Trinity Definition and Justification

[nathansoz]

I am starting this thread as a side product that has emerged out of the A hole in non-mormon theology thread. The question is, is it possible to build a definition of the trinity and support it with scripture?

Lets keep things civil, but I would love to see and add too some good discussion that was derailing the other thread.

[zerinus]

I am starting this thread as a side product that has emerged out of the A hole in non-mormon theology thread. The question is, is it possible to build a definition of the trinity and support it with scripture?

Lets keep things civil, but I would love to see and add too some good discussion that was derailing the other thread.

Thank you. That is an excellently worded topic. I look forward to the discussion too.

zerinus

[rhinomelon]

Hello nathan, thanks for starting the new thread! As far as a definition of the Trinity goes, it can be summed up quite simply in the phrase, "One God in three Persons". There are three distinct persons (in a more philosophical sense here, not in the sense of embodied people) who share the divine nature, which is spirit.

As has been noted in the other thread, this definition was formulated to resolve a fundamental tension in scripture. The Bible clearly teaches the existence of only one true God, while the Bible also refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as "God". These three are one and hold the same nature in common. They are not three aspects of the same Person, like one God putting on three masks at different times. That is modalism, which is basically taught today by Oneness Pentecostal group, for example. On the other side of the spectrum, the three persons are not separate Gods, which is LDS belief. The Trinity balances these two seeming opposites, holding them together instead of leaning one way or another. Virtually every heresy in church history regarding the nature of God can be traced back to leaning too far one way or another, instead of sticking with the balance.

This should do to get something started. Civil conversation only, please. I'm not here to debate, but to dialogue. Question and answer, back and forth, not attack-counterattack. I'll do my best to live up to Proverbs 18:19 and Colossians 4:6 principles here.

Take care, everyone

[nathansoz]

Hello nathan, thanks for starting the new thread!

Your welcome! It looks to be fun

As far as a definition of the Trinity goes, it can be summed up quite simply in the phrase, "One God in three Persons". There are three distinct persons (in a more philosophical sense here, not in the sense of embodied people) who share the divine nature, which is spirit.

I agree with this definition.

Now, for scripture support, although I am fairly certain this will be torn to shreds.

John 1:1-16

Talks about the word being God and becoming flesh. IMO this points to two of the three parts of the trinity, yet they are both God. Futhermore Jesus Christ is called the Son of God making him one of the three persons, but the definition in John still retains him as God.

I am at a loss for a lot more, but I think that others probably have a lot more knowledge than me.

[Mudcat]

I like Rhino's summary def. for Trinity.

I would submit the Johannine Comma in evidence.

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1Jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The verses seem to distinguish that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one and not just one in agreement, as we see the distinction between "are one" and "agree in one" in the next verse.

Though, I personally feel the JC was an addition to the text, I thought it worthy to note in a discussion with LDS, given that the verse was allowed to remain intact in the JST. Also, even if it was an addition, it would be hard to argue such an addition was allowable if it went against the grain of prevalent Christian concepts of the day.

[zerinus]

Hello nathan, thanks for starting the new thread! As far as a definition of the Trinity goes, it can be summed up quite simply in the phrase, "One God in three Persons". There are three distinct persons (in a more philosophical sense here, not in the sense of embodied people) who share the divine nature, which is spirit.

As has been noted in the other thread, this definition was formulated to resolve a fundamental tension in scripture. The Bible clearly teaches the existence of only one true God, while the Bible also refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as "God". These three are one and hold the same nature in common. They are not three aspects of the same Person, like one God putting on three masks at different times. That is modalism, which is basically taught today by Oneness Pentecostal group, for example. On the other side of the spectrum, the three persons are not separate Gods, which is LDS belief. The Trinity balances these two seeming opposites, holding them together instead of leaning one way or another. Virtually every heresy in church history regarding the nature of God can be traced back to leaning too far one way or another, instead of sticking with the balance.

This should do to get something started. Civil conversation only, please. I'm not here to debate, but to dialogue. Question and answer, back and forth, not attack-counterattack. I'll do my best to live up to Proverbs 18:19 and Colossians 4:6 principles here.

Take care, everyone

Thank you. I have a question for you now. Is the ONE God, the One and Only true God of the scriptures, is He a "person" or not? Is He depicted in the scriptures as "person" (i.e. haveing a distinct personality) or not? What is your answer to that?

zerinus

[nathansoz]

Thank you. I have a question for you now. Is the ONE God, the One and Only true God of the scriptures, is He a "person" or not? Is He depicted in the scriptures as "person" (i.e. haveing a distinct personality) or not? What is your answer to that?

zerinus

On topic please This is what happened to the last thread.

[cksalmon]

I like Rhino's summary def. for Trinity.

I would submit the Johannine Comma in evidence.

The verses seem to distinguish that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one and not just one in agreement, as we see the distinction between "are one" and "agree in one" in the next verse.

Though, I personally feel the JC was an addition to the text, I thought it worthy to note in a discussion with LDS, given that the verse was allowed to remain intact in the JST. Also, even if it was an addition, it would be hard to argue such an addition was allowable if it went against the grain of prevalent Christian concepts of the day.

What a barb-ed wire here, Mud.

JC is, as you are no doubt aware, obviously spurious.

You're showing yourself the pot-stirrer here.

Best.

cks

[aletheia]

Your welcome! It looks to be fun

I agree with this definition.

Now, for scripture support, although I am fairly certain this will be torn to shreds.

John 1:1-16

Talks about the word being God and becoming flesh. IMO this points to two of the three parts of the trinity, yet they are both God. Futhermore Jesus Christ is called the Son of God making him one of the three persons, but the definition in John still retains him as God.

I am at a loss for a lot more, but I think that others probably have a lot more knowledge than me.

John 1:1 states: "In the beginning was the Word (Christ), and the word was with God, and the Word was God." This same verse suggests to many that God and Christ are one and the same. However, the next verse clarifies by saying, "The same was in the beginning with God." More recent scholorship has rendered the opening line of John in a more easily understood manner. The New English Bible reads as follows: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and what God was, the Word was also."

[rhinomelon]

Now, for scripture support, although I am fairly certain this will be torn to shreds.

John 1:1-16

Talks about the word being God and becoming flesh. IMO this points to two of the three parts of the trinity, yet they are both God. Futhermore Jesus Christ is called the Son of God making him one of the three persons, but the definition in John still retains him as God.

I am at a loss for a lot more, but I think that others probably have a lot more knowledge than me.

Hey, don't sell yourself short! The Johannine prologue is one of the best for sure. As far as it being torn to shreds, I don't think so. People might have a different interpretation, but that's to be expected in an interreligious forum. Don't worry about it.

John 1 is great for a variety of reasons. In addition to the ones you mentioned, we also see John making use of some pretty loaded philosophical vocabulary for his day. This conclusively demonstrates that not all philosophy is bad. The New Testament wasn't written in a vacuum; elements of "pagan" philosophy and rhetoric can be found all over.

I would submit the Johannine Comma in evidence.

Ouch, turning a Trinity thread into a textual criticism thread all at once. Aren't we the masochist!

But that's an interesting call, since it is included in the JST. I'd forgotten that.

Take care, y'all

[cksalmon]

More recent scholorship has rendered the opening line of John in a more easily understood manner. The New English Bible reads as follows: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and what God was, the Word was also."

I think we'd be better off dealing with the Greek simpliciter, here, rather than NEB. The problem of course is that the Greek doesn't sustain NEB's reading at this point, not literally, at any rate. We're into interpretation at this point.

But, to be sure, the Greek of John 1.1 certainly does not read, "and what God was, the Word was also."

Best.

cks

[zerinus]

I like Rhino's summary def. for Trinity.

I would submit the Johannine Comma in evidence.

The verses seem to distinguish that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one and not just one in agreement, as we see the distinction between "are one" and "agree in one" in the next verse.

Though, I personally feel the JC was an addition to the text, I thought it worthy to note in a discussion with LDS, given that the verse was allowed to remain intact in the JST. Also, even if it was an addition, it would be hard to argue such an addition was allowable if it went against the grain of prevalent Christian concepts of the day.

That argument becomes redundant in the face of the following verses:

John 17

:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one,

as we are

.

* * *

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.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one,

even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

These verses suggest that the â??onenessâ? of the Father and the Son will be identical to the â??onenessâ? that the disciples of Jesus were to achieve with the Father and the son. Therefore the â??onenessâ? of the Father and the Son (and Holy Ghost) cannot be so unique that it can only apply to them. It applies equally to all the disciples of Jesus Christ, who would remain faithful.

zerinus

[Mudcat]

What a barb-ed wire here, Mud.

JC is, as you are no doubt aware, obviously spurious.

Quite aware

You're showing yourself the pot-stirrer here.

Best.

cks

Who me? A pot-stirrer?

I resemble that comment.

All Due Respects,

Mudcat

[zerinus]

On topic please This is what happened to the last thread.

My question is very much on topic. Do you mind?

zerinus

[Mudcat]

These verses suggest that the â??onenessâ? of the Father and the Son will be identical to the â??onenessâ? that the disciples of Jesus were to achieve with the Father and the son. Therefore the â??onenessâ? of the Father and the Son (and Holy Ghost) cannot be so unique that it can only apply to them. It applies equally to all the disciples of Jesus Christ, who would remain faithful.

zerinus

Hi Z,

I suppose what I see as problematic, is your statement that their oneness is not unique.

Even with what I might perceive of as a liberal reading of the text, it would only point towards a future oneness that has yet to transpire. So I would think that it still, to this day, stands as unique. If you were to take the position that we will at some point be of a similar or even same oneness, I don't think it can be established that we are currently one.

What do you think?

Mudcat

[zerinus]

Hi Z,

I suppose what I see as problematic, is your statement that their oneness is not unique.

Even with what I might perceive of as a liberal reading of the text, it would only point towards a future oneness that has yet to transpire. So I would think that it still, to this day, stands as unique. If you were to take the position that we will at some point be of a similar or even same oneness, I don't think it can be established that we are currently one.

What do you think?

Mudcat

Trinitarian theology necessitates that the â??onenessâ? of the Trinity be eternally unique, otherwise the Trinity cannot be eternal. It can disappear either now or at some stage in the future. If the Trinity is not eternal, then neither can God be, if Trinitarianism is true.

zerinus

[rhinomelon]

Thank you. I have a question for you now. Is the ONE God, the One and Only true God of the scriptures, is He a "person" or not? Is He depicted in the scriptures as "person" (i.e. haveing a distinct personality) or not? What is your answer to that?

On topic please This is what happened to the last thread.

Had a reply going, but the computer ate it. Anyway, I think zerinus' question is pretty on topic. It might be a bit specific given that we're just laying the groundwork now, but that's okay. But thanks for keeping an eye on things, nathan, I think that will come in handy.

Now, to zerinus' question. The one God of scripture is not a single person, that would be a modalist understanding. But God is very much personal (or if you will, "tripersonal"), in that the Scripture attributes personal characteristics to God: emotions, judgments, communication, relationship, etc. So God is not some soulless robotic being without personality. Quite the opposite!

To go even further along these lines, Scripture not only applies personal characteristics to God as a whole, but also to the three persons individually. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all seen grieving at different places in Scripture, for example. It is for this reason (among others) that modalism is rejected, because the three persons are all portrayed as distinct personalities.

These verses suggest that the â??onenessâ? of the Father and the Son will be identical to the â??onenessâ? that the disciples of Jesus were to achieve with the Father and the son. Therefore the â??onenessâ? of the Father and the Son (and Holy Ghost) cannot be so unique that it can only apply to them. It applies equally to all the disciples of Jesus Christ, who would remain faithful.

If those were the only verses that spoke of the unity between Father and Son, I would agree more with your interpretation. However, there are plenty of verses that speak to a much deeper unity there, beyond what applies to human beings. For instance, Christ is called the express image of God's person, the brightness of His glory. As already noted, John 1 shows a unity between Father and Son that goes beyond human unity, as they are one God. Philippians 2 speaks of the Son's equality in nature with the Father (which he then voluntarily gave up to become a human being). Christ is spoken of on several occasions as God's "only-begotten Son", also speaking to a unique relationship. Colossians 1 speaks of the fulness of Deity dwelling in Christ, definitely a unique relationship, and a unity that goes beyond what we, as human beings, are called to. I don't see Paul telling us to strive to become the fulness of deity in bodily form, or that we will ever become God's only begotten.

There are other passages I could cite, but those are some biggies. The unity of the Father and the Son is much deeper than the unity we are all called to as Christians.

Quite aware

Oh man, Muddie, you are so nuts...

Take care, everyone

[Mudcat]

Trinitarian theology necessitates that the â??onenessâ? of the Trinity be eternally unique, otherwise the Trinity cannot be eternal. It can disappear either now or at some stage in the future. If the Trinity is not eternal, then neither can God be, if Trinitarianism is true.

zerinus

Emphasis mine.

CFR

[rhinomelon]

Trinitarian theology necessitates that the â??onenessâ? of the Trinity be eternally unique, otherwise the Trinity cannot be eternal. It can disappear either now or at some stage in the future. If the Trinity is not eternal, then neither can God be, if Trinitarianism is true.

Quite true, good way to put it. A fundamental part of the Trinitarian doctrine is that God has indeed always been triune, from the very beginning and even before the beginning. Interestingly, Scripture explicitly speaks of the persons of the Trinity as existing and active at the very beginning of creation. The Spirit was hovering over the waters in Genesis 1, while Paul speaks of the Son as the one for whom and by whom all things were created that exist (Colossians 1).

Take care, y'all

[zerinus]

Emphasis mine.

CFR

Meaning?

zerinus

[jadams_4242]

That argument becomes redundant in the face of the following verses:

John 17

:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one,

as we are

.

* * *

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.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one,

even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

These verses suggest that the â??onenessâ? of the Father and the Son will be identical to the â??onenessâ? that the disciples of Jesus were to achieve with the Father and the son. Therefore the â??onenessâ? of the Father and the Son (and Holy Ghost) cannot be so unique that it can only apply to them. It applies equally to all the disciples of Jesus Christ, who would remain faithful.

zerinus

EXXXXactly! if God and the son we litteraly one in being; then all his disciples were to be in the same oneness.

discussion over.

[rhinomelon]

EXXXXactly! if God and the son we litteraly one in being; then all his disciples were to be in the same oneness.

discussion over.

Actually, if you go back and read my response to zerinus' comment, you'll see that the discussion is just beginning. John 17 is just one piece of the puzzle, not the whole picture.

[zerinus]

Quite true, good way to put it. A fundamental part of the Trinitarian doctrine is that God has indeed always been triune, from the very beginning and even before the beginning. Interestingly, Scripture explicitly speaks of the persons of the Trinity as existing and active at the very beginning of creation. The Spirit was hovering over the waters in Genesis 1, while Paul speaks of the Son as the one for whom and by whom all things were created that exist (Colossians 1).

Take care, y'all

So how do you deal with John 17:11, 21-23 quoted above?

And care to answer this one for me as well:

Thank you. I have a question for you now. Is the ONE God, the One and Only true God of the scriptures, is He a "person" or not? Is He depicted in the scriptures as "person" (i.e. haveing a distinct personality) or not? What is your answer to that?

zerinus

zerinus

[Mudcat]

Meaning?

zerinus

You seem to be suggesting that Christians cannot be one with God as it would change the nature of God and dissolve the Trinity because God's nature would be changed.

IMO, this seems to be an assertion and I was curious as to the references you have that support such a concept.

[zerinus]

You seem to be suggesting that Christians cannot be one with God as it would change the nature of God and dissolve the Trinity because God's nature would be changed.

IMO, this seems to be an assertion and I was curious as to the references you have that support such a concept.

That was not what I was saying. You seem to have difficulty understanding what I say. Suggest you go back and read my posts again.

zerinus