Why the Trinity?

[Bubba_Switzler]

Why do we need the dogma of the Trinity? Why is it not sufficient to view Jesus as simply the human incarnation of God and the Holy Spirit as God’s influence in human affairs?

What gives rise to the need to separate Jesus and the Holy Spirit from God as “persons”?

(I realize that the dogma of the Trinity is a “Mystery” but, nevertheless, I am curious.)

 

[JimG]

Why do we need the dogma of the Trinity? Why is it not sufficient to view Jesus as simply the human incarnation of God and the Holy Spirit as God’s influence in human affairs?

What gives rise to the need to separate Jesus and the Holy Spirit from God as “persons”?

(I realize that the dogma of the Trinity is a “Mystery” but, nevertheless, I am curious.)

It’s not so much what we need, as what Jesus chose to reveal. We do view Jesus as the “human incarnation of God,” but that phrase alone is not sufficient to state whether he was a human person or a divine person, or whether he had a fully human nature or only a divine nature.

As to what difference it makes, it makes a real difference in how we view salvation and Jesus. Was he just God impersonating man (in which case no one can really imitate him,) or was he fully human in every respect? And is he two persons or one? (The answer is one, and that one person is identified with the Divine Word, also known as the Second Person of the Trinity.)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It’s not so much what we need, as what Jesus chose to reveal. We do view Jesus as the “human incarnation of God,” but that phrase alone is not sufficient to state whether he was a human person or a divine person, or whether he had a fully human nature or only a divine nature.

Right, but what did Jesus reveal that leads to the Trinitarian view?

As to what difference it makes, it makes a real difference in how we view salvation and Jesus. Was he just God impersonating man (in which case no one can really imitate him,) or was he fully human in every respect? And is he two persons or one? (The answer is one, and that one person is identified with the Divine Word, also known as the Second Person of the Trinity.)

These are two very different questions. Is it the human nature of Jesus which leads to the seperate personhood? Is it considered inconceivable that Jesus could be a fully human incarnation of God and still not be a seperate “person”? (You say “the answer is one” but I thought the Trinitarian anser is “three persons, one God.”)

 

[JimG]

Right, but what did Jesus reveal that leads to the Trinitarian view?

These are two very different questions. Is it the human nature of Jesus which leads to the seperate personhood? Is it considered inconceivable that Jesus could be a fully human incarnation of God and still not be a seperate “person”? (You say “the answer is one” but I thought the Trinitarian anser is “three persons, one God.”)

No, I mean that Jesus is one Person, not two. And that he is a divine person, not a human person. And yet that he is fully human in every sense, having to learn, having human emotions, having to suffer, as a human.

If Jesus were a “fully human incarnation of God and still not a separate “person,”” I presume that you mean that in that case he would be a fully human incarnation of the Father. (assuming only one person in the Godhead?)

That would present some exegetical problems when considering scripture passages in which Jesus prays rather fervently, TO the father, indicating a communication between two persons, not an internal dialog with himself.

But the dogma of the one person and two natures of Christ was argued rather vociferously–even violently–over the course of several centuries, in an attempt to discover just what was meant by Jesus being the Son of God and God the Son.

 

[puzzleannie]

Why do we need the dogma of the Trinity? Why is it not sufficient to view Jesus as simply the human incarnation of God and the Holy Spirit as God’s influence in human affairs?

What gives rise to the need to separate Jesus and the Holy Spirit from God as “persons”?

(I realize that the dogma of the Trinity is a “Mystery” but, nevertheless, I am curious.)

Because God has revealed Himself as Trinity, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so we are obliged to regard Him and believe in Him in this way. He has revealed Himself as a personal God, three divine persons within that one Godhead, so we are not free to imagine any other construct or explanation. He sets His own rules.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

No, I mean that Jesus is one Person, not two. And that he is a divine person, not a human person. And yet that he is fully human in every sense, having to learn, having human emotions, having to suffer, as a human.

Thanks for that clarification. But this is where I’m having trouble. If we can conceive of Jesus as being a single person both fully divine and fully human then it’s hard to see the logical necessity, from this alone, of a multi-person Trinity.

If Jesus were a “fully human incarnation of God and still not a separate “person,”” I presume that you mean that in that case he would be a fully human incarnation of the Father. (assuming only one person in the Godhead?)

Right. It seems to me to be equivalent to the personhood of the Trinity.

That would present some exegetical problems when considering scripture passages in which Jesus prays rather fervently, TO the father, indicating a communication between two persons, not an internal dialog with himself.

This is certainly the main item I had my eye on. Is it the only thing supporting the multiple-person Trinity?

But the dogma of the one person and two natures of Christ was argued rather vociferously–even violently–over the course of several centuries, in an attempt to discover just what was meant by Jesus being the Son of God and God the Son.

I always remember back to a sermon on the subject in which the priest described the Trinity in terms of human relationships: a single person can be a son, spouse, and father (not to mention employee, customer, band member, etc.). A single person can be quite complex.

 

[JimG]

Yes, a single person can have different roles, but the Trinity has never been viewed as simply the one God acting in different manifestations or roles, but rather as distinct persons (not distinct entities) each fully possessing the one divine nature.

Upon philosophical reflection, one can consider the persons of the Trinity to be inherent and arising from the very essence of God. For that sort of philosophical elucidation, I recommend F.J. Sheed’s book, “Theology for Beginners.”

As to how the reality of the Trinity came to be expressed in particular human language, I’m going to read “Jesus Wars–How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1500 Years,” by Philip Jenkins. The Church has always taken its Christology very seriously indeed, but much of the early debate centered in the eastern churches.

My initial impression is that if Jesus were only God “appearing” in human form, he would end up having been more an E.T. type of figure than a Savior–sort of a new agey good guy instead of a Suffering Servant.

 

[Yab_Yum]

Why the Trinity? Because in Christianity (uniquely among all religions) relationship precedes being.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

My initial impression is that if Jesus were only God “appearing” in human form, he would end up having been more an E.T. type of figure than a Savior–sort of a new agey good guy instead of a Suffering Servant.

I understand that an “only God” version of Jesus would diminish his nature, that the “fully human” aspect, and all that implies, is important.

Yes, a single person can have different roles, but the Trinity has never been viewed as simply the one God acting in different manifestations or roles, but rather as distinct persons (not distinct entities) each fully possessing the one divine nature.

I’m still trying to grasp why this is the case. The best I’ve been able to come up with is your example of Jesus praying/speaking to God which obviously makes no sense if Jesus is “merely” God. There is also a reference to Jesus’ limited knowledge which you also alluded to in Jesus growing and learning as humans do.

Upon philosophical reflection, one can consider the persons of the Trinity to be inherent and arising from the very essence of God. For that sort of philosophical elucidation, I recommend F.J. Sheed’s book, “Theology for Beginners.” As to how the reality of the Trinity came to be expressed in particular human language, I’m going to read “Jesus Wars–How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1500 Years,” by Philip Jenkins. The Church has always taken its Christology very seriously indeed, but much of the early debate centered in the eastern churches.

It seems a lot of the early debate was more about whether Jesus was an equal person to God, in other words, starting from the position that Jesus was in some essential way, distinct from God, which is expressed as a seperate “person”.

Is it perhaps simply a semantic matter? “Personhood” simply being a human term for this mysterious separation?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Why the Trinity? Because in Christianity (uniquely among all religions) relationship precedes being.

To be sure, I’ve heard some interesting theological discussions of the implications of the Trinity, e.g. as an example of perfect Love (between/among the persons of the Trinity).

 

[JimG]

Sheed begins with a discussion of the “attributes” of God, qualities which God possesses to an infinite degree. He then poses the question, what does God know?
He knows, first of all, himself. Analogically, we also know ourselves: we have an idea of ourselves. But our knowledge is imperfect. The idea does not precisely match the subject in every respect.

But God’s “idea” of himself is and must be, perfect. There is nothing in himself which is not in his idea of himself, including, necessarily, personhood.

Thus, the prologue to the Gospel of John speaks of the Son as the eternal Word–the Logos. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” God speaks his self knowledge as the eternal Word.

But Sheed’s analysis is simply a reflection on what has been revealed; it’s not a new invention of doctrine.

 

[Spirithound]

Thus, the prologue to the Gospel of John speaks of the Son as the eternal Word–the Logos. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” God speaks his self knowledge as the eternal Word.

Right, and a person cannot be his own word. Nobody speaks himself into existence.

I love Theology for Beginners.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Sheed begins with a discussion of the “attributes” of God, qualities which God possesses to an infinite degree. He then poses the question, what does God know? He knows, first of all, himself. Analogically, we also know ourselves: we have an idea of ourselves. But our knowledge is imperfect. The idea does not precisely match the subject in every respect. But God’s “idea” of himself is and must be, perfect. There is nothing in himself which is not in his idea of himself, including, necessarily, personhood. Thus, the prologue to the Gospel of John speaks of the Son as the eternal Word–the Logos. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” God speaks his self knowledge as the eternal Word. But Sheed’s analysis is simply a reflection on what has been revealed; it’s not a new invention of doctrine.

Do I understand correctly that Sheed is suggesting that Jesus is God’s perfect self-knowledge? That stikes me as a compound literary device.

Right, and a person cannot be his own word. Nobody speaks himself into existence.

.
Then we have the debate about whether God created Jesus or whether they are equally eternal.

But if Jesus is a role that God undertakes, a persona as opposed to a person, then that could plausibly be spoken (i.e. willed) into existence.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Why do we need the dogma of the Trinity? Why is it not sufficient to view Jesus as simply the human incarnation of God and the Holy Spirit as God’s influence in human affairs?

What gives rise to the need to separate Jesus and the Holy Spirit from God as “persons”?

(I realize that the dogma of the Trinity is a “Mystery” but, nevertheless, I am curious.)

First - I think it is important to say that the Dogma of the Trinity is necessary to establish God as He is, as distinct and separate from any other conception of any other god anyone is likely to come up with. Not that we (man) invented the Trinity - we did not, in fact we could not - which is the point I am making about the Trinity. The Trinity IS God, as He is, and is given to us in terms inadequate to understanding, of necessity - because the finite human mortal mind cannot comprehend what is infinite and therefore incomprehensible to it, which in itself denotes almighty God as He has revealed Himself to us.

Having said that, we can know certain things -

God exists as a unity of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the persons is distinct from the other, yet identical in essence. In other words, each is fully divine in nature, but the Father is not the same person as the Son, who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit, who is not the same person as the Father. Each is divine, yet there are not three gods, but one God. There are three individual persons who make up God. The word “person” denotes individuality and self awareness in the individual aspects of God known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But in God there are neither three entities, nor three beings. God is a trinity of persons consisting of one substance and one essence. God is numerically one.

The Scriptures reference the Trinity here:

* Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
* 1 Cor. 12:4-6, "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.  5And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.  6And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons."
* 2 Cor. 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."
* Eph. 4:4-7, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.  7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift."
* 1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure."
* Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."

Then of course there is the Gospel of John:

1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.

4 In him was life: and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shines in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it. …

10 He was in the world: and the world was made by him: and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own: and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.

13 Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

Combine that with Genesis Ch 1 and Ch 2 - specifically:

Ch 1:2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

Taken with John above, this is again a reference to the Trinity. Since The Word was in the beginning With God, being Himself God also, and the Spirit of God moved over the face of the waters.

• recognizing that Ch1 is a straightforward account of creation, by the Creator…while Ch 2 is describing the Love of God, the Love of a Father towards His creation. This describes two of the persons of God at work at the same time. If you take into account that the actual work of God is accomplished through the Holy Spirit, as referenced in verse 2 - then all three Persons are at work in the creation account.

The necessity of the dual nature of Christ (fully human/fully divine) has more to do with the nature of sin, the enormity of the Fall, the necessity of a perfect sacrifice, and the perfect Love of God - than it does the nature of the Trinity as such.

Hope this helps

Pax

John

 

[Spirithound]

Then we have the debate about whether God created Jesus or whether they are equally eternal.

There is hierarchy in the Trinity, but each of the three Persons are equally co-eternal. God’s self-knowledge must be eternal, since he knows himself perfectly and his very Idea must contain all that the Father contains, including eternality. God always had the Idea about himself, for all eternity, and so the Father and the Son are co-eternal, even though we know from the Creed that the Son is begotten of the Father (note: not made).

But if Jesus is a role that God undertakes, a persona as opposed to a person, then that could plausibly be spoken (i.e. willed) into existence.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

There is hierarchy in the Trinity, but each of the three Persons are equally co-eternal. God’s self-knowledge must be eternal, since he knows himself perfectly and his very Idea must contain all that the Father contains, including eternality. God always had the Idea about himself, for all eternity, and so the Father and the Son are co-eternal, even though we know from the Creed that the Son is begotten of the Father (note: not made).

Hi

I’m sure I must be misunderstanding you. You aren’t confusing the second person of the Trinity, with Jesus are you?

Because we also know from the Creed, as well as Scripture, that Jesus is NOT Co-Eternal, but rather is the Word made flesh, at a definite point in time and space. God the Son - I.E. The Second person of the Trinity - is different from the the Son of God, I.E.- Jesus.

I just misunderstood you right?

Pax

John

 

[JimG]

Hi

I’m sure I must be misunderstanding you. You aren’t confusing the second person of the Trinity, with Jesus are you?

Because we also know from the Creed, as well as Scripture, that Jesus is NOT Co-Eternal, but rather is the Word made flesh, at a definite point in time and space. God the Son - I.E. The Second person of the Trinity - is different from the the Son of God, I.E.- Jesus.

I just misunderstood you right?

Pax

John

Actually, God the Son and the Son of God are the same Person.

The second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, took a human nature, conceived as a human being in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and was born at a particular moment in history. But he remains a divine person (God the Son) not a human person. Jesus possesses both a fully human nature and a divine nature. As man, he grows, learns, suffers and dies. As God, he possesses divine knowledge and is always in communion with the Father and Holy Spirit.

We speak of God the Son when contemplating the divine nature, and we speak of the Son of God when contemplating the human nature. But both the human and divine natures are fully possessed by one Person, not two.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Actually, God the Son and the Son of God are the same Person.

The second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, took a human nature, conceived as a human being in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and was born at a particular moment in history. But he remains a divine person (God the Son) not a human person. Jesus possesses both a fully human nature and a divine nature. As man, he grows, learns, suffers and dies. As God, he possesses divine knowledge and is always in communion with the Father and Holy Spirit.

We speak of God the Son when contemplating the divine nature, and we speak of the Son of God when contemplating the human nature. But both the human and divine natures are fully possessed by one Person, not two.

Which is why I said I must be misunderstanding.

If you look at the post I was referencing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler View Post
Then we have the debate about whether God created Jesus or whether they are equally eternal.
There is hierarchy in the Trinity, but each of the three Persons are equally co-eternal. God’s self-knowledge must be eternal, since he knows himself perfectly and his very Idea must contain all that the Father contains, including eternality. God always had the Idea about himself, for all eternity, and so the Father and the Son are co-eternal, even though we know from the Creed that the Son is begotten of the Father (note: not made).*

**Quote:
But if Jesus is a role that God undertakes, a persona as opposed to a person, then that could plausibly be spoken (i.e. willed) into existence. **

Because it sounded to me as if he was saying Jesus - who yes, has both a divine nature and a human nature - but still Jesus, as the Son NOT the Second person of the Trinity, is co-eternal. Which is incorrect…Jesus HAS a definite beginning, and is NOT Co-Eternal. That is the point I was making. Yes His divine Nature IS the second person of the Trinity…but the question did not appear to be directed at the second person of the Trinity, but rather at Jesus.

Pax

John

 

[JimG]

Which is why I said I must be misunderstanding.

If you look at the post I was referencing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler View Post
Then we have the debate about whether God created Jesus or whether they are equally eternal.
There is hierarchy in the Trinity, but each of the three Persons are equally co-eternal. God’s self-knowledge must be eternal, since he knows himself perfectly and his very Idea must contain all that the Father contains, including eternality. God always had the Idea about himself, for all eternity, and so the Father and the Son are co-eternal, even though we know from the Creed that the Son is begotten of the Father (note: not made).*

**Quote:
But if Jesus is a role that God undertakes, a persona as opposed to a person, then that could plausibly be spoken (i.e. willed) into existence. **

Because it sounded to me as if he was saying Jesus - who yes, has both a divine nature and a human nature - but still Jesus, as the Son NOT the Second person of the Trinity, is co-eternal. Which is incorrect…Jesus HAS a definite beginning, and is NOT Co-Eternal. That is the point I was making. Yes His divine Nature IS the second person of the Trinity…but the question did not appear to be directed at the second person of the Trinity, but rather at Jesus.

Pax

John

Well, yes, Jesus, as man, has a beginning point in time, but He is co-eternal with the Father because Jesus as man is the same person as Jesus as God!

His beginning point in time is the instant of the Incarnation in the womb of Mary. But who was conceived in Mary’s womb? It was the person of God the Son, co-eternal with the Father, assuming a human nature.

 

[Murphs10]

Understanding the Trinity leads to a much deeper theological understanding of God and our relationship with Him and our place in the Trinitarian Family. To know God is to love Him and the better we know Him the closer we can be to Him.