Trinity, Trinity, Trinity.

[Brade]

Well it maybe new found to you but it has existed for all eternity. The Apostles taught it. It was alluded to in the Old Testament and lastly Jesus also taught it.

I respect that you hold to different beliefs than myself, however I just wanted to say that I think these are the kinds of posts that the OP is trying to avoid.

[Theophilus]

The Trinitarian God hence remains supremely other and supremely unknowable.  Only heretical views of God may be known, comprehended and understood by mere mortals.

First of all, I think the above is representative of the kinds of posts the OP was trying to avoid. If you want to "dis" the Trinity, there are many other threads you can go to do that (oh wait, you already have.... )

But to address your point, you seem to be conflating the distinction between:

knowing God;

and knowing about God.

Just because we have limited understanding on what God is (or "how" His ontological makeup can be explained), doesn't mean that we cannot know God as in a personal relationship.

To offer an analogy, one can get to "know" a car, knowing how it runs in various climates, in various traffic situations, how it responds to various additives, without necessarily knowing how an internal combustion engine works.

Theophilus

[David Waltz]

Hi Doc,

You posted:

>>I have never comprehended the orthodox concept of the Trinity. In a large part, this is due to my own misconceptions of the belief. I don

[johnny]

Doctor Steuss,

Good topic, one of my favorites. Since I don't have much time I will quickly post something. I will be away for a couple of days so I will respond later.

Like I said early I like the analogy of light because this is what scripture uses:

1John.1

[5] ... God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

John.9

[5] As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

John.8

[12] Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

John.12

[36] While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.

The Early Church Fathers also used the analogy of light in their writings:

Tertullian, The Apology,21 (A.D. 197),in ANF,III:34-35

For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun--there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. The material matrix remains entire and unimpaired, though you derive from it any number of shoots possessed of its qualities; so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence--in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united."

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm

Lactantius (Divine Institutes 4:28-29 [A.D. 307])

"When we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate them, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father, since the name of

[consiglieri]

The Trinitarian God hence remains supremely other and supremely unknowable.

[rhinomelon]

Okay, so the thread has taken off without me. Oh well, that's a good thing, right?

I just scrolled up and noticed that asbestosman had asked this question, and I was wondering if there's an answer:

QUOTE 

This may also be a bit too much, but do the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have distinct consciousness, or is it all one consciousness--God's consciousness.

Just to answer this briefly. As the three persons in the Trinity are seen as each possessing their own will and "personality" (for lack of a better term), they each have a distinct consciousness. So in this way we can speak of God as "tripersonal".

A quick question.  Is there a book that any of you would recommend that you think explains the Trinity well?  I

[Doctor Steuss]

I think this thread might be starting to head in the direction that I would prefer it didn

[rhinomelon]

Good reminder, Doc, and have fun at Bryce! I used to live in Cedar City, so I remember it well. Have a great 24th of July!

[rafael]

Doctor Steuss: I advice you to read something like an introduction to Aristotle's philosophy first, since most of the concepts used to explain the trinity are based in the aristotelian system. Also, the theory of ideas of Plato is a must.

A really good book that helped me a lot in my studies of medival philosophy was 'The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Volume 1, Faith, Trinity, Incarnation' by Harry Austryn Wolfson. The point of the book is to explain the development of Christian philosophy starting from St. Paul up to St. Augustine. It can get very technical but with a little background of Greel philosophy (specially Aristotle) it can be very readable. Special emphasis is given to the methods of 'allegorical interpretation', the trinity, the incarnation, gnosticism, and "heretical" views. It's very nice to see how the author traces back the basic Christian doctrines in a very logical way. I really enjoyed (and i'm not a christian) reading about the Logos (the totality of the "platonic ideas", the Son) and how God created the universe through Him. It gave me a better appreciation, from the point of view of my philosophical background, of how Christians view the divinity of Christ.

[Cold Steel]

One would suppose that the trinitarian outlook might view "Father" and "Son" being an analogy in and of itself. It was God who asked us to think in these terms. But why did He choose and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? And why do we know so little about the Spirit?

Are we supposed to think of the Father as a father in a familial sort of way? And the Son, being of the same substance of the Father -- was there ever at any time that He was indistingishable from the Father? And will He always have His body?

And what of the analogy of God being like water, which can be manifest as a solid, liquid, or gas? Is this usually embraced by most mainstream Christians?

On The Heaven.Net board, the author notes: "I think it would be safe to say that many Christians who accept the doctrine of the Trinity, also remain confused and even those who have a deeper understanding of it, will admit that they do not understand it completely when challenged. The normal answer is that the Trinity is hard to understand because God is beyond our thinking. I have also found out that a lot of people believe in two types of Trinity Doctrine. Some believe that God is one being that shows himself in three different ways like water shows itself in the form of ice, steam, and liquid. Others believe that the Trinity is made up of 3 distinct personalities and these 3 are in complete unity in love and purpose. This last explanation is probably the most common."

[rhinomelon]

Good questions and points, CS, I'll try to get to those on Tuesday when I have computer access again. Until then, have a great weekend!

[William the Conqueror]

Only heretical views of God may be known, comprehended and understood by mere mortals.

Am I warm yet?

--Consiglieri

Such as Tritheism?

[William the Conqueror]

Some believe that God is one being that shows himself in three different ways like water shows itself in the form of ice, steam, and liquid. Others believe that the Trinity is made up of 3 distinct personalities and these 3 are in complete unity in love and purpose. This last explanation is probably the most common."

Some believe that God is one being that shows himself in three different ways like water shows itself in the form of ice, steam, and liquid.

However it can only one of the three at any one time. Therefore that analogy approximates Modalism.

[Zeta-Flux]

My thoughts on the trinity seem different enough from what has been said here, that I guess I'll put them down.

1) I agree with what Dr. Steuss, that *most* of the misconception that LDS have with the trinity is that they think it is modalism. From my experience, this is for a couple reasons:

a) Some trinitarians don't understand their own doctrines, and preach modalism.

They don't emphasize the fact that they believe God has three persons.

c) The terminology is different than what LDS use.

d) There are multiple versions of the trinity.

e) We teach our children (accidentally) that modalism is the trinity.

2) In my opinion, trinitarians equivocate on the use of the word "God." For example, they have no problem using God to mean either one of the persons in God, or all persons in God together at once. This is confusing to anyone not familiar with this strange usage of the word.

Mormons get around this with the word "Godhead", although our scriptures also use "God."

3) If God cannot be approximated by mathematics, can it be approximated with logic?

[Ron Beron]

I always thought Mormons were monolatrists where "adherents believe in the existence of multiple deities but worship only one. In contrast to monotheists, monolatrists accept the existence of other gods.", as were OT doctrines show.

[rafael]

And the Son, being of the same substance of the Father -- was there ever at any time that He was indistingishable from the Father?

From the Council of Florence (1431-1445):

The Father is entirely in the Son and entirely in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entirely in the Father and entirely in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is entirely in the Father and entirely in the Son. None of the persons precedes any of the others in eternity, nor does any have greater immensity or greater power. From eternity, without beginning, the Son is from the Father; and from eternity and without beginning, the Holy Spirit has proceeded from the Father and the Son.

Taken from:http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Trinity/Trinity_001.htm

[Chris Smith]

A good book on the Trinity is the Book of Mormon especially Mosiah 15.

The Book of Mormon actually feels more modalist than Trinitarian to me.

[consiglieri]

Dear Rhinomelon,

Thank you for your warm reception to my comments, and for your comments in turn, which were helpful to me in understanding your beliefs. And I agree with a separate poster about the frequency with which it is heard from believers in the Trinity that God is like water, ice and steam. But then I hear from other believers in the Trinity that that belief actually smacks of modalism, which is different from what the Trinity really teaches. I also hear from other believers in the Trinity that Jesus was the Father himself, in that the Father in totality came to earth in the form of Jesus. But then I read from other believers in the Trinity that this belief actually smacks of patripassianism, which also is different from what the Trinity really teaches. I also hear from other believers in the Trinity that God is completely other and cannot be understood, and if you think you understand the Trinity, then you don't understand the Trinity!

Without passing on ultimate questions of truth, here is what I see in this: (1) That there is a basic human need to understand God, else why would there be, for hundreds and hundreds of years, so many attempts to do so, both within and without the classical Trinitarian model? (2) It does appear to me that those attempts to understand God and the Godhead which actually make God comprehensible, to a greater or lesser degree, end up being deemed heresy by those within the Trinitarian model. (3) It appears to me that, for at least 1700 years, there has been an attempt to scratch the human itch to understand God within the framework of the Trinity; and that this attempt has to date proven ineffective for the layman masses. Else why the tremendous number of books on the subject, including relatively recent works by C.S. Lewis and James White, and others suggested within this thread? If an author had successfully settled the issue and made God comprehensible at least once, I would expect there to not be so great a profusion of books all attempting the same goal. This leads me to agree with those Trinitarians who believe that the Trinity is not comprehensible.

And so, I conclude that, in spite of this seemingly universal desire and need on the part of mankind to understand God; a desire that is attempted to be sated in some measure by hundreds of books "explaining" the Trinity; and a proliferation of analogies within Trinitarianism that are not really Trinitarian; that within the Trinitarian view, this is a universal desire that will never be granted to men and women; at least not in this life.

And by the way, Rhinomelon, what on earth are you doing taking a book on theology, of all things, on your honeymoon? :^)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[johnny]

Doctor Steuss,

my own misconceptions of the belief.

One misconception is that God is an anonymous force.

I don

[Dando]

Dear Rhinomelon,

Thank you for your warm reception to my comments, and for your comments in turn, which were helpful to me in understanding your beliefs. And I agree with a separate poster about the frequency with which it is heard from believers in the Trinity that God is like water, ice and steam. But then I hear from other believers in the Trinity that that belief actually smacks of modalism, which is different from what the Trinity really teaches. I also hear from other believers in the Trinity that Jesus was the Father himself, in that the Father in totality came to earth in the form of Jesus. But then I read from other believers in the Trinity that this belief actually smacks of patripassianism, which also is different from what the Trinity really teaches. I also hear from other believers in the Trinity that God is completely other and cannot be understood, and if you think you understand the Trinity, then you don't understand the Trinity!

Without passing on ultimate questions of truth, here is what I see in this: (1) That there is a basic human need to understand God, else why would there be, for hundreds and hundreds of years, so many attempts to do so, both within and without the classical Trinitarian model? (2) It does appear to me that those attempts to understand God and the Godhead which actually make God comprehensible, to a greater or lesser degree, end up being deemed heresy by those within the Trinitarian model. (3) It appears to me that, for at least 1700 years, there has been an attempt to scratch the human itch to understand God within the framework of the Trinity; and that this attempt has to date proven ineffective for the layman masses. Else why the tremendous number of books on the subject, including relatively recent works by C.S. Lewis and James White, and others suggested within this thread? If an author had successfully settled the issue and made God comprehensible at least once, I would expect there to not be so great a profusion of books all attempting the same goal. This leads me to agree with those Trinitarians who believe that the Trinity is not comprehensible.

And so, I conclude that, in spite of this seemingly universal desire and need on the part of mankind to understand God; a desire that is attempted to be sated in some measure by hundreds of books "explaining" the Trinity; and a proliferation of analogies within Trinitarianism that are not really Trinitarian; that within the Trinitarian view, this is a universal desire that will never be granted to men and women; at least not in this life.

And by the way, Rhinomelon, what on earth are you doing taking a book on theology, of all things, on your honeymoon? :^)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think you are making a mistake here that difficult truths must not be true.

The Trinity is quite understandable and comprehensible. Otherwise you would not see all of us Trinitarians on the board affirming and reaffirming each other's descriptions of it. Whether we are Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant each of us affirms that the others are describing the Trinity correctly.

What the Trinity is, is comprehensible, but it is not easy. That's why it is never a surprise to me to see theologically uneducated people get it wrong and even less of a surprise to me to see theologically uneducated religious leaders ditch it when they form new faith movements.

How the systematic doctrine was developed is also quite understandable, but not easy. The only thing incomprehensible is how it works and why it exist (which is true of God regardless of your stance on the Trinity).

Insted of the Trinity, let's discuss Trigonometry. Would you expect a bunch of people with nothing more than 8th grade algebra to correctly explain Trigonometry? Would it make it any less true if they couldn't explain it consistently? Would it be any less true if people wrote books over several centuries to explain it to in the context of their time and place?

[Tanyan]

GOD The Father Is Jesus Christs GOD:

John 14:28, 17:3,20:17, Acts 2:32-36, 1 Cor 11:3, 15:23-28, 2 Cor 1:3, 11:31,

Romans 15:6, Ephes 1:3,17, Heb 1:1-9, 1Pet 1:3, Rev 1:6, 3:2,12 -[NIV].

Some of the above scripture references are more straightforward than others.

In His Debt/Grace Tanyan, The LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[johnny]

Tanyan,

GOD The Father Is Jesus Christs GOD:

The Son of God Has A Father And A God.

Jesus said, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. [Jn 20:17]. Jesus came from God [Jn 13:3]. Jesus' prayed to the Father. The Son did as the Father commanded [Jn 10:17; 14:31]. Christ has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christ's human will does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will.

Christ Is Not A Second God. God Was Manifest, God Was In Christ.

God was made manifest among us, the Word became flesh. The Son of God was manifested in the flesh [1 Tim 3:16]. In Christ's humanity "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" [Rom 3:25; 2 Cor 5:19]. The Word of God dwelt in man and became the Son of man. The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.

[Catholic Guy]

I have never comprehended the orthodox concept of the Trinity. In a large part, this is due to my own misconceptions of the belief. I don

[johnny]

Catholic Guy,

A Mystery of religion is not a truth about which we can know nothing; rather it is a truth about which we cannot know everything.

Well said ... for exmple the mystery of godliness ...

1Tim.1

[1] Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

[2] Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

1Tim.2

[5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1Tim.3

[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

[Southern Gentleman]

God was made manifest among us, the Word became flesh. The Son of God was manifested in the flesh [1 Tim 3:16]. In Christ's humanity "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" [Rom 3:25; 2 Cor 5:19]. The Word of God dwelt in man and became the Son of man. The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.

If that is how you would like to interpret how the Father is "in" Jesus, then that is okay with me Johnny, but I'll let the Bible interpret this for me:

John 17: 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Jesus explains that He is "one" with the Father- thus in the Father- in a metaphorical sense only. Can you provide an Biblical reference that includes the explanation that Jesus is "of one substance" (Homoousis) with the Father? The LDS concept of the Godhead is consistent with John 17:20-21 and thus with all other Biblical references. The Bible sometimes must be understood in a non-literal fashion go figure.

God is Great,

Southern Gentleman