Why the Trinity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Blessed Trinity is like ice, water, and steam; Different stages/species, types etc. but they are still in the same field as water.
The doctrine of the Trinity is consistently among the first of those teachings to be banefully attacked by the opponents of the historic, Christian faith. Cultists and religious devotees of multitudinous persuasions come against Trinitarianism with a venom uncommon in most other arenas of doctrinal controversy. Missionaries for the Mormon church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Islam, for example, often receive training in specific methods targeted at “refuting” the Trinity.
Why is this? Why all the hubbub? What is so threatening about a doctrine which some would care to deem merely “academic,” “heady,” “too speculative,” “contradictory” or “confusing”? The answer is really quite simple: If the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is not true, then Jesus Christ is not Who He said He was, namely, God the Savior. But if it is true, resistless logic points to the inescapable conclusion that Jesus Christ is indeed, the logos sarx, the Word in human flesh Who “made His dwelling among us” (John 1:14). Enemies of the Holy Trinity know that if the fabric of Trinitarianism can be torn down, then Jesus was but a mere man, perhaps a prophet at best, but certainly not the Theanthropos, the Godman–100 percent man, 100 percent Deity (Philippians 2:5-7) as the Bible and the historic creeds of Christendom affirm. And if Christ was not these things, then He did not render sufficient satisfaction for our sins by virtue of His death and on the cross and victorious resurrection three days later. Indeed, as Paul affirms, “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17). If the Trinity is not true, then Christ is not God the Son resurrected and, plain and simple, Christians worldwide are worshipping a dead man. So how important is the Trinity and its defense? I’d say it doesn’t get more important than this!
 
The Blessed Trinity is like ice, water, and steam; Different stages/species, types etc. but they are still in the same field as water.
I agree with most of your statement except for the first statement. You must be careful with using this analogy because this actually leads to modelism which is one form of heresy against the doctrine of the Trinity. Modelism rejects the tri person part of the Trinitarian definition and instead refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as different “modes” or “aspects” when relating to His creation. God is the Father when He is the Creator; He is the Son when He is the Redeemer; and He is the Spirit when He is the Sanctifier. Or something similar. In other words one Person three jobs, revelations, etc. Modelism survives today in many pentecostal denominations which they refer to as their “Oneness” doctrine. Quite honestly they use the same analogy that you used to explain their doctrine.

I think that the best way to look at the Trinity is: When you ask the question “What is God”, He is One and when you ask the question “Who is God”, then there are three.

God bless.
 
I really appreciate this discussion. I’m still not satisfied with the arguments for the Trinity but at least I appreciate the issue a lot better. It’s particularly interesting how the issue of the Trinity interacts with:
  1. The dual nature of Jesus (fully human and fully divine), and
  2. The distinction between Jesus and the second person fo the Trinity.
I’s also very help to have a label for the non-Trinitarian view (heresy): modalism. This does capture the two metaphors discussed (one person, many roles; different states of water). It also led me to these additional sources:

christiandefense.org/oneness_c.hstoy.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/10448a.htm

I’d like to redirect the discussion slightly to inquire: what is the theological consequence of modalism? Does it lead to contradictions or to other theological problems? (We discussed one apparent problem, Jesus praying to God the Father which would be at least odd if they are merely God in different modes.)
 
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.
OK, so Jesus as man is completely the same person as God the Son. Then did Mary the Mother of Jesus have anything to do with the personhood of Jesus? Is Jesus like Mary in any way? If there is no difference between Jesus the man and God the Son, then Mary was nothing but a uterus who carried Jesus? She didn’t impart any of her genes to Him? She had no part in the forming of the person of Jesus?

I’m trying to understand more. This is all very confusing right now. Thank you.
 
OK, so Jesus as man is completely the same person as God the Son. Then did Mary the Mother of Jesus have anything to do with the personhood of Jesus? Is Jesus like Mary in any way? If there is no difference between Jesus the man and God the Son, then Mary was nothing but a uterus who carried Jesus? She didn’t impart any of her genes to Him? She had no part in the forming of the person of Jesus?

I’m trying to understand more. This is all very confusing right now. Thank you.
In his human nature, Jesus was entirely human: thus he received all his human DNA from Mary.

But personhood is an expression of the soul, which is a spirit. Even for normal human beings, we receive our soul as a direct creation of God, not from our human mother or father, from whom we receive all our DNA and our bodies.

Because God the Son became incarnate in Jesus, and God the Son is a person, that is the person whom Jesus is. He is not two persons–one human, one divine. Rather, he is one person, the second person of the Trinity. But because of the incarnation that person has two natures–one human, one divine.
 
In his human nature, Jesus was entirely human: thus he received all his human DNA from Mary.

But personhood is an expression of the soul, which is a spirit. Even for normal human beings, we receive our soul as a direct creation of God, not from our human mother or father, from whom we receive all our DNA and our bodies.

Because God the Son became incarnate in Jesus, and God the Son is a person, that is the person whom Jesus is. He is not two persons–one human, one divine. Rather, he is one person, the second person of the Trinity. But because of the incarnation that person has two natures–one human, one divine.
That makes sense, thank you!
 
In his human nature, Jesus was entirely human: thus he received all his human DNA from Mary.

But personhood is an expression of the soul, which is a spirit. Even for normal human beings, we receive our soul as a direct creation of God, not from our human mother or father, from whom we receive all our DNA and our bodies.

Because God the Son became incarnate in Jesus, and God the Son is a person, that is the person whom Jesus is. He is not two persons–one human, one divine. Rather, he is one person, the second person of the Trinity. But because of the incarnation that person has two natures–one human, one divine.
Jim this raises another question for me. You seem to say that the personhood of Jesus has nothing to do with His earthly parent (Mary), since His soul is directly from God. Does that mean our soul also has nothing to do with our parents? Does that mean that Jesus could have been born of any woman, and we, too, could have been born of any parents? Does that mean the coming together of our parents has nothing to do with the creation of our unique soul? For some reason that doesn’t sound right. Please help me understand.
 
Jim this raises another question for me. You seem to say that the personhood of Jesus has nothing to do with His earthly parent (Mary), since His soul is directly from God. Does that mean our soul also has nothing to do with our parents? Does that mean that Jesus could have been born of any woman, and we, too, could have been born of any parents? Does that mean the coming together of our parents has nothing to do with the creation of our unique soul? For some reason that doesn’t sound right. Please help me understand.
It’s true that for every human being, our soul, because it is not material, must be directly created by God. Because our person–that within us which says “I”, is arises from our soul, then yes, our personhood is not directly attributable to our parents.

But–human beings are an intimate and indivisible union of body and soul (matter and spirit). Because of this intimate connection, the abilities of our body do affect the operation of our intellect and will. We are not just spirits inhabiting random bodies, but an intimate union of one soul and one body, separable only by death. Our personalities, (not our persons) and our emotions derive in great part from our DNA and hormonal makeup and our brain function.

And Jesus as man is no different in his humanity. His emotions, his personality, his human abilities, derive greatly from his human DNA (from Mary) as well as his upbringing. In those things he is entirely human. But “who” he is, as opposed to “what” he is remains the one divine person.

It would be as though you were able to take on a canine nature while still retaining your human nature, in order to be one of the canines. In your canine nature you would be limited to what canine’s could do, but “you” would still be “you.”
 
  1. The distinction between Jesus and the second person fo the Trinity.
There is no distinction between Jesus and the Son. They are the one and the same person. God the Son was born of the Virgin Mary that is the reason why we identify her as the Mother of God because Jesus Christ is the Son of God and God the Son. Jesus Christ possesses two natures, a divine one that He has had for all eternity and a human one that he gained at His conception in Mary.
I’d like to redirect the discussion slightly to inquire: what is the theological consequence of modalism? Does it lead to contradictions or to other theological problems? (We discussed one apparent problem, Jesus praying to God the Father which would be at least odd if they are merely God in different modes.)
The answer is yes Modalism does lead to theological problems. One Modelism does not take into account what occurred at our Lord Jesus’ baptism and at his transfiguration:

*Mat 3:16 And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17 And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. *

*Mat 17:4 And Peter answering, said to Jesus: Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. 5 And as he was yet speaking, behold a bright cloud overshadowed them. And lo, a voice out of the cloud, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him. *

Jesus prayed to His Father is another problem for the modalist. If the modalist are correct then it must be accepted that God while He was Jesus on earth either deceived His listeners by referring to His Father as someone else often and since God cannot deceive this is impossible. Modalism is a heresy that failed very early in Church history and has only found life again in those religons that are too far from the balwark of truth the Catholic Church.

There are many other reasons but I would recommend researching these for yourselves by reading some of the Church Fathers. You can find a extensive collection online at NewAdvent.org.
 
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.)
personally i completely question the teaching on trinity…
i cant find the word in whole bible
 
personally i completely question the teaching on trinity…
i cant find the word in whole bible
What evidence do you have that it is a false teaching?

On what basis do you declare that the Bible is the sole truth about God?
 
personally i completely question the teaching on trinity…
i cant find the word in whole bible
That’s true; the word “trinity” is not in the bible. In fact the bible doesn’t even tell us what writings should be included in the bible.
 
It’s true that for every human being, our soul, because it is not material, must be directly created by God. Because our person–that within us which says “I”, is arises from our soul, then yes, our personhood is not directly attributable to our parents.

But–human beings are an intimate and indivisible union of body and soul (matter and spirit). Because of this intimate connection, the abilities of our body do affect the operation of our intellect and will. We are not just spirits inhabiting random bodies, but an intimate union of one soul and one body, separable only by death. Our personalities, (not our persons) and our emotions derive in great part from our DNA and hormonal makeup and our brain function.
Is dualism Catholic dogma? Is the belief in spiritual emergence (i.e. that the physical body precedes the soul and that the soul depends on the physical body) a heresy?
And Jesus as man is no different in his humanity. His emotions, his personality, his human abilities, derive greatly from his human DNA (from Mary) as well as his upbringing. In those things he is entirely human. But “who” he is, as opposed to “what” he is remains the one divine person.
I’m now wondering exactly what this means.

Earlier we noted that Jesus was fully human, he learned and grew like all humans. However, it’s also believed that Jesus never sinned. While there is a theological difference between sinning and erring, learning as we tend to understand it entails a process of erring and correcting.

So to what extent does Jesus’ sinlessness limit his humanity? Jesus never experienced human sin, right?
It would be as though you were able to take on a canine nature while still retaining your human nature, in order to be one of the canines. In your canine nature you would be limited to what canine’s could do, but “you” would still be “you.”
It’s easy to imagine pretending to be a canine. It’s more difficult to imagine becoming a canine from birth and still being “me”, which of course brings us back to the dualism question.
 
To be fully human is to NOT sin, just like our first parents before the Fall.
That’s certainly the ideal and the objective of the human experience but now we’re really talking about humanity in two different senses. In that ideal sense of humanity there is no suffering either but clearly that is not absent from Jesus life.
 
Thank you all for this good information. I am in the process of conversion to the Catholic faith and have been defending my Faith decision with the members of my family. One member of my family is a believer that God is not a trinity so I have been defending this doctrine however I did not have all the information that you have provided so thanks.

May God truly Bless you all,
Everett
 
Is dualism Catholic dogma? Is the belief in spiritual emergence (i.e. that the physical body precedes the soul and that the soul depends on the physical body) a heresy?

I’m now wondering exactly what this means.

Earlier we noted that Jesus was fully human, he learned and grew like all humans. However, it’s also believed that Jesus never sinned. While there is a theological difference between sinning and erring, learning as we tend to understand it entails a process of erring and correcting.

So to what extent does Jesus’ sinlessness limit his humanity? Jesus never experienced human sin, right?

It’s easy to imagine pretending to be a canine. It’s more difficult to imagine becoming a canine from birth and still being “me”, which of course brings us back to the dualism question.
Dualism is not Catholic dogma. Human beings are not just “ghosts inhabiting a body.” Rather, the Catholic view of the human person is as a unitary being composed of body and soul indivisibly united. (If I recall correctly, it’s called 'hylomorphism, used by both Aristotle and Aquinas.) Body and soul are so intimately united that if they separate, it’s called death.

Because of this intimate union, our nature is to be both body and spirit bound together. Naturally they affect each other. One who is deceased, despite having an immortal soul, is not a complete human being until reunited with his body.

Sinlesness does not limit Jesus humanity, but perfects his humanity. It is sinfulness which limits our own humanity.

The human assuming a canine nature doesn’t work well as an analogy because both humans and canine’s have bodies. The second person of the Trinity has no body; so in assuming human nature, he does not end up with a human and a divine body, but only a human body.

“Person” as a philosophical concept, is not thought of as a separate entity, distinct from one’s essence. If that were the case, we would believe in three Gods. But there is only one God. “Person” is a relation, not an entity. (In the same way, humans are not two entities by reason of having both a human nature and a human person.)
 
In John 16:18 Jesus says that " I go away, and I will come to you If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." How can one member of the Trinity be greater than the other?
 
In John 16:18 Jesus says that " I go away, and I will come to you If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." How can one member of the Trinity be greater than the other?
Remember that Jesus is both God and man, one divine person with both a human and a divine nature.

He was perfectly capable of praying to the Father as a human being, because he is a human being.

He can also say “The Father and I are one,” because he is a divine person with the same divine nature as the Father.

And, though this was most likely not his intent, even when speaking as God the Son, he can give the Father priority as the Source (not the creator) of the divine Persons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top