The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity
True or not? Biblical or not? Cogent or not? I’m sorry to say it, but it’s not the universally agreed upon conclusion to the question of the nature of God as revealed in Scripture. Obviously, I believe in the Holy Trinity, as do, I would argue, all true Christians. But that doesn’t mean that my understanding can’t be challenged, and it doesn’t mean that I’ve chosen to arbitrarily ignore all voices of dissent.
What is does mean, however, is that if you want to object to this core doctrine of the faith, you must bring forth clear, consistent reasoning from the Holy Scriptures in order to change my mind. To date, no one has come close to doing so.
That said, I have created this page for people to discuss this vital Christian doctrine amongst themselves, roundtable-style, if you will. I’ll join the dialogue myself as I’m able.
So comment away – just keep it civil, I do reserve the right to ban you for empty and vicious rhetoric. Just keep that in mind.
____________
(P.S. There is a very strong possibility that I will add some rules here as time progresses, depending on how things go. Don’t be the reason I have to.)
http://issuesetc.org/
The Chi Files 
Do you believe a person must have your understanding of God as you do, in order to be a true Christian?
Are you a true Christian in your own estimation?
Is there anything lacking in your understanding of God?
Ray: Let me answer your questions in the reverse:
Well, considering…
…the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! (Romans 11:33)
Absolutely, yes.
Having been washed in the water of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, yes.
Now, this question’s a little bit tricky in its genericness. Let me elaborate.
My understanding of God does not involve Him sending Christ to reign on this present earth for a literal 1000 years at the end of the present age. Some people’s understanding of God DOES involve that. I do not count them lost (nor do they, I should hope, count me lost) on that account. Dispensationalists are still Christians.
My understanding of God does involve Him truly and literally giving us His flesh to eat and blood to drink in with and under the bread and wine in Holy Communion. Some people’s understanding DOES NOT involve that. I do not count them lost (nor, again, they me) on that account. Reformed are still Christians.
My understanding of God does not involve Him sending His Spirit to “overpower” people and cause them to break into conniptions and convulsions in the middle of a Church service. Some people’s understanding of God DOES involve that. I do not count them (though they may count me, actually) lost on that account. Charismatic Pentecostals are still Christians.
That said, there are plenty of places where we can and do disagree among brethren in our “understanding” of God. However, some issues are non-negotiable. Among them these three:
1) There is only one God.
2) The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God.
3) The Father is not the Son nor the Spirit, the Son is not the Father nor the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father nor the Son.
Inasmuch as those three are concerned (which is, I think, what you’re really getting at), then yes, I think a person must hold this belief to be a Christian.
foxlemke
Thanks, you are right. “To be called” someone is “to be” that someone.
Thus Jesus interchanges “you will be called sons of God” and “you will be sons of God.” There is no difference. Matt. 5:9 and Luke 6:35.
Raymond Brown makes this point in his Birth Narratives.
Jesus is indeed “God with us.” That is what he is, “God with us.” The presence of God with us.
Unless however you understand that “beget” means coming into existence, there will be no progress!
The Son is begotten in time and the Trinity fails on this plain evidence. It is not fair to assign new meanings for easy words like “beget.”
Anthony.
Sir Anthony: Again, see Answering Unitarians #7 where I show that, yes indeed, “beget” and “begotten” are relational terms without necessary chronological implications.
And thanks for moving over here – this will be a much better page to continue the dialogue.
foxlemke
Professor Loofs described the process of the early corruption of biblical Christianity:
Anonymous: Professor Loofs makes a lot of assertions in that quote, but just saying “the early fathers paganized Christology” doesn’t mean they did. It’s easy to make blanket statements to push your point, like this: the fact is that Loofs is simply wrong. Now, I’ve said it – so now that I made an assertion without backing it up, I win right?
Of course not, and Loofs is a bit confused in his analysis. I’ll just give one point of rebuttal for time’s sake, and that is pertaining to Loof’s statement that “They tied Christology to cosmology and could not tie it to soteriology.” Actually, very wrong. Read Athanasius’ writings, particularly his “On the Incarnation” where the issue of Christology/Incarnation is over and over again cast explicitly in the light of soteriology – indeed, defending the Biblical soteriology was Athanasius’ entire reason for writing this.
And if we are quoting scholars, I can find many, many that stand with me against Loofs on this issue, so what does that prove?
Again, these are the direct descendants (didactically speaking) of the Apostles themselves, and to charge them with immediately steering the Christian Church into paganism once the helm was in their hands is a most serious matter.
foxlemke,
To date, no one has come close to doing so.
For any of these discussions to be fruitful, one has to be reasonable and honest. There has been MANY who have written very comprehensive rebuttals and refutations of the Trinity. You may not agree with them, but that is totally different from saying, ‘…they haven’t come close.’ Some of the best NT scholars such as Dunn, Robinson, Berkhof, Schooneveld, Flesseman, Kuschel, etc. have rejected the Trinity and have done so in ground-breaking theses. It’s therefore good to maintain reasonability in estimation while still maintaining one’s zeal.
But that doesn’t mean that my understanding can’t be challenged, and it doesn’t mean that I’ve chosen to arbitrarily ignore all voices of dissent.
This is a very commendable approach, even though it might not necessarily change your mind on this.
Thank you,
Just to bring my other post here,
The actual question should be: In what way is the Father God, the son “God” and the holy spirit “God?”
Trinitarian: They are three Persons in one God. The Father is fully God, the Son is fully God and the Holy Ghost is fully God. Yet they are not three distinct Gods but one God.
Biblical (Unitarian): The Father is truly and fully God (John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6). Jesus acts on God’s behalf (John 5-7, 14:9, Acts 2:22). Since the holy spirit is God’s mode of action, opposing God’s action is equivalent to opposing God himself (Acts 5:3, 4, 9).
Just as seeing the Father when seeing Jesus doesn’t make Jesus identical to the Father, then likewise and for exactly the same reasons, seeing God when seeing Jesus doesn’t make Jesus identical to God.
As much as disobeying the Good News amounts to disobeying God without making the Good News God in itself (2 Thess. 1:8), in the same way disobeying the spirit amounts to disobeying God without making the spirit as someone seperate, God in itself.
Take care,
foxlemke
Christians are committed to the grammatical method. The word beget is not difficult. But CS Lewis evacuates it of all meaning! (“Like one book leaning on another.” To lean is not the same as to beget!)
Matt. 1:18., 20, Luke 1:35, with I Jn 5:18 designate the place where and the time when the Son is begotten. “What is begotten, brought into existence, fathered in her is from holy spirit” (Matt. 1:20).
It is ludicrous to refuse the word “beget”! On that basis God could not reveal anything for certain. One could just say, “God does not operate within our rules.”
In this way we would never know what He meant! Adam could never have come into existence as Son of God (Lk 3:38).
I hope that the biblical unitarian position is now completely clarified by reaction to Norelli’s remarks. The issue is childishly easy. If “beget” is allowed its actual meaning as a semantic unit (verifiable in any dictionary), then the Trinitarians lose out! If the Son was brought into existence (begotten) in time and in Mary, the notion of an eternal begetting is nonsense, as some honest Trinitarians admit! (McCleod, The Person of Christ, 131) remarks as a Trinitarian that “it is far from clear what content, if any, we can impart to the concept of eternal begetting.” Meaningless ideas are useless and should be banished.
At least the positions are utterly clear now. I myself believe that words, especially the words of Holy Scripture, have definable meanings and cannot be twisted out of meaning in support of a strange philosophy.
Norelli’s method would spell the end of revelation since no one would know what God means.
Luke 1:35 speaks of time and place and explains that “Son of God” for Jesus is the designation appropriate for him because of the Father’s begetting miracle in Mary.
What a lot of wasted, waffly words would be spared if people chose to believe Scripture!
Anthony.
foxlemke
You have thus far with the Trinity. 😛
You know we get asked this alot, “why quote mainstream scholars when they themselves belong to Orthodox institutions”, etc. Reason I personally do it is to show how utterly divided and confusing the doctrine of the Trinity is. Its adherents go from either Modalism/Oneness to Polytheism. Once again proving how bankrupt the whole system really is.
In the interests of our conviction that the words of Gabriel to Luke ought not to be dissolved into meaninglessness, on the basis that “beget” is to be given a non-lexical, non-dictionary definition, because tradition says so, I offer these two amazing quotations.
If the words of Scripture are rejected, the inevitable result follows as the church fathers show. Luke 1:35 uses the standard biblical word for “bring into existence.” The Son was given existence in time, and in Mary and Gabriel instructs us that this is indeed precisely why we should understand Jesus to be Son of God.
Raymond Brown tellingly remarked in his Birth Narratives that this verse, Luke 1:35, has embarrassed the church, because in church tradition the miracle in Mary does not bring the Son into existence.
My question is, when will the church be sufficiently embarrassed to bring its teaching into line with scripture? Granted, of course, that the virginal begetting is not that of a human insemination, the fact remains that God is said to beget, bring into existence, His Son, in history. This defeats the Nicene creed.
worshipfulmind: I’m not sure if you’re just making statements or if you expect a response, but a couple of things:
And yet this explanation is insufficient given the tremendous variety of statements to the effect of claiming Deity for Christ in the New Testament. We have statements about Him as Creator, we have religious worship being offered to Him explicitly, we have Him exhibiting the attributes of Deity, etc. Your statement above is oversimplifying.
Except that Jesus refers to the Spirit as “another comforter” (Jn 14:16), that is, one different from the Father and the Son, and thus here (as well as elsewhere) we have grounds for doing exactly this: understanding that the Spirit is a distinct person from the Father and the Son who happens to be God.
Sir Anthony: I don’t agree with your assertions about “begetting”, and I fully stand by my arguments in AU #7. Your rebuttal seems to consist more of demanding that everyone recognize your understanding of begetting than it does of actually proving that your understanding is correct, but I thank you for your input all the same.
Sir Anthony:
This is one thing we can agree on.
Anonymous:
Um, look here, the Trinity and Modalism or Polytheism are mutually exclusive. We believe, teach, and confess that the Trinity is (a) one God (and therefore are not polytheists), (b) consisting of 3 Divine Persons, (3) who are Personally distinct from one another (and therefore are not modalists). Any modalist is not a Trinitarian, plain and simple. Any polytheist is not a Trinitarian, plain and simple. So your assertion that Trinitarians are all over the board from Modalism to Polytheism is simply factually erroneous.
If someone does not hold to points a, b, and c as just laid out, they cannot in any sense call themselves a Trinitarian, so you cannot lump us together with those other groups and claim we are divided and confused.
Now, do I grant that there are differences within the Trinitarian camp? Certainly, there is debate, for instance, over at what point the Son’s submission to the Father began, or whether it has been that way into eternity – but these are Theological fine points and do not affect the Doctrine as a whole in terms of changing the a, b, and c confession I’ve laid out.
However, it’s worth noting that if you want to say that Trinitarians are divided and confused by pointing to what I’ve just granted, let me also point out that the Unitarian camp bears similar affliction. For instance, just on the issue of preexistence you have Arians who say that Christ was the first creation, then you have Socinians who say that He only came into existence at Him birth – two radically different positions, but both from Unitarians. There are so many different ideas you all have had in the course of the centuries, my friend Stephen Richard has called it “Unitarian Babel” after the confused mess described in Genesis 11.
foxlemke
I am not “lumping” anyone, just speaking from my personal interaction with trinis over the years. Like I said, one of the best examples is the difference between Dr. Brown and Dr. White on whether ‘Jesus is YHWH’ or not. Just ask them and you’ll see.
How about the ‘eternal generation’ debate? Which looks to me to be split down the middle. And this is key since your talking about whether or not the Son is eternal or if he had an “origin” somewhere/time.
Arians are not unitarians as such. The doctrine of there being only One Who is God and the origin of the Son at his birth has been pretty much a constant since early Sociniands like Michael Servetus in the 1500s. Check your history.
foxlemke
Do you and I not agree in all of our communication with the dictionary definition of words? On what authority do you claim that ALL GREEK LEXICONS [and Websters’] are wrong when they define “beget” as “bringing into existence?
I suggest that the theological non-meaning of “beget” destroys all possible means of communcation and agreement between us.
Sir Anthony: My New Oxford American Dictionary gives one possible definition of beget as “give rise to; bring about”. Given that I, in accord with C.S. Lewis in this matter, believe that the Father gives rise to the Son out of His Being, I’m not at all abusing definitions.
Anonymous:
If the “trinis” you’ve interacted with over the years were modalists or tritheists, they were either (a) not Trinitarians (as laid out above) or (b) very, very poorly schooled ones.
I have interacted with the materials of both of these men extensively, and as far as I can see there is no disagreement between them on any issue pertaining to the doctrine of the Trinity.
I subscribe to the idea of eternal generation, personally, as do all who confess with the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. This is the sizable majority, so I don’t think that it’s split down the middle. But at any rate, I think those who deny eternal generation yet call themselves Trinitarians either misunderstand what eternal generation means or are not true Trinitarians.
Strictly speaking, yes, Arians are unitarian in their confessions about God, as are Muslims.
Now, if you want to get technical with the term “unitarian” and say it can only be correctly applied to the theological descendants of Socinus and Servetus, fine, but note that you are choosing to define your group (Unitarianism) to exclude certain parties (like Arians) but not allowing me to define Trinitarianism to exclude modalists and tri-theists. That’s a double standard.
foxlemke
I would suggest you ask Brown, point blank, whether he agrees with the statement ‘Jesus is YHWH’.
I suggest you catch up on the latest regarding this subject…
This is beyond the doctrinal points we are stating here. You call yourself whatever you want but one thing is for sure, if it walks like a duck and ‘quacks’ like a duck guess what…it must be a duck! 😉
Anonymous:
No need because, as I’ve said, I’ve read his material as well as White’s and the two are in agreement, as they demonstrated in their debate with Sir Anthony.
Doesn’t change my statement.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. By very definition, modalists and tri-theists are not Trinitarians; neither do modalists walk like a Trinitarian (in that they deny the distinction of persons), nor do tri-theists “quack” like a Trinitarian (in that they deny there is only one God). There is no duck, Chuck.
foxlemke
Could you point me to where Brown either agrees or states that ‘Jesus is YHWH’?
Whose Chuck?
Anonymous:
I’m not going to go quote hunting through the books of his I have, if that’s what you’re asking for, but here’s this.
As you know, every time Dr. Brown speaks of Genesis 18 he makes it explicitly clear his view (and mine) that the text is unambiguous: YHWH appeared to Abraham, spoke with him, ate with him, etc. personally. Dr. Brown further holds (as do I) that it was the Pre-incarnate Son who dialogued with Abraham by the Oaks of Mamre. Thus, Dr. Brown holds that “Jesus is YHWH”.
Chuck? Well, Chuck is probably the only person who would have picked up on the fact that there was more to my usage of that name than me simply trying to make up a cute rhyme. That is, Chuck is probably the only person who would have latched onto my dropping the name as referring to someone in particular and not simply passed over it as silliness.
In other words: I can’t prove it, but unless I miss my guess, you are Chuck.
foxlemke
Your dictionary is insufficiently clear. When a “begetting” takes place in the womb of a woman [Mat 1.20] and when at the same time the woman is said to be “conceiving a son”, these two facts bring on board Isa 7; 9.
To “beget” in these context is perfectly clear. It refers to the “coming into existence” of the one being “begotten”.
I refer you to the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology under gennao:
C. S. Lewis is simply waffling about words. He is the one who uttered the dangerous untruth that “the gospel is not in the gospels”. The art of good theology is to find out who is telling the truth.
Thanks for writing.