Explaining the Trinity: Starting from Scratch
In my Wednesday Night junior high class at church, I have completed Parts 1 and 2 of my Trinity series. So far we have covered (1) absolute monotheism, and (2) three distinct persons sharing the one Being of God. Part 3 will explain that the three divine persons are coequal and coeternal. With the Trinity on my mind, I thought you might benefit from how I have explained the Trinity to a Jehovah’s Witness – which forced me to define the doctrine as though I was starting from scratch. Here is the first email response to my dialogue with “TJ” (some of you might remember my dialogue with him a few months back):
-----------------------------------------------
TJ,
Thanks for the quick reply. You can call me Casey. "Rusty" is a nickname, though I don't mind being called that either. It's up to you.
I very much appreciate your comments about acting Christlike during our discussion. I agree 100%. The only reason I want to defend that the Bible teaches the Triunity of God is because I am passionate about the subject. I love the Trinity. I'm sure you can say the same of your Unitarian beliefs about Jehovah. That said, I would never question your sincerity. And unlike so many in our day, we both care about the truth. I respect that about you already.
As far as my ultimate authority goes - I do hold to the Reformed principle of Sola Scriptura, which can be summarized as this: The God-breathed Scriptures are sufficient to function as the regular rule of faith for the Church in all things pertaining to life, godliness, faith and practice. The Scriptures are clear and perspicuous, and free from error. God has preserved His Word to be the means by which He speaks to the Church today, for as Jesus said in Matthew 22:31, "Have you not read what was spoken to you by God saying..." and then cites the Old Testament.
You said: "My understanding of the Trinity is tailored to whomever I encounter. Sometimes people I meet describe the Trinity in terms that you would likely find plain wrong. It is not my duty to 'correct' them, I just deal with their current beliefs and try to show them what the Bible says in comparison."
It's sad but true that many Trinitarians are unable to defend the doctrine of the Trinity. Even more disappointing is the fact that many Trinitarians are also unable to define it properly.
The historic orthodox ("orthodox" is here used not referring to the Greek Orthodox Church, but to "universal" Christian teaching) definition of the Christian faith can be summed up with one sentence: Within the one Being that is God, there eternally exists three coequal and coeternal persons; namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
There is obviously a lot of information packed into this summary statement. At its core is the belief in monotheism - that there is only one true God. In Isaiah 43:10 we read: "10 "You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me." Yahweh, or as you say, Jehovah, declares that there were no Gods before Him, and there will be none after Him. Indeed, as Isaiah 44:6 tells us, Yahweh is the first and the last, apart from Yahweh there is no God. This is Biblical monotheism: Yahweh, the only true God.
Before I continue, I need to define two terms that are crucial when talking about the Trinity. The terms are "being" and "person." Let me use an example to help with my explanation ... Here I have in my hand my cell phone. My cell phone has being. This is to say that my cell phone exists. But my cell phone has no personality. I can talk to my cell phone all day long and it will never once understand what I am saying. It cannot think. It does not have the ability to speak of itself as "I" or "Me." On the other hand, I also have being. I exist. Though unlike my cell phone, I have personality. I have personhood. I can communicate, think, and reason. I can use personal pronouns of myself. Obviously then, being can exist without personality (like the cell phone), or being can exist with personality (as is the case with human beings).
Unfortunately, the term "person" many times carries with it a lot of baggage. This is because in our experience as human beings, each human being has one personality sharing his/her being.
Now we are ready for the next part of our definition ...
There are three divine persons sharing the one being of God. These three persons are coequal, as to their divine nature. Though the persons have differing roles, this in no way makes one person greater than another as to their nature. Another way of saying this is that difference in function does not mean inferiority in nature.
The three persons are also coeternal. This simply means that each of the persons has eternally existed. There was never a time when the Father was not, the Son was not, or the Holy Spirit was not. They have eternally had fellowship, and a loving relationship towards each other. One was not before the other. Each of the persons is eternal.
Yahweh's being is undivided and indivisible. This means that God's being cannot be "divided up." Obviously then, the Trinity does not teach that God's being is "split" into thirds: the Father making up one third, the Son another third, and the Holy Spirit the remaining third. Rather, each of the divine persons fully share God's being as they are each fully God. For the sake of this discussion I will also add that each of the persons shares the being of Yahweh. Therefore, the Father is Yahweh, the Son is Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit is Yahweh. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit fully share Yahweh's being. (Repetitive, I know. But I want to be clear).
As a side note, it would be inappropriate to say that the Trinity teaches "Three Beings are one Being," or "Three Persons are one Person." Rather, the Trinity teaches that there are three persons within the one being of God. Again, the difference between "being" and "person" must be distinguished in our discussion.
One last side note, Trinitarians do not believe that the Father is the Son, or that the Son is the Holy Spirit, or that the Father is the Holy Spirit ... or any way you want to put it =). We recognize the distinction between the three persons. Yet these three divine persons share the one being of God.
I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because the Bible teaches it. I do not believe the Trinity because of church councils, creeds or confessions. I believe the Bible teaches the triunity of God. In fact, I believe the gospel is Trinitarian - in that each of the persons is involved in the salvation of God's elect people.
As I mentioned on my blog, there are three "foundations" to the doctrine of the Trinity: (1) Monotheism – the belief that there is only one true God; (2) there are three divine persons within the one Being of God; (3) the three persons are coequal and coeternal.
There you have it - a brief summation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Many fine works have been written on the subject, but this should suffice for our discussion.
Thanks TJ,
Casey
posted by rustypth @ 7:00 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Ahh the Trinity.
Not just a character in The Matrix
I do remember TJ, and I'm encouraged that you have been using what you had studied.
Alan,
Your comment was interesting, to say the least =)
You began by saying: “I offer this alternative way of looking at the Trinity.”
Your “alternative way of looking at the Trinity” is a deficient definition, and lacks the use of the historical terminology used to explain what the Christian Church has taught and defended.
If I had to guess, I’d say you are a Oneness Pentecostal … a Unitarian. That is, you believe that God is uni-personal, and not tri-personal. Have I guessed correctly? If not, what is your religious background?
You seem to be utilizing the term “One” and “Oneness” to emphasize Unitarianism (or “Uni-personalism”). You appear to affirm monotheism, the belief in only one true God, when you said: “Many world religions such as Judaism and Islam have taught that God is ONE …” Then, if I understood you correctly, you go on to assume that since God is the only true God, He is therefore uni-personal: “…but there have been other religions who have presented God has having many different faces all derived from one most perfect God.”
The rest of your comment appears to be an argument that God, who is uni-personal, reveals Himself in different ways: “One way to understand this is to recognise that although we see God as perfectly ONE we experience God in many ways - for example as a counsellor we can confide in, as a leader we wish to follow, as a father figure that loves us, or as a warrior that fights spiritual battles on our behalf.” … “Thinking about God in this way leads us to wonder whether God is just simply ONE or whether there are a number of key attributes needed to make up this ONENESS.” … “And right near the beginning of the Bible it says that ‘God created man in his own image…’. If we put these thoughts together we can begin to see that God is ONE but that this ONENESS is made up of Love, Wisdom and Activity. The Divine nature is thus both ONE and THREEFOLD in nature.” … “The Christian idea of the Creator God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit can also be understood in terms of the Love (Father), Wisdom (Son) and Activity (Holy Spirit) of the ONE personal GOD.”
Before I proceed, have I understood your words correctly: (1) there is only one true God, (2) God is uni-personal, and (3) God reveals Himself in different ways (three ways)?
In Christ,
Casey
Alan,
When you said, “Yes…,” was that a response to the three-part question I asked you? Here was that question: “Before I proceed, have I understood your words correctly: (1) there is only one true God, (2) God is uni-personal, and (3) God reveals Himself in different ways (three ways)?”
I would advise you to re-read this blog entry so you can familiarize yourself with the terminology used to historically define the doctrine of the Trinity.
Once you answer the three-part question above, we can then proceed.
Thanks,
Casey
Alan,
Thanks for the reply.
I’m assuming that by “God is ONE,” you mean there is only one true God?
I’m glad we both understand that you believe God is uni-personal, and I believe God is tri-personal.
But before we engage the text of Scripture, I’d like to review two terms that will greatly benefit our discussion. The terms are “being” and “person.” I describe these terms in this blog entry and have this to say: “Let me use an example to help define these two terms. My cell phone has being. That is to say that my cell phone exists. But my cell phone has no personality. I can talk to my cell phone all day long and it will never once understand what I am saying. It cannot think. It does not have the ability to speak of itself as "I" or "Me." On the other hand, I also have being. I exist. Though unlike my cell phone, I have personality. I have personhood. I can communicate, think, and reason. I can use personal pronouns of myself.”
So then, you are a Unitarian, and believe that the one being of God is shared by only one person. I am a Trinitarian, and believe that the one being of God is shared by three persons.
I believe that in order for a discussion over God’s uni-personality or tri-personality, the above terminology should be used. What say you?
Casey
Hey Alan,
You are correct that I’m using “unitarian” to refer to your belief that God is uni-personal and not to the Unitarian Church =).
I’m very pleased that we agree that everything we believe should come from the Scriptures – and you are again correct, that this principal is part of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Perhaps a good starting place is that I believe we worship two very different gods. I do not believe that a uni-personal being is the god of the Bible, but rather a false god. I recognize, however, that if you are consistent you would also view my tri-personal god as a false god. Our gods, and thus our worldviews, are mutually exclusive. We both cannot be right. This means that one of us believes in a false form of Christianity. The only reason I mention this is not to be overdramatic, or to be a jurk. I say this because I want you to understand the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity, and that those who deny the Trinity depart from the Christian faith.
I look forward to your response,
Casey
Alan,
You said: “I would not use your language to describe the differences in our views of God since I consider it extreme to say that one view is false and the other true, from whichever side we are viewing it.”
One being that is shared by a single person cannot equal one being shared by three persons. One is uni-personal, the other is tri-personal. Said another way, a uni-personal being cannot equal a tri-personal being. And if we are to follow a simple rule of logic: “A cannot be non-A,” then your uni-personal god is not my tri-personal god. They are two different beings.
You continued: “Rather I would say that we have been drawn to different understandings of God and yet we can both worship God and believe in God and what is more important desire to live as God wants us to live.”
You and I believe in two different gods. Your god is uni-personal. My god is tri-personal. God is not both uni-personal and tri-personal. He is one or the other.
You said: “Or to put it another way - "A person is a Christian who lives as a Christian, that is, as the Lord teaches."”
It is true that Christians obey the commands of God. But is not a Christian, first and foremost, one who believes in the true God? How can one worship God without having a correct understanding of Him?
In John 8, Jesus had an exchange with the Jews about who he claimed to be: “21Then He said again to them, "I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come." 22So the Jews were saying, "Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" 23And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. 24Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."” (NASB)
Jesus declares to the Jews that He is going to a place they cannot come to, but that they will die in their sins. This statement puzzled the Jews. Jesus responds to their confusion by continuing to inform them about who he claims to be, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” Jesus does not originate from “below” but from “above.” Then in verse 24 Jesus makes an amazing statement: “for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
It is important to note that the phrase, “I am He,” comes from the Greek words: “ego eimi,” which translated literally means: “I am.” (The word “He” is supplied in many modern English translations to smooth out the reading). On more than one occasion Jesus applies the phrase “ego eimi” to Himself (John 8:56, John 13:19, 18:4-8). “ego eimi” draws its rich meaning from the uses found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament). In fact, the Septuagint translates the Hebrew phrase “ani hu” (“I am”) as “ego eimi” in Deut 6:4 and Isaiah 43:10.
Why is this significant? Because the “ego eimi” phrase Jesus applies to Himself is used to identify Yahweh in the Old Testament. This is certainly a claim of divinity. But more than that Jesus demands that we worship Him in everything He claims to be. (Consider also John 4:24 – we must worship God in truth).
If the Unitarian/Oneness position is correct then Jesus is the human aspect of one divine person. If the Trinitarian position is correct then Jesus is one of three divine persons.
Going back to John 8:24…
Jesus says that those who do not believe who He claims to be will die in their sins. I will point out the obvious: you and I do not believe in the same Jesus.
The Jesus you believe in is not eternal, but came into existence at a point in time. He is not a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
By contrast, the Jesus I believe in is an eternal person, co-eternal with two other divine persons: the Father and the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that Jesus began His existence in Bethlehem, but has eternally existed.
We can continue discussing whether Jesus is or isn’t an eternal person at a later time, but the reason I bring this up is to contrast your Jesus with my Jesus. We both cannot be right. And if one of us is wrong about Christ, then one of us has a false god.
Therefore, because you do not believe Jesus to be a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit, I contend that you do not believe that Jesus is who He claimed to be. If you die believing as you do, you will die in your sins. The same should be said of me from your perspective. If you are to be consistent, you would say that if I die with my beliefs then I will die in my sins.
This is the reason we must approach a discussion about the doctrine of God with great care. If we do not affirm who Jesus claimed to be, we will surely die in our sins.
Casey
Alan,
You said: “If you wish to state - "Therefore, because you do not believe Jesus to be a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit, I contend that you do not believe that Jesus is who He claimed to be." - that is fine by me, but do not impute to me the reverse view - "If you are to be consistent, you would say that if I die with my beliefs then I will die in my sins." - because I do not believe that for one moment.”
You quoted me following my brief examination of John 8:24. Here again is the text: “…for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” One must believe in Jesus as He is, and not how we imagine Him. To deny Him as He is is to remain in your sins.
If you choose to believe that a uni-personal being equals a tri-personal being, then you are essentially saying that A CAN equal non-A. This makes no sense. It flies in the face of logic and reason. The tri-personal being I worship is not the uni-personal being you worship. Our views are mutually exclusive. One of us is wrong, and therefore, one of us remains in our sins.
You said: “For me believing in the name of Jesus Christ means seeking to live as Jesus showed us how to live.”
Your understanding of what it means to believe in Jesus Christ is only partially correct, and therefore incorrect. Believing in Christ starts with a proper understanding of who He is. How can you know Christ personally without having knowledge of Him? It sounds like you’re making the argument that it doesn’t matter what you believe about Jesus, so long as you claim to follow His moral teachings. Am I right in saying that? Along that line of logic, one could believe that Jesus is a two-headed ogre, yet if he claims to follow after Christ he would believe in Jesus? Clearly, what we know about Christ makes a great deal of difference.
It is crucial you recognize that one must have a correct doctrine about Christ to believe in the true Christ – John 8:24.
Casey
Alan,
You refuse to acknowledge that we have different gods. Your god is uni-personal. My god is tri-personal. A cannot be non-A. A uni-personal being cannot be a tri-personal being. If you cannot agree with this simple truth, then we are not able to have a productive conversation.
If your perspective changes perhaps we can continue our debate in the future.
Casey
Alan,
I have sufficiently responded to your latest comment in previous comments. So I won't add anything further.
Casey
Post a Comment
<< Home