Monday, April 24, 2006

Okay, The Holy Trinity, let me have it.





Okay, so give me your best short answer. (as short as you can make it)

Water, Vapor, Ice??

A babe in black latex dodging bullets for her monotone man.???

If someone were to walk up to you off the street and say, "so whats up with that 3 in 1 business?... what the heck IS this Trinity anyway? How can God be three things and still be 1?????"

Can we do better than "well, its just a mystery"...?

What would you say? (I am working on this myself so, help a crippled mind out here would ya?)

20 comments:

Reijn of the Elfin Muse said...

OK, i read this, seth, before my poli sci class. I ran to class and couldn't get my brain away from this post...so i forfeited my notes and started writing down thoughts instead.

I believe that you really can't wrap your head around the idea of the Trinity. The trinity as best as i understand it, is "almost" the essence of God made into living onipitant seperate beings: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are all seperately thinking and existing beings but they are all one in the same. Confusing, i know. I had a sixth grade teacher explain it to me in really simplistic terms years and years ago: to you seth, I am a mucisian but to my dad I am his daughter, and at the same time I am my friend, Corey's, psycologist. I am three different people yet i am the same person. I have different identities for different roles.

This does not explain the fact that the Son, the Spirit and the Father are three very different beings. I believe that the Trinity itself is a concept that we, humans, created inorder to bring some form of order to God, for our own sanity. God himself is complex enough, let alone "three" of Him. Jesus never labled his relationship with the Father as a Duelity/Duet. I believe He stated that they are one in the same. The full Spirit did not decend upon the world/people until after the resurection: 50 days after the resurection and 10 days after the ascention...during the Pentecost, thus signifying that God's presence is available to anyone who asks. His presence. Inorder to somewhat scratch the surface of the Trinity, one needs to explore the nature of the three parts. God as the Son, God as the Father, and especially God as the Spirit. And then realize how they interact with eachother. Almost like a Venn Diagram. Which attributes are shared and which attributes are exclusive to the different parts of the Trinity.

I spoke of the Spirit the most because that is the part of the Trinity I believe that we interact with the most. The Spirit is the pure essence of God, which was created by faith for faith...a child-like faith. If that is the case, then wouldn't the core idea of the Trinity have to be largely based on faith?

I don't know. I know that I am personally satsified with the concept of taking the Trinity and the concept of it by faith.

Anonymous said...

We can't do much better than the mystery. And I don't have a problem with that really.

God is not singular with multiple roles, neither is he a team. Analogies in our world are limited. They usually either make the three seem like parts of one God or they separate God in different forms at different times in different places. Neither scenario is accurate.

Our terminology also limits us. 21st Century understandings of terms colors our perspective as well. 'Son' is a term to describe a relationship. Yet no part of the Trinity was 'created.' Pre-existence is an important component of our understanding.

Like I said, I'm not nuts about analogies. Our scientific understanding fractures those as we learn more. Perhaps a good one, (at least with our current understanding), is light. Is light manifest as a particle or a wave? Yes.

Check out Millard J. Erickson's book "Making Sense of the Trinity." It's not long, not perfect, but good.

Seth Ward said...

Hey guys, thanks for responding. Hey Catch, I think your right. All picture analogies break down at some point and do not really get it and this is the mystery, but is there some way that we can describe the Trinity without hoplessly getting it wrong? If God is infinitely Simple then there must be a explanation that is good enough to supplant the common notion of One person three manifestations, like water, vapor, ice, or "well its just a mystery." I had to hit those old dead Catholic guys up for the answer I was looking for. First let me say that,

I think we have been robbed. I think as protestants we have been so focused on the Son and getting Saved that we have missed out on the innermost life of God in the doctrine of the Trinity. We have been living in some ways off-balenced. I will post a blog on this but the Church back to Augustine has had some pretty good teachings here is my preview or my short answer so you can tell me what you think:

The trinity works like this. First we think of God te Father He who Is. The bible gives us two clues on how the Trinity works by calling Jesus Son and "Word" (logos) or "thought" The word of God is God's own thought or own idea of himself. St. Augustine says he is called Son for the same reason he is called the Word.

God knows infinitely, and Loves infinitely, but knows and loves what? The universe? then what before the Universe? The answer if you think about it is that what God knows and loves infinitely is Himself. So through revelation and what Jesus revealed about Himself that God, knowing Himself with infinite knowledge, thinking of Himself with infinite power, conceives an idea of Himself. This idea of himself is the Logos. This Logos had no beginning because God has none and he has always known Himself. Just as St. John states: In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was God and the Logos was with God, or "In the beginning was the thought or idea in the mind of God, which was in the beginning with God, which was te only begottn Son of God which became flesh and dwelt amoung us." This thought of Himself is eternal because He is eternal, this thought is completely God because God's thought of him self is complete in all aspects. This is what those Catholic old guys talked about when they talked about 3 persons of 1 nature. So now to the Holy Spirit. It comes from the Father to the Son to the Son to the Father. This Spirit is Love. The father poors out all that He has to the Son and the Son all He has to the Father. This analogy may seem strange at first because it seems like an aweful lot of God loving Himself, but thats why he gives us both words Son and Logos. Paul gives us the same imagery in Philemon when he says "He is the immage of the Invisible God..." This Love is all that each person is is and can give which is eternal and also equal. This is the Holy spirit.

So if i were to summarize I would say, God the Father knows Himself; His act of knowing Himself produces and Idea, a Word (it had NO beginning or point of Growth of creation because God had no Beginning nor point of Creation and has always "known" Himself); this Idea or Word is the perfect image of Himself, the second person. The first and the second combine in the act of Love for one another. Their Love is also infinite, Eternal, living, A Person- the third person Holy spirit. Each person contain the same nature but are distinct persons.

The best I can do right now. What do you think?

Reijn of the Elfin Muse said...

This is an exerpt from Rob Bell's book, Velvet Elvis. I highly recomend it, it makes some very interesting points about how Christians look at the Bible etc. Anywho:

"This doctrine is central to historic, orthodox Christian faith. While there is only one God, God is somehow present everywhere. People began to call this presence, this power of God, his ‘Spirit'. So there is God, the then there is God's Spirit. And then Jesus comes among us and has this oneness with God that has people saying things like God has visited us in the flesh (John 1:14). So God is one, but God has also revealed himself to us as Spirit and then as Jesus. One and yet three. This three-in-oneness understanding of God emerged in several hundred years after Jesus' resurrection. People began to call this concept the Trinity. The word trinity is not found anywhere in the Bible. Jesus didn't use the word, and the writers of the rest of the Bible didn't use the word.

But over time this belief, this understanding, this doctrine, has become central to how followers of Jesus have understood who God is. It is a spring, and people jumped for thousands of years without it (this fact, of course, doesn't make the doctrine any less true. It's been true all along; people just ‘recently' discovered it.) It was added later. We can take it out and examine it. Discuss it, probe it, question it. It flexes, and it stretches.2 It has brought a littler, deeper, richer understanding to the mysterious being who is God. . . .Our words are not absolutes. Only God is absolute... The moment God is figured out with nice neat lines and definitions, we are no longer dealing with God. We are dealing with somebody we made up.3"

Seth Ward said...

Reijn,

I think this quote from velvet elvis is the common Protestant Christian discourse when they talk about the Trinity. In summary, "well we never USED to use the word trinity, it was just something made up a thousand years later and nobody really cared much so its just there so just except it." I think that the Bible and early Christian Saints saw the immediate importance of this and solidifying the doctrine, thus all the heresys that immediately sprung to life in the first 2 centuries. This called a few hundred years after the Gospels were written. That is where we get the idea of the "doctrine" of Trinity. The doctrine is true, it works, it is beautiful, and we have not been taught this from the first time we hit the church. We are told "well, there are three of them but they are one, don't know how it works and don't really care." I think that this is one of the reasons why we have so many ridiculous interpretations of scriptures out there because there is absolutely ZILCH doctrine taught to Christians EXCEPT that of Jesus. This is why Jesus is smacked in the face of evey person that walks by as if he is pefume at the dillards counter at the mall. The balence is skewed. There are three persons in the Trinity, and we have NO notion of how this works and we act like it is not important. The "Trinity is not some term that just sprung to life eventually throughout time. The trinity is the innermost life of God. His Charachter In the Trinity is found in the first Chapter of the Bible and hinted throughout until we have it come together in the Gospels, and the Letters. It is God revealing his fullness to us, pulling back the veil. I think we should look into it a little deeper, first of all because we do not want to present nonsense to a non-believing world, but because most importantly it is our God. And the more we know about Him the more we Love Him.

Anonymous said...

I think I follow you, Seth, and I think I really like where you're going. It's not so much gaining an understanding that you're after here, it's the chase that balances our focus. This balance that you want may in time make us a little more comfortable with the existence of the Trinity and better able to explain the Doctrine of the Trinity. Cool, bud.

Seth Ward said...

YYYYEEEEESSSSS!!!!

I have been responding quickly in between practicing sets for conference events or while the wife is calling for me to hit the sack, so sorry if some of the responses were not clear or poorly written. thanks for your thoughts.

cheerio

Anonymous said...

A little less information about you and the misses in the sack, please.

Seth Ward said...

I didn't say I wrote them while IN the sack, just while i was being called.

Unfortunately I was being called only for my thermal properties that time.

Well, off to change into my air-conditioner repairman costume.

Joey said...

Well my two cents aren't much but here you go. One can never fully understand, or concieve it's creator, or it would be it's equal. Our creator has done the best job explaining in terms we can barely grasp of who He is. Every word we say, every thought we have and our very existence is trapped inside a past/present/future confine. Nothing outside of this will ever be understood by us accept to say that it most likely exists. To attempt to do so is almost pointless. I say almost because it is not futile to try and understand our creator, but it will never and can never happen. If not for the gift of faith we would be left without any hope in ever overcoming this circumstance of not being able to concieve of our creator. His existence is not bound by time, by distance or anything else you could possibly come up with, or not come up with. So may the wind be in all our sails but there is no possible way to concieve of our God. Thank God for that, I would stop believing in Him if I could really understand exactly what and who He is. When we die we will see Him face to face, I thnk we will understand then.
~Joey

Anonymous said...

I... uh... that is... *sigh*... well done, Human Torch. Well done.

FancyPants said...

"I had to hit those old dead Catholic guys up for the answer I was looking for."

Seth, The Trinity: This is a fantastic topic to discuss, and one that I would hope you would post as a series. But first of all, I have to ask, could you tell us which dead Catholic guys you are alluding to here? I am assuming Augustine is one. The description of the Trinity that you explain is captivating, and I'd like to read these dead guys for a bit more understanding.

I very much like the explanation that Christ is the Logos and Son. In fact, Strong's defines logos as "the transmission of thought." Which takes the definition of Christ a bit further: God, being the infinite and eternal I AM, means that the essence of God is existence, that everything we know of as actually THERE comes from the very first THERE that ever was, GOD. What John tells us in Chapter one is that this GOD, this eternal existence, not only IS but transmits thought...and because he is eternal, he eternally transmits thought. And this Transmission of Thought is Christ. Which means that...and this is a bit weird...that Christ is the Action of thought emitted from God...eternally. And perhaps this is the meaning of Begotten Son.

Very cool. Here's my question, though, about the rest of what you say.

Now, I ask this with the utmost respect for our doctrine of the Trinity, and God forbid this sounds like heresy, but...

How did the church come to the conclusion that the Spirit was CO-EQUAL with God and Christ. I mean, I can see how God and Christ are co-equal. Jesus repeats how they are One over and over again through the middle of the gospel of John. And yes, I know Jesus talks about the Spirit of truth, and I know that in Genesis 1 the "Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as the Comforter, the Helper, the spirit of truth, but I don't hear Jesus speaking of the Spirit and Himself as he does God and Himself.

I figure it's mostly how we see the Spirit acting in the rest of the New Testement...but I ask this because...your definition of the Holy Spirit as the Love that goes from Father to Son, Son to Father, is beautiful, and I can see that as quite possibly being correct, but I myself know of no Scripture that illustrates that. (except God is Love, and that's not what you are saying exactly) I would love to look into this further. Any help would be appreciated.

P.S. It seems from my earlier question that I doubt the Trinity. It is not my intention to challenge that doctrine. I believe in it, just trying to find out why I do. =-)

Seth Ward said...

AWWWSOME Question madame Pants. One I will try to hit upon on this next post I am working on. I WILL say that ALL doctrine is derived from Scripture, even when my Catholic Theologian buddies try to throw that "tradition" business at me, all "tradition" still has its roots in Scripture. The answer to that questions lies in a doctrine theologians call- appropriation. When we know how and what the Trinity does and how each part of the Trinity acts out "roles" in a way.

(this is dangerous to talk about so abreviated because one is tempted to begin to think that God the Father would be missing something without God the Son, or Son without the Holy spirit, the answer to that question is yes He would because HE would not be the same God without anypart of it. It is like, if you will allow a pretty darn crude analogy, asking: would my wife be lacking if she was missing her personality entirely?, still an analogy but I will do my best to explain better with the post.)

I love the Great Commision, "Baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Right here Jesus, in this statement alone establishes the equality of Nature in the Blessed Trinity. Can you immagine him saying, "Father, Son, and the Archangel Michael"

Anyway, once we start seeing just HOW the Trinity works in our lives everyday, then we begin to see the equality.

Father: Creator
Son: Redeemer
Spirit: Sanctify

Father; Created through the Logos and Redeemed through the Logos made flesh, breathed life to man in through the Spirit and sanctifies through the Spirit,...

last thing I will say, In the Trinity like any other of the great Mysteries there is an endless beauty that we can go on and on discovering endless truths compouding revelations upon revelations. One thing is for sure, we CANNOT truly understand this doctrine without revelation, i.e. God's help. Meaning, God stepping in, and showing it to us. It is powerful but give it a try. (I am not trying to say that you NEVER have, but in the case of the Trinty, if you have not) For instance, your great example and description of the Logos as ongoing thought. Meditate just upon that truth alone. then the next and next, you might experience something amazing (besides a fantastically healthy balence of the Whole person of God in action) that you never experienced before, even different than when you "realize" something studying scripture. It is the same thing that happens when in prayer, you are revealed a truth about the Love of God, and find it a month or so later almost word for word, in another Christian's writings.

BTW if someone else wants to help answer fancy's question then jump in here. These here waters are deep.

Anonymous said...

All excellent stuff, guys. But we're leaving out a few things:

1. We've got to watch our terminology. We're not talking about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. We're talking about the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. They're all God. It's subtle, but we're not talking about a Trinity unless they are all God.

2. Neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit were created. There was no time when God was alone without them. This is not to say that they have been present in our understanding and knowledge all along. I don't believe the early Bible writers were speaking about the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1. Neither do I believe that Jesus shows up at all in the Old Testament. Prophesy? Maybe, but that's different from saying that he appears in the Psalms or Isaiah or Genesis. Those people and those writers had no concept of Jesus or the Holy Spirit. They knew only the Father. Our understanding of the Trinity has developed along with revelation over time.

3. God doesn't act out 'roles' in the Trinity. This implies one God who wears three masks. It is more commonly called Sabellianism, and was one of the earliest condemned heresies. The reasoning is that it creates a false Trinity. When God is Jesus, where is the Father?

4. Our explorations and questions and such should not be an attempt to reduce the mystery to the mundane and comprehensible, but rather to lift it up as powerful and mysterious and wonderful. Understand it better - yes. Make it understandable - probably not. Does that make sense?

Seth Ward said...

Right Cach, sorry for the poor choice of words. Its hard to keep track of those heresies and not use the same terminology, but it is needed so not to be guilty of implying the same things they were guilty of, so thanks for the clarity. a side note: It is amazing how many Christians today have a heretical view of the Trinity and do not know it. This is another reason why I think it is important to teach this doctrine.

What is a better way of putting it is "Operation" When God does something the whole Trinity is in action, but the scripture is chalked full of places that attribute divine operations to Father Son and Holy Spirit. And only in one of them do we find Suffering and death for mankind.

One might ask "Why have appropriation at all?" Well we have been told that our bodies are the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Only the Holy Spirit? No but I think because God wants us to distinguish the Three distinct persons through Appropration even though one action is still the action of all Three Persons. A scriptural reference to all three is with Jesus saying "If anyone love me he will keep my word and my Father will love him and we will come and make our Home with him." This shows the indwelling of Father and Son as well.

I hesitate to try and short-answer anything because i certainly did not want to leave out any Gaps but maybe this is better because I have a friggin resident theologian or two to give some guidance and fill in the gaps AND I think we should all be able to give some kind of intelligble short answer without being simplistic, ignorant or flat out wrong.

Anyway, one cannont get any real growth from the study of the Trinity without always knowing that and act of One is an act of all three.

As far as distinction Paul always keeps them distinct by saying God the Father as "God", Jesus as "Lord" and the Holy Spirit as "Spirit"

Fancypants, an intersting note on your question about eqaulity of Son and Spirit, In the original Nicene Creed it did not say, "...One Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life..." It said "...One Spirit, the giver of Life..." The early church fathers were battling another Heresy that was saying that the Spirit was subordiante to Jesus so they added "the Lord" to clear it up.

The most famous verse that describes this appropriation is found with St. Paul in 1 Cor 12:4 " There are different kinds of gifts, though it is the same SPIRIT that gives them, just as there are different kinds of service, though it is the same LORD we serve, and different manifestations of pwer, though it is the same GOD who manifests His power everywhere in all of us." Also in Romans 11:36 FROM the Father, THROUGH the Son, UNTO the Holy Spirit. If we take the Romans scripture and apply this idea of operation or appropriation, then we can see that scripture as saying "from the Father through the Son (through the Divine Wisdom or according to the Divine Idea), unto the Holy Spirit (that is, unto sanctification, which is love).

All three still have all these attributes because they have the same nature but they seem to have certain appropriations to each, keeping in mind that they never act out anything on their own independent of the other. The are eternally bonded in Hypostatic union. I love that word Hypostasis. The same word used to described Jesus being both man and God in Hypostasis.

Thoughts?

One more thing Catch, while I do agree that the writers of Genisis did not intentionally imply the Trinity, I do still believe the action of the three is still evident in parts. I do agree that saying that Jesus showed up in the flesh early in other parts of the old testament is stretchin' it.

FancyPants said...

Right on, Cach. I'm with ya. From here on out, when speaking of the Trinity, I'll use the Father, Son, and Spirit, to be clear.

Seth, thanks for the response to my question. The Great Commission verse helps me. I'll do more research as well. Very interesting note about the Nicene Creed, btw.

You've lost me in your last post Seth, where you discuss Romans 11:36. The translation that I hold of that verse does not use the three distinct terms as you have, but rather "Him" for each...."For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things..." Granted, there are three "Him"s, but I read this as referencing GOD, not necesarily the parts of the Trinity. Possibly an author has reasoned it as such? Anyway, this could be a small issue, and we may not need spend much time on the particular verse. I just wasn't sure what you were trying to say.

I love this stuff! This is great!

Anonymous said...

Hate to go all nerd-bomb on you, but Fancy's right. The Greek in Rom. 11:36 uses the pronoun 'him', (auton), all three times. Were you thinking of something else, or is that an interpretation?

And once again, I absolutely agree with your premise. We do not teach doctrine. We do not teach Trinity. And we must. The Trinity isn't the only misconception most Christians hold.

Also, I agree that the actions of a Triune God appear in the Old Testament, I'm just veeeeeeeery hesitant to apply the names of Jesus and Holy Spirit to them because my experience tells me that this leads to a "Where's Waldo" view of the OT with people always looking for Jesus and the Holy Spirit where they aren't written as uniquely understood beings. It also tends to foster a view of the New Testament as superior to the Old instead of alongside the Old. Functionally, we all have books, stories, and sections that we lean on more and appeal to more than others. But we can't afford to devalue something just because we don't like or understand it as well.

This is fun.

Seth Ward said...

Here is what i have to say about that last comment Cach. Every time you read something here that is remotely Theological on this blog I expect NO LESS than your entire body strapped with plastic nerd explosives.

It was a shameless interpretation i must say, though the one from Corinthians was not. Should have clarified...will for future reference...apologies.

I am also warry of O.T.T.S.'s (old-testament Trinity Sightings) But sometimes you just can't help it. It is just kinda there. I mean, all those times God refers to himself as we??? and the "Spirit of God moves across the water" But your right, even in some sermons of Spurgeon that I have read he gets kind of eager to point out what is maybe not there and certainly not intentionally implied. It is from these O.T.T.S.'s that our friends the Jehovah's witnesses and the Mormans get plenty of there interesting interpretations, if I remember correctly. The Mormans tend to lean on the Side of God being a Man, (not Jesus) etc.

Anonymous said...

Bingo on the cults.

Cue the nerd plastique:

The OT Godly 'we' is wicked cool. In the Elohistic strand, (one of the four major editorial sources for the OT), God is referred to as 'Elohim.' The Elohistic strand was likely one of the last compiled and was likely done so before Josiah in the Northern Kingdom; that is to say, in a more religiously plural society. 'Elohim' is the word for God, El, with the masculine plural suffix: him. This name is clearly a theological statement. While it is unlikely that God was actually viewed as plural, it is plausible that this name is a way of saying that the God of the Hebrews is all the other gods. Not in number, but in power. It is as if they are saying, "You have so many gods, but my god, my Elohim, is all of those gods in One." Thus, when God references Himself, he uses a first person plural designation by saying "we." Pretty cool, huh? I don't think it's a Trinitarian statement, but it certainly does betray the differences between the God of the Hebrews with depth and variety with the monolithic singular gods of the surrounding communities.

Seth Ward said...

Fantastic stuff. I love it. That whole Babylonian exile period is fascinating to me. So many things the Jews picked up without REALLY picking them up and somehow reataining their identity.