Understanding the Trinity

[AmbroseSJ]

chaunceygardner:

I suspect, however, that the great majority of Christians at that time had no idea about what was correct or incorrect, and probably didn’t think it was important. It was an issue that seemed to mostly concern the theologians and those who for some reason thought it was truly critical that everyone have a uniform understanding of the Trinity.

I’m not quite sure if your difficulty is with the doctrine of the Trinity itself, or the idea that there IS a doctrine…

Nevertheless, I would still emphasize that the proper understanding of the Trinity is central to Christianity. As you know Christianity is far more complex today than it was in Apostolic Times. Just as the US is far more complex today then it was in 1776. You can’t turn back the clock, much as we might want to. We have to work with the world as it is, not as we would like to imagine it.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I’m not quite sure if your difficulty is with the doctrine of the Trinity itself, or the idea that there IS a doctrine…

That is an EXCELLENT observation. Perhaps my question is about why there even is a doctrine. Why does everything, even the sublime and mysterious, have to be defined? Imagine there was no specific doctrine of the Trinity; would it really change the core Christian faith? So, whether we define this concept one way or another way, or choose not to define it all, what is required to be Christian should not be any different. Should it?

Nevertheless, I would still emphasize that the proper understanding of the Trinity is central to Christianity. As you know Christianity is far more complex today than it was in Apostolic Times. Just as the US is far more complex today then it was in 1776. You can’t turn back the clock, much as we might want to. We have to work with the world as it is, not as we would like to imagine it.

You obviously feel that “a proper understanding” is important, even “central”, to Christianity. I wonder if it really is…or whether Jesus would place that up there with the first two commandments?

And yes, the world is much more complex, but to me that is a very good reason to re-capture the purity and simplicity of Christianity as it came to us from Jesus. The core messages He told people then apply just as well to us today: Love God with all your heart, Love your neighbor, treat everyone as you want to be treated, realize what is really important in life and in faith (i.e., Martha & Mary). As God is eternal, so is His message.

Should our focus be on what a specific doctrine means, or should it be on living the Gospel in our own lives, every day?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

chaunceygardner:

Should our focus be on what a specific doctrine means, or should it be on living the Gospel in our own lives, every day?

Speaking for myself, I would say that living the Gospel is a daily work. However, understanding the doctrine of the Trinity adds depth, richness, and fullness of Truth to my understanding of the Gospel. Like knowing that Jesus, who had so many things to say about God, His Father, is the Son of God and not just another prophet. It changes how I understand everything he has to say. If I wish to call myself a disciple of Jesus, then I must do everything in my power to understand all that he has to say. “Love God with all your mind.” I also understand that not everything Jesus said is contained in the Gospel narratives. The Church continues to reveal to us the teachings of Jesus.

 

[jlhargus]

You obviously feel that “a proper understanding” is important, even “central”, to Christianity. I wonder if it really is…or whether Jesus would place that up there with the first two commandments?

JL: Definitions are brought about for the most part because of false teachings, which bring about confusion within the Christian community and if not checked brings about divisions and strife. There were any number of false teachings on the nature of God and Christ floating around at the time. Making it absolutely necessary for peace and unity for the definitions by the Church to clarify truth from false teachings.

 

[chaunceygardner]

JL: Definitions are brought about for the most part because of false teachings, which bring about confusion within the Christian community and if not checked brings about divisions and strife. There were any number of false teachings on the nature of God and Christ floating around at the time. Making it absolutely necessary for peace and unity for the definitions by the Church to clarify truth from false teachings.

Different teachings, yes. But does different mean “false”? How do we know what is true and what is “false”? Especially regarding an idea that generated varying points of view in the early years of the Church, is not clearly defined in the Gospels, and is still very much a mystery today and difficult, if not impossible, to fathom?

I am not sure if different points of view about the Trinity would have brought about “divisions and strife”, except in the highest councils of the Church or among theologians. The great majority of the laity would not have cared one way or the other.

Rather than come up with a doctrine based on conjecture, maybe the Church should have said “we don’t know exactly what the Trinity is or how to define it, and we agree to disagree, because it is not essential to our faith to understand it.” That would have probably been the best and most honest response.

In an earlier post, you said:

JL: Will you throw out your view? One God ACTING as three persons IS not a Trinity. Trinity is three distinct Persons in the ONE BEING of GOD.

I look at this statement and wonder: Are we not splitting hairs here? Very fine ones, at that? Is the question of whether God is One acting as three persons or three persons in One God the crux of all Christianity? Is it really essential? If I didn’t know which it was would it really matter?

Does it change my understanding of the commandments? No.
Does it require me to adjust how I should live a Christian life? No.
Does it change in any way the teachings of Jesus? No.
Did Jesus (or God the Father) command us to believe this or else? Don’t think so.
Does it change what happened to Jesus and His meaning to the Church and its people? Doesn’t appear to.
Will I be saved or not saved based on how I understand this concept? Highly doubt it.

I can picture our Lord looking at us, shaking His head, and thinking: “Those poor souls break my commandments right and left, kill each other, hate each other, mistreat each other, and generally refuse to live according to my teachings, and then spend their time arguing about this useless stuff, that will not make one difference to their ultimate salvation. Haven’t they learned anything?”

Maybe you can’t see God thinking that, but I can.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

chaunceygardner:

I am not sure if different points of view about the Trinity would have brought about “divisions and strife”, except in the highest councils of the Church or among theologians. The great majority of the laity would not have cared one way or the other.

I see you are unfamiliar with the history of Christianity in the 4th century. The empire was divided by Arianism, which was profoundly connected with the notion of the Trinity. Later in that century they also had strife over the idea of whether the Holy Spirit was Divine. The Trinity was an enormous source of division and turbulence then.

The problem wasn’t differing viewpoints vying for domination, but rather Orthodox, Apostolic teaching being preserved amidst enormous errors and heresies. The idea that people can just believe whatever they want (or whatever seems comfortable to them) is nothing new today! Definitions DO matter. Doctrines DO matter.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I see you are unfamiliar with the history of Christianity in the 4th century. The empire was divided by Arianism, which was profoundly connected with the notion of the Trinity. Later in that century they also had strife over the idea of whether the Holy Spirit was Divine. The Trinity was an enormous source of division and turbulence then.

The problem wasn’t differing viewpoints vying for domination, but rather Orthodox, Apostolic teaching being preserved amidst enormous errors and heresies. The idea that people can just believe whatever they want (or whatever seems comfortable to them) is nothing new today! Definitions DO matter. Doctrines DO matter.

They apparently mattered to the “empire”, to those in secular and religious power, but did they matter to the everyday person? And one must realize that some of those “enormous errors and heresies” (and there reportedly were four different theories on the Trinity circulating) were advocated by Bishops and Church scholars, as well as leaders within the “empire”. It wasn’t just rogue crackpots spouting nonsense, it was widely and deeply held beliefs that were very difficult to displace.

Still don’t see why it matters. Nor does that change the answers to any of my questions.

 

[rdscheirer]

Genesis 1:26 Then God said letus make man in our image,after our likeness…etc.

Why would the very firrst book of the very first monotheistic religion use the term us rathet than me? The Trinity existed always.

 

[jlhargus]

Different teachings, yes. But does different mean “false”? How do we know what is true and what is “false”? Especially regarding an idea that generated varying points of view in the early years of the Church, is not clearly defined in the Gospels, and is still very much a mystery today and difficult, if not impossible, to fathom?

I am not sure if different points of view about the Trinity would have brought about “divisions and strife”, except in the highest councils of the Church or among theologians. The great majority of the laity would not have cared one way or the other.

Rather than come up with a doctrine based on conjecture, maybe the Church should have said “we don’t know exactly what the Trinity is or how to define it, and we agree to disagree, because it is not essential to our faith to understand it.” That would have probably been the best and most honest response.

In an earlier post, you said:

I look at this statement and wonder: Are we not splitting hairs here? Very fine ones, at that? Is the question of whether God is One acting as three persons or three persons in One God the crux of all Christianity? Is it really essential? If I didn’t know which it was would it really matter?

Does it change my understanding of the commandments? No.
Does it require me to adjust how I should live a Christian life? No.
Does it change in any way the teachings of Jesus? No.
Did Jesus (or God the Father) command us to believe this or else? Don’t think so.
Does it change what happened to Jesus and His meaning to the Church and its people? Doesn’t appear to.
Will I be saved or not saved based on how I understand this concept? Highly doubt it.

I can picture our Lord looking at us, shaking His head, and thinking: “Those poor souls break my commandments right and left, kill each other, hate each other, mistreat each other, and generally refuse to live according to my teachings, and then spend their time arguing about this useless stuff, that will not make one difference to their ultimate salvation. Haven’t they learned anything?”

Maybe you can’t see God thinking that, but I can.

JL: Well why did you start the post? Christ promised to lead the Church the pillar and ground of TRUTH, 1Tm3:15, into ALL TRUTH, Jn16:13.

What did people do the first time the gospel was preached by Peter? Acts2:41 Then THEY THAT gladly RECEIVED HIS WORD were BAPTIZED: and the same day there WERE ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls. 42 And THEY CONTINUED steadfastly IN the APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and in BREAKING OF BREAD, and in PRAYERS. [Those that received his word were baptized. They were brought into the Church by baptism and CONTINUED steadfastly in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Fellowship.] 1Cor 1:9 God is faithful you were called into THE FELLOWSHIP OF his Son JESUS CHRIST 10 I appeal to you BREATHREN by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you AGREE that there be no dissensions among you that you BE UNITED in the same mind and THE SAME JUDGMENT. 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR [Therefore we do not listen to men, the spirit of error, to be taken in by false teachers and every wind of doctine men can devise through sola scriptura, the tridition of men made a doctrine of God around 1521 AD.]

 

[AmbroseSJ]

chaunceygardner:

Still don’t see why it matters. Nor does that change the answers to any of my questions.

What is the first thing Moses asks of God in the burning bush? What is your name? Now when Jesus Christ comes to earth and gives us the doctrine of baptism, where Christians are to be baptized IN THE NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, we are being given the true Name of God. Far more than Moses got. If you think the Name of God doesn’t matter, than there isn’t much about God that does matter does it?

I have a very dear and old friend who has become an agnostic. Your answer above is his answer to why do we need to believe in God. You see how John Henry Newman had it right? Someday you might find yourself asking why believing in God matters. No you say? Remember the parable of the talents? From the one that buried his talent, even that was taken from him and given to another. Those who “bury” their Faith in the ground of “why does it matter” are setting themselves up for the loss of what little they do have.

 

[jlhargus]

Different teachings, yes. But does different mean “false”? How do we know what is true and what is “false”? Especially regarding an idea that generated varying points of view in the early years of the Church, is not clearly defined in the Gospels, and is still very much a mystery today and difficult, if not impossible, to fathom?

JL: You sound like Pontius Pilot, what is true, what is false. God gave us a teaching authority to guide us into all truth not hit and miss truth. Tell me if truth doesn’t matter why doesn’t your denom unite with other denoms.

I am not sure if different points of view about the Trinity would have brought about “divisions and strife”, except in the highest councils of the Church or among theologians. The great majority of the laity would not have cared one way or the other.

JL: If it had been no problem then it would not have been neccesary for councils. There are always theologians who come up with all kinds of theories, that is part of their job. There is no problem with that. The problem comes when others begin to teach those theories as fact to congregations causing strife and divison.

Rather than come up with a doctrine based on conjecture, maybe the Church should have said “we don’t know exactly what the Trinity is or how to define it, and we agree to disagree, because it is not essential to our faith to understand it.” That would have probably been the best and most honest response.

JL: The Church can and has defined what Christ revealed about the Trinity, it is not conjecture but thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ to lead the Church into all truth.

 

[Major_Tom]

Does it change my understanding of the commandments? No.
Does it require me to adjust how I should live a Christian life? No.
Does it change in any way the teachings of Jesus? No.
Did Jesus (or God the Father) command us to believe this or else? Don’t think so.
Does it change what happened to Jesus and His meaning to the Church and its people? Doesn’t appear to.
Will I be saved or not saved based on how I understand this concept? Highly doubt it.

Chauncey-
I like many of your postings, both in this thread and others. I concur with many of your points.

In the Old Testament, God goes by many names: Elohim, adonai, Yahweh, El Shaddai…simply God going by other names. It always puzzled me, then, why the trinity always received so much attention, and such a primary role in the cathechism, when it ostensibly seemed the same: the same one god, going by different names.

The explanation of the ‘mystery’ component of the trinity never felt right to me: on one hand, it’s a mystery, so no one can understand it. But if I want to ponder, say, that Jesus may not have been a part of it, or their might be a fourth or fifth face to the trinity… oh, no, that’s crazy talk! That’s not part of the mystery, and it’s wrong. So it’s a mystery… yet a very specifically defined mystery… doesn’t that make it not a mystery anymore…?

I also agree that it seems to make no difference to my approach to daily life. Enjoy every moment… think of the spiritual world that awaits us after this one… do unto others…

 

[simple_soul]

Is the question of whether God is One acting as three persons or three persons in One God the crux of all Christianity? Is it really essential? If I didn’t know which it was would it really matter?

*Dear Chauncey,

Refering to the part that I bolded, I do not know why we have such a hard time answering this question. I believe the answer is no.

All one has to do is look at all the saints. They are all considered saints but all had a different level of understanding God’s Mysteries. It is my understanding that it was thier heroic way of living a life of virtue not how much or how well they understood God’s mysteries that earned them the title Saint.

Just my :twocents:*

 

[jlhargus]

In an earlier post, you said:

JL: Will you throw out your view? One God ACTING as three persons IS not a Trinity. Trinity is three distinct Persons in the ONE BEING of GOD.

I look at this statement and wonder: Are we not splitting hairs here? Very fine ones, at that?

JL: It is far from spliting hairs, it is as different as day and night. ONE Person by no streach of the imagination can be a TRINITY of Person that would be a contradiction.

Is the question of whether God is One acting as three persons or three persons in One God the crux of all Christianity? Is it really essential? If I didn’t know which it was would it really matter?

JL: If it doesn’t matter why did Christ reveal it? Is truth the crux of all Christianity or can we thorw in FALSE TEACHINGS would it really matter?

Does it matter if we know Christ rose from the dead? Answer your following questions below, then tell me in your view what does it matter and how it answers your below questions.

chaunceygardner: Does it change my understanding of the commandments? No.
Does it require me to adjust how I should live a Christian life? No.
Does it change in any way the teachings of Jesus? No.
Did Jesus (or God the Father) command us to believe this or else? Don’t think so.
Does it change what happened to Jesus and His meaning to the Church and its people? Doesn’t appear to.
Will I be saved or not saved based on how I understand this concept? Highly doubt it..

 

[jlhargus]

*Dear Chauncey,

Refering to the part that I bolded, I do not know why we have such a hard time answering this question. I believe the answer is no*.

All one has to do is look at all the saints. They are all considered saints but all had a different level of understanding God’s Mysteries. It is my understanding that it was thier heroic way of living a life of virtue not how much or how well they understood God’s mysteries that earned them the title Saint. Just my :twocents:

JL: I see where you get your line name, Great answer. I agree with you totally, my mother would not have been able to know or explain lots of doctrines. Yet clarifing truth from error when that error is leading people to believe fasehood is necessary for the people of God.

 

[mackbrislawn]

:

Again I ask, WHY?

One person may understand the Trinity as three persons in One God, while another may see the three as being different aspects or manifestations of The One God.

Good question, Why?

“Another may see the three as different aspects or manifestations of the One God.”

Yes, this is an easy way to think of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: these terms simply describe different modes or aspects by which God works or reveals Himself.

But what are the consequences of thinking this way? That is the answer to the question, Why?

It’s this way. The Gospels tell us that Jesus, the Son, suffers and dies. But if Jesus is simply an aspect or manifestation of God, that means that God suffered and died. However, how can God suffer and die? Obviously He cannot. Therefore, the Gospels have lied, and we cannot believe them, and our faith is in vain.

So, following the logical consequences of the manifestation, or Modalist theory, we have seen how it leads to other contradictions that nullify the Gospels or nullify Christ’s redeeming death on the cross.

This is one example, but hopefully serves to indicate why the Trinity is ultimately defined as it is–to exclude interpretations that seem plausible for the moment, but when scrutinized more closely, lead to conclusions that ultimately undermine Christianity.

 

[simple_soul]

JL: I see where you get your line name, Great answer. I agree with you totally, my mother would not have been able to know or explain lots of doctrines. Yet clarifing truth from error when that error is leading people to believe fasehood is necessary for the people of God.

*Dear jlhargus,

Yes I agree that being a child of God calls us to bear witness to His Truth in as much as we can comprehend it out of our love for that Truth. With humility knowing we would have no concept of Him or His Truth if it was not for Him to begin with and understanding that our human nature hinders us from fully understanding His Truth.

As for me, the Trinity was explained to me with so much emphasis on the three Persons and with an “Oh, by the way they share the same Divine nature.” Not much emphasis on the Divine nature that makes them one God. Because of this I had an understanding of God as being more like three Persons than just one God. So I can understand some of the questions raised here. This thread definitely helped me to understand this one God more clearly and I do thank every one on here for it.

I believe the one line that hit home the most was what you said here: *

Three Persons in ONE GOD

*It was never explained to me this way. The analogy that I grew up with was more like Three Persons “attached” to the Divine Nature versus Three Persons “contained” in the Divine Nature.

I hope and pray this all makes some sense.
And again, I thank everyone for their (name removed by moderator)ut. I do believe it has helped me to understand the Trinity more deeply than I did before.*

 

[JimG]

Why did the Church make any statements at all about the nature of the Trinity?
Because people began to make false statements about it, such as ‘Christ is not really equal to God,’ or ‘actually there are 3 gods.’ It was the job of the Church–it has always been her job–to say, wait, that is not what we have always believed. That is not what has been handed down to us. So they were forced to state the doctrine in a way that clarified the truth, and avoided the heresies.

Similarly with Christology. If someone were to say, as they did, ‘Jesus is not really equal to God,’ or ‘Jesus is really only God, and just gave the illusion of being a man,’ it was once again the Church’s duty to state that both of those formulations were not the faith that had been handed down. They had to clarify that Jesus is both God and man, but only one person.

Doctrinal statements must be made when false statements are being proposed for belief.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Chauncey-
I like many of your postings, both in this thread and others. I concur with many of your points.

In the Old Testament, God goes by many names: Elohim, adonai, Yahweh, El Shaddai…simply God going by other names. It always puzzled me, then, why the trinity always received so much attention, and such a primary role in the cathechism, when it ostensibly seemed the same: the same one god, going by different names.

The explanation of the ‘mystery’ component of the trinity never felt right to me: on one hand, it’s a mystery, so no one can understand it. But if I want to ponder, say, that Jesus may not have been a part of it, or their might be a fourth or fifth face to the trinity… oh, no, that’s crazy talk! That’s not part of the mystery, and it’s wrong. So it’s a mystery… yet a very specifically defined mystery… doesn’t that make it not a mystery anymore…?

I also agree that it seems to make no difference to my approach to daily life. Enjoy every moment… think of the spiritual world that awaits us after this one… do unto others…

Thank you for that. You are so right; One God, known in different ways, appearing in different forms, and who knows if there are four, five or ten? Maybe we have been privileged to see only three aspects (or persons) of God. And perhaps not. It is a mystery.

I ask you all: Are we to be a people of laws and doctrines or a people of God?

Paul tells the Galatians this (Ch2:19-20):

For through the law I died to the law, that I might live for God…I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me.

Living for God, not according to the “law”, but according to the teachings of Christ now living within us, as Paul goes on to say.

Are we to find God through following a set of rules and voicing adherence to doctrines, or do we find Him by seeking a transformation in our understanding of and relationship with God? In *Romans 12 *Paul says this:

Do not conform yourself to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good, and pleasing, and perfect.

We do not find God in the laws or doctrines of ANY religious body; we find God through transforming ourselves from a person bound by earthly burdens, faults and limitations into a spiritual seeker of God.

SimpleSoul:

It is my understanding that it was their heroic way of living a life of virtue not how much or how well they understood God’s mysteries that earned them the title Saint.

You are correct that many of the Saints were wonderful examples of those who broke from the chains of human precepts and lived in the spirit of God. They are a sign to us of where we shall find God’s presence, and a key to truly knowing His will. As Jesus said to those who showed an understanding of this, “You are not far from the Kingdom of God.”

 

[Alterum]

Hi! I suggest reading at least Book V of Augustine’s De Trinitate. I was actually asking about this in another thread, I’ll probably skim the book and add anything pertinent here.

It is important for Christians to refrain from simply throwing up their hands and regarding the whole thing as a mystery. Some things are mysteries. Lima beans – why on earth do those exist? The problem with the Trinity is that it can seem logically contradictory, and we have a rational duty to demonstrate that this is not so.

Augustine argues that anything predicated of God cannot be be predicated accidently. Accidental predicates are not part of the ‘essence’ of something, so they are not necessary to define it. Essential predicates, on the other hand, cannot be removed from something without changing what it is.

Any essential predication of God is applied to all three persons: thus they are all consubstantial, the same essence. If I say “The Holy Spirit is Wisdom,” I must also say the same of the Father and Son, because that is an essential predicate. (Turns out that it’s a bit misleading to just attach nouns and adjectives to descriptions of God, but there’s no need to get into that.)

How to distinguish the three persons? Augustine says that there’s another kind of predication which is not essential or accidental: it’s relational. Without changing the substance of a thing, relational predication nevertheless establishes a real distinction. Nor can it be removed from the thing; it is a necessary part of the definition. Therefore the three persons stand in certain unique relationships to each other.

On a tangential topic, it’s also worthwhile to think of God’s relationship to man. God never changes, so it’s not quite right to speak of His becoming angry or merciful or what have you. Man’s relationship to God changes.

If anyone knows a lot about this check out my poorly-titled thread in Philosophy called ‘Distinction of three persons’ or something like that and try to help me figure out my dilemma there!