Definition of "The Trinity"
Louis Berkhof (1941) Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman. p. 87-89 |
1 John 5:7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. |
Is God one?
Yes. "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well:" (James 2:19)
Is Jesus a God-level being?
Yes. "And Thomas answered and said unto him [the risen Christ], My Lord and my God." (John 20:28)
Is Jesus separate from the Almighty God, the Father?
Yes. Jesus cried out from the Cross, when he became sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21), "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46)
Are Jesus and the Father equal as the Athanasian Creed claims?
Another website presents this list:
1 Tim. 2:5 - the [divine] man Christ is mediator between us and God;
John 14:28 - the Father is greater than the Son;
John 20:17 - The Father is God over the Son;
Mark 13:32 - The Father knew something that the Son did not yet know (i.e., the day and hour of the Second Coming);
Matt. 20:20-23 - Deciding who will sit at the side of Jesus is the right of the Father only, not the Son;
John 5:19; 7:16-18, 8:38, 12:49,50, and 15:15 - Christ said He did not teach His own doctrines, but only those that He had heard or seen from the Father.
Did Jesus ever cease to exist?
"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen;" (Rev. 1:18)
Is the Holy Spirit a person (in the modern sense)?
No. "Now the birth of Jesus Christ ... she was found with child of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 1:18) - if the Holy Spirit is a person, then the Holy Spirit is the father of Jesus! (This also refutes claims that the Holy Spirit is a created being, like an angel.)
How does the New Testament define the Holy Spirit?
Luke 24:49 "stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high." (NRSV)
2 Timothy 1:7 "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."
The Holy Spirit is the presence and power of God, the mind of God, the essence of God. See Knowing God: Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Is the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity obsolete?
Yes. "God in three persons, Blessed Trinity" is an outdated and inaccurate statement of the nature of God.
(a) The meaning of the word "person" has changed.
(b) Our understanding of relationships has changed.
(c) Our understanding of the "substance" of which God is composed has changed.
(d) The divine self-revelation has continued.
(e) The theological problems the Doctrine was intended to solve are no longer of prime concern.
All this is well-understood by theologians, but has not yet permeated down to the broad mass of Christians. Many still feel that "belief in the Trinity" is required - but, when pressed, no one is able to explain the Doctrine! It has been called a "strict mystery" (in "My Catholic Faith") - a hidden truth that is still hidden even after it has been revealed!
"The Trinitarian doctrine of the Church is the higher mathematics of theology." Wolfhart Pannenburg, University of Chicago, 3-7-2001
Dart's personal Creed on what the Bible means by the Oneness of God: I believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit [and whatever else is yet to be revealed] are all God and are one in the sense that they are united in spirit and in purpose. Ronald L. Dart, evangelist, 8-22-2002 |
From the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia article on the "Trinity": There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever. quoted from Patrologiae Graecae Cursus Completus, X, 986, Jacques-Paul Migne (1800-1875) |
Mithras, the unconquerable sun, and his two torch-bearers, Cautes, sunrise, and Cautopates, sunset, in a 3-branch pine tree form a Mithraic "Trinity". Mithraism thrived in Cappadocia (Turkey) until 300 A.D., then around 350 A.D. the Cappadocian monks defined the "Christian" Trinity. |
"Triplicity is a symbol of godhead, and it means that god is the origin of all life." says the ancient Greek author, Plutarch, speaking of the pagan god, Osiris. |
The Doctrine of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible, but was composed much later. It has been claimed that "The formal statement, however, is legitimately and necessarily deduced from the Scriptures of the New Testament" (Unger's Bible Dictionary, art. Trinity. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966). The nearest thing there is to a "formal statement" is the Athanasian Creed (which is neither a creed nor composed by St. Athanasius!). It presents a long and obscure argument about the divine nature. Further, the Creed informs us, "One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully." But its vehemence merely highlights its flimsy substance.
The early Christians came out of the strictly monotheistic world of Judaism into the rampantly polytheistic Roman Empire. The Doctrine of the Trinity, "God in one substance, but in three persona, Gk. hypostaseis" was an attempt to position themselves theologically between these extremes.
Starting from the "Baptismal Formula" of Matt. 28:19, "baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:", Theophilus of Antioch utilized the Greek term trias for three-in-one-ness. This was translated by Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.) as trinitas, explained as "three persons in one substance". This was adopted as the viewpoint of main-line Christianity at the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.). It was then further developed by the Cappadocian monks (Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa), and formally proclaimed at the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.). Augustine of Hippo's De Trinitate became its authoritative explanation.
The doctrine of the Trinity was not based on the Bible, but was formulated apart from the Bible. For instance, "Two of the Cappadocians, Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, admit silently that the Scriptural evidence for the Spirit as a distinct hypostasis within the Godhead is inadequate. Basil in his De Spiritu tries to take refuge in a most unsatisfactory doctrine of secret unscriptural tradition on the subject. Gregory, though he tacitly rejects Basil's device, in effect appeals to the experience and practice of the Church to supplement Scripture at this point." (R.P.C. Hanson, "Studies in Christian Antiquity", Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985, p. 245)
Here is what Gregory of Naziansus (Orat. 31:27) writes:
"... the Deity of the Spirit himself, being made clear later [than the NT] when such knowledge should be seasonable and capable of being received after our Saviour's restoration [to Heaven], when it should no longer be received with incredulity because of its marvellous character."
In the past 1800 years, the Doctrine has been adopted as a requirement of normative Christianity (e.g., in the Lausanne Covenant), but it has also been both elaborated and criticized. Many early protestants rejected it as part of Catholic hocus pocus, but they were unable to formulate a satisfactory alternative.
In recent centuries, the concepts of personhood, self-expression and the rights of individuals have become ever more pronounced in our society. Consequently, the conventional formulation of the Trinity is ever more misleading as an expression of the nature of God, whatever one's theological position on the subject.
What is the Trinity?
|
"Today, there are no controversies between Christian confessions about the central content of faith concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. It is thus a part of the basic Christian consensus." p. 725 of the Handbook of Catholic Theology, Crossroad, New York, 1985. |
The Shema |
---|
How does the statement "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" (Deut. 6:4) relate to Christian theology? As Paul says, "we see through a glass darkly!" In the ancient world there were basically two perspectives: Question: Was the Word the Creator? Question: When did Jesus become the "Son"? |
There is a movement among modern theologians of many denominations away from the analogy of God as "Trinity" towards that of God as "Community". Here is their trajectory:
Randolph Crump Miller, Empirical Theology: a handbook. Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press, 1992. p.287
"Christians still need to face the question of interpreting such ancient doctrines as the Trinity from an empirical base. Although many people now object to the patriarchal use of 'Father' and 'Son,' these models are part of the tradition and need reinterpretation. We may say that God as Father is the power who is the unchanging source of values; as Father, God is primordial and everlasting, the source of creativity, potentiality, and emerging novelty; it is God's aim to which we should attempt to align ourselves. God as Logos and Sophia is the Word and Wisdom, that mode through which God is revealed to us in experience. The human personality of Jesus was the point at which the Word and Wisdom became a unique ingredient in the world, so that we can say that Jesus' human aim and the aim of God came freely into union. God as Spirit (Ruach) is the indwelling of God as consequent in human nature, giving us both life and hope. This keeps the essential meaning of God as Trinity, for the three aspects of God should be considered as three 'faces' or 'modes' or 'masks.' This is to be understood as an analogy and a model and not as literal truth."
Ingolf U. Dalferth, "Chapter 7. The Eschatalogical Roots of the Doctrine of the Trinity" in "Trinitarian Theology Today", Christoph Schwöbel, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995, p. 167:
"... the trinitarian rule [is] that no general terms are to be used of Father, Son and Spirit. Not even 'person' (or an equivalent term) can be used of them in exactly the same way." [i.e., Father, Son and Holy Spirit are qualitatively different from each other].
"On Communitarian Divinity" by A.O. Ogbonnaya, New York: Paragon House (1994): "It is almost a truism to say that how one conceives and speaks of God affects the way one lives with other human beings" (p. ix). Ogbonnaya perceives three options: monotheism, polytheism and a community of Gods (p. xii). He sees Tertullian arguing for "God as community". "Tertullian never refers to the Trinity as a mystery. In his view, there is nothing mysterious about a god having a child or children" (p. xiii).
Ted Peters, Professor of Systematic Theology, Pacific Lutheran College, with admiring support from Professor Catherine Mowry LaCugna at Notre Dame, writes in "God as Trinity", Louisville Ky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993:
"There is no inherent reason for assuming that the three persons have to be identical or equal in nature. There is no reason to think that trinitarianism must constitute a civil rights movement for the Holy Spirit. The notion of one being in three persons is simply a conceptual device for trying to understand the drama of salvation that is taking place in Jesus Christ. It does not imply that each of three persons is the same in every way." (p. 70)
"The import of Augustine's point here is that the Holy Spirit is itself the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Spirit is not an additional entity that sponsors a relationship as if in itself it were independent of the relationship... Rather, as the communion of love itself, the Spirit - the giving and the binding power of reciprocity in relationship - is itself the presence of God." (p. 67)
"[Wolfhart] Pannenberg even goes to the extreme of describing the Spirit in terms of a dynamic force field within which the Father and Son become concrete expression of a previously unutterable communion of love." (p.70).
"I press this interpretation as a more adequate explication of the biblical symbols in light of trinitarian thought. The symbol of the Father communicates the sense of the beyond, the eternal and ineffable abyss. The symbol of the Son communicates a sense of the intimate, of Emmanuel, of God subjected to the vicissitudes of ordinary existence just as we are. The Holy Spirit as love binds the two, assuring that we are speaking here of one divine reality, not two. And in the process of binding Father and Son, the Spirit incorporates us. We are incorporated presently through faith. The promise in which we live and hope looks forward to the future, wherein the whole history of nature will be transformed and incorporated into the everlasting Father-Son unity of love." (p. 174).
Isn't that "Father-Son unity of love" what is meant by the symbol "family"?
"The Holy Spirit will make us one with Christ and, hence, one with God to live everlastingly in the kingdom of God. What is true about the Jesus of the past will become true for us in the future. By the power of the Holy Spirit, we will come to enjoy the relationship with the Father that Jesus enjoys. This is the eschatalogical promise..." (p. 25)
Doesn't this turn "Trinity" into "Community", and us into potential "gods"? "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, ..." (John 10:35).
John D. Zizioulas, "Chapter 2. The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity: The Significance of the Cappadocian Contribution" in "Trinitarian Theology Today", Christoph Schwöbel, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995, p. 55:
"Man, for the [Church] Fathers, is the 'image of God'. ... Living, on the other hand, according to the image of God means living in the way God exists, i.e., as an image of God's personhood, and this would amount to [man] 'becoming God'."
Peters on using the concept of Trinity as a spur for Christian action:
"In sum, the biblical symbol of the kingdom of God is preferable to that of the Trinity when seeking to enlist religious fervor in behalf of social justice and equality. This is the case because the kingdom of God is a primary symbol in which communal justice already inheres. The Trinity, in contrast, is a second order symbol constructed for the purpose of clarifying the relation between three more basic symbols for God at work in salvation. The kingdom of God is a ready-made symbol for exerting social responsibility." (p.186)
So, the symbol of the Divine community is not "the Trinity", but the "Kingdom of God"!
John D. Zizioulas, "Chapter 2. The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity: The Significance of the Cappadocian Contribution" in "Trinitarian Theology Today", Christoph Schwöbel, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995, p. 60:
"The Trinity is revealed only in the church, i.e., the community through which we become sons of the Father of Jesus Christ. Outside this it remains a stumblingblock and a scandal."
Doesn't that remark remind you of The Emperor's New Clothes? Apparently, only those in the church can "see" the Trinity - so no one inside the church dare admit to blindness.
Theologians! Disown the Trinity! No longer "put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in your brother's way" (Rom. 14:13). It is Christ crucified who is the true stumblingblock and scandal (1 Cor. 1:23).
Here is an earlier assessment by John W. Graham (1920) The Faith of a Quaker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64-5.
This discussion has left outside the Doctrine of the Trinity in its complete theological form. It is better so. The doctrine of Nicaea may have been a useful thought-form for the time when it arose; it may have crystallized experience and speculation in the best shape then possible - but it is not a living part of contemporary thought; and I doubt the usefulness of the washed out or attenuated forms of the doctrine in which triple manifestations of some kind can be noted or discerned in God. These are really only more polite and less dangerous ways of denying the old conception. This reduced doctrine really darkens counsel, and is to most people unintelligible, though it is doubtless convenient to keep the traditional word, even if you alter its meaning. It has, of course, no more authority than a Roman Emperor [Constantine] and a Church Council [Nicea] under his presidency and control can give it. It was no part of the thought of Jesus nor of Paul.
ABCOG invites readers to react to the suggestion that the Doctrine of the Trinity is obsolete, using the comment form below.
After reading this, an inquirer asked:
1. Didn't Jesus refer to the Holy Spirit as "he," and "another Comforter"?
2. If the Holy Spirit is not a person, then how could he:
i. speak to individuals (Acts 8:29;10:19-20;20:28;16:7,9)?
ii. be lied to (Acts 5:3)?
iii. or be grieved (Eph. 4:30)?
iv. or be blashemed against? (Mark 3:29)
Reply:
You are presenting a strong argument. Indeed, if that was all the Bible had to say, there would never have been any dispute. Here are some thoughts:
Your point 1: Didn't Jesus refer to the Holy Spirit as "he"?
Sorry, Jesus didn't! Jesus spoke Aramaic. In this language, the word "Spirit" is feminine, so Jesus, in conversation, called the Spirit "she"! The New Testament is written in Greek. In this language, the word "Spirit" is neuter, so Jesus in the written New Testament, calls the Spirit "it". Only in Latin is the word "Spirit" masculine, so in the Latin translation, the "Vulgate", Jesus is reported to call the Spirit "he". When translators write "he" for the Spirit in English, they are following the Latin, not the Aramaic which Jesus spoke, nor the Greek in which the NT is written. For examples of how the Spirit is called "she" by early Christians writing in Aramaic see odes.htm
Again your point 1: Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as "he" and "another Comforter."
John 14:16-18 "another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; ... I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."
In John 14:16, the Greek word for "Comforter" (parakleetos = "Counsellor") is masculine, so the translators use the word "he" to refer to him/it. In v.18, Jesus says "I will come to you." These verses are ambiguous, so cannot be decisive. We must look elsewhere in the Bible. But here are some possibilities for these verses:
(i) The "Comforter" is a separate divine person, "the Spirit of Truth".
(ii) The "Comforter" is the gift of an increase in our own mental/spiritual faculties to provide the guidance that Jesus would do if he was physically present with us.
(iii) The "Comforter" is Jesus appearing to us in a different way. The Greek word for "another", heteros, can mean "another of two of the same kind", instead of the more familiar "another of a different kind." Jesus could be refering to another manifestation of Himself, interacting in a different way with the disciples. In I John 2:1, Jesus is called the "advocate" = parakleetos = "comforter".
(iv) The "Comforter" for each of us is another Spirit-filled Christian. There will always be Christians, filled with the spirit of Christ, able to comfort other Christians.
Your points 2: "be grieved" etc.
Here we come to "personification". We often personify non-people. For instance, "My conscience told me not to do this". "The Law says ...". "The Bible says ...". In the Book of Proverbs, "Wisdom" is repeatedly personified: "Wisdom cries out ...". Abel's blood also "cried out".
Here are some examples to match yours:
2.i. Can non-persons speak?
"But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven?" (Rom. 10:6)
"the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." (Heb. 12:24)
2.ii. Can non-persons be lied to?
"your heart be not deceived" (Deut. 11:16, Job 31:9, isa. 44:20, Rom. 16:18, James 1:26) - deception is "believing a lie."
2.iii. Can non-persons be grieved?
"to grieve thine heart" (1 Sam. 2:33)
2.iv. Can non-persons be blasphemed against?
"I have heard all thy blasphemies which thou hast spoken against the mountains of Israel," (Ezek. 35:12)
"This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:" (Acts 6:13)
"..., that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." (1 Tim. 6:1)
"And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven." (Rev. 13:6)
More important are the problems we get into when we think of the Holy Spirit as a person. That leads to many questions. How can we be "filled" with a person (Luke 1:15, 41, 67; Acts 2:4, 4:8, 31, 9:17, 13:9, 52)? How can a "person" flow through us like "rivers of living water" (John 7:38-9)?
What about the "spirit of this world" (1 Cor. 2:12), "spirit of jealousy" (Numbers 5:14), "spirit of burning" (Isa. 4:4) and the "spirit of error" (I John 4:6) - are they also persons?
It is considerations like this that have caused many theologians to have serious doubts about defining God as a Trinity.
An alert reader emailed: Excellent! ABCOG encourages thoughtful responses! Let's look at some verses: Gal.2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: So, in fact, it is not the "person" of Jesus but His spirit that lives in us. These verses are confirming, in different words, that the Spirit is the power and presence of God or Jesus, not a separate person! |
Another alert reader emailed: "groanings which cannot be uttered" means "groanings which cannot be put into words." This is a verse about communicating with Our Father in Heaven. In ancient times, they thought that the way a message could be passed along was by a living being, such as a human or a carrier-pigeon, though they occasionally used smoke signals and other devices. So this verse seemed to be strong evidence that the Holy Spirit is a living being. In modern times we no longer think this way. We all encounter many messages which "cannot be put into words". Here are some examples: the data stream by which this message reached you, the silent alarm at a Bank, the transponder in the tail of an airplane, the signal from a satellite to a GPS device. So, in modern terms, Paul is saying that the Spirit acts as a corrective filter and amplifier for our prayers. This is rarely the role of a person in a modern communication system. |
Athanasian CreedWhoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic [worldwide] faith. Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally. Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being. For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another. But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty. What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit. Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit. The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite. Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited. Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty. Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God. Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord. As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords. The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son. Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits. And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons. Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity. It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh. For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and man. He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother -- existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity. Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ. He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity. He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures. For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man. He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire. This is the catholic faith. One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully. Ecumenical Creeds Text prepared by the International Consultation on English Texts (ICET) and the English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC). Text arrangement and italics are ABCOG's. |
Go to Literature Index Page
This URL is abcog.org/trinity.htm