doesn't offend me, I just think it to be in error. I don't even walk down the road of forensic justification in the first place.
My wife knows Tanya, but it didn't ring a bell with me. My wife is Kyra, who is familiar with Tanya.
Don
Post a Comment