Personal Reflections on a Regular Christian's Views on the Trinity Doctrine.

[Mfbnew]

On 1/3/2025 at 8:00 PM, InCognitus said:

I think you've described the doctrine quite accurately, based on many conversations I've had with those who profess belief in the Trinity, and articles and books I've read about the Trinity.  But I certainly don't claim to be an expert.  I think you've described the various heresies that arise quite well also.  

I have found that most average church going Christians don't understand the terminology at all (who does? - maybe @Mfbnew ), particularly with respect to the differences between the words "being", "substance", "essence", and "person".  Some will deny that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one being" (for example), because that is confused with the idea that they are "one person" (which they are not).  I don't claim to fully understand these terms either, but I know enough to know that there are important differences between what is a "being" and a "person".

I recently posted the following definitions (from books that I have and have read) in another thread where the doctrine of the Trinity was being discussed:  

In the book The Forgotten Trinity, in a chapter titled "What Is the Trinity?", under the heading a "Basic Definition," the author James White writes:

"Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (The Forgotten Trinity - Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, by James R. White (1998, Bethany House Publishers), p.26, emphasis added).  Incidentally, this definition is also quoted in the Got Questions article, Should we worship Jesus?

On the next page, White paraphrases Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute, whom I often heard repeat this statement of belief on his radio show years ago (he was "The Bible Answer Man" before he converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church in 2017):

"[W]hen speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are talking about one what and three who's. The one what is the Being or essence of God, the three who's are the Father, Son, and Spirit. We dare not mix up the what's and who's regarding the Trinity" (ibid, p.27)

In the book Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Robert M. Bowman, Jr, states a similar belief:

"Another aspect of God's oneness is the fact that there are no separations or divisions or partitions in God. The trinitarian doctrine holds that God is a single infinite being, transcending the bounds of space and time, having no body either material or spiritual (except the body that the Son assumed in becoming a man). Thus the trinitarian God has no parts. You cannot divide infinite being into components. The Athanasian Creed affirms that God is not divided by the three persons when it states that the trinitarian faith does not allow for "dividing the substance" (using "substance" to mean the essence or being of God). The three persons, consequently, are not three parts of God, but three personal distinctions within God, each of whom is fully God" (Why You Should Believe in the Trinity - An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., 1989 Baker Book House, pp.12-13)

In the book The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, Robert Morey also makes a similar distinction in laying out certain expectations about the Trinity with regard to the Bible:

“1. We expect to find in the Bible that there is only one, true, living, eternal Being who is God by nature and Maker of heaven and earth.
2. We expect to find in the Bible that the one true God is incomprehensible.
3. We expect to find in the Bible that the one true God exists in three Persons called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."  (The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, by Robert Morey,1996, World Bible Publishers, Inc., p.60) 

I think Latter-day Saints agree with the basic core definition, which is that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and these three persons are (somehow) "one God".  We just differ on what is meant by "one God", and exactly how that is defined.  We also differ drastically on ontology, but that's a different topic .  

Well I finally got around to fixing my avatar thanks to your help on that!  👍

Yes, indeed ontology here is the problem- and the problem is largely based on ancient philosophy vs present day contemporary philosophy- which has changed drastically from from its Greek roots which go back, arguably, to around THREE THOUSAND YEARS AGO.

I think we have improved. 

We have to understand that Catholicism - PHILOSOPHICALLY - is based on a foundation of Greek philosophy - primarily Plato and Aristotle- which was altered by Plotinus and others to - in their opinions- explain a philosophical basis for the "mysteries" of Catholicism.  

In other words these Greek teachings were fully based on the "logic" of its day- in other words, based on "the philosophies of men" as opposed to "scripture" AS UNDERSTOOD by faithful devotees of Christianity.  So yes, what evolved from early Christian "theology" was largely a faith based on "mysteries" which actually was the best answers that the ontology of its time could handle.   So yes, I agree with your point that what evolved might correctly be seen as "a mass of confusion" largely because the Greeks really did not understand what we see now as "psychology" and how that discipline affects all ideas and concepts we use today to build the world as we know it.

One might say that what the Greeks did not understand was the importance of "subjectivity" and how our human perceptions affect the way we construct what we "know".

BUT, ironically there WAS one philosopher called Heraclitus who would fit in well in our contemporary philosophy today- but living at the time that he did, his perceptions were based on a poetic, symbolic approach  he did, simply because the vocabulary we use today simply was not available to him.  Thinking in the terms he had, with, for example the idea that there were four elements- earth, air, fire, and water which made up all of "reality".

Famously he rather poetically said that one could not "step into the same stream twice"- a rather poetic way of which we MIGHT say today, that the"stream of consciousness" is constantly changing".

The concept of "subjectivity" simply did not exist.  One cannot receive "personal revelation" if the concept of subjectivity has not yet been invented!

Our "Linguistic Analysis" approach has done wonders in clarifying what it means to see our world as we do today, and how we "see through a glass (ie: mirror) darkly" and how our cultural and personal affects our entire perception of all that is going on around us.

We all, like Picasso,  build our own unique pictures of ourselves influenced by our personal experiences and language-  a concept that would be "Greek to me"-  in their times.

So, long story short- I agree with @InCognitus  that the main problem - as perceived- is totally based on the meanings of words and therefore "translations" of highly abstract and ambiguous concepts, which he enumerated.

Philosophy has found this problem, and has - since around Kant's time-  taken steps to include these more contemporary ideas that has helped us understand psychology and the private worlds in which we live, as is discussed in Pragmatism and Phenomenology

But THAT is a longer story...