God is Love and the Trinity

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by psimmond » Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:31 am

darinhouston wrote:
I think there are unitarian and bintarian sounding verses, but don't recall any trinitarian sounding verses (apart from some textual variants). I agree it doesn't resolve the issue and seems to suggest there isn't enough certainty around this greatest of all mysteries about the existential nature (vs. character) of God. So, I fail to see why it has to be such a touchstone of authentic Christianity (not just orthodoxy).

If it was important for us to believe, it would have been clearly taught. It is enough for me to know that God is God and that His Son (whether pre-existent or eternal or part of a God-head of sorts) is Lord over all, including me, and whether He created the universe, all material and spiritual existence, or just the New Creation, He is my Lord and is for all practical and spiritual and real purposes to be praised and adored because God said so. Whether that's because of His own existential nature or by way of agency or familial authority, it matters not to me His servant and subject. His authority is quite clear, and it is not for us to try and define the limits of His authority or its derivation. If there's ever been a place to say it, I say "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Defining it is above our pay grade.
I agree 100%, and I also think mattrose makes a great point about unitarian worship vs unitarian doctrine.
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by Homer » Sat Apr 01, 2017 12:28 pm

Hi Darin,

You wrote:

I think there are unitarian and bintarian sounding verses, but don't recall any trinitarian sounding verses (apart from some textual variants).

Matthew 28:19 (NASB)

19. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name (Grk. onoma) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,


Onoma here, being singular, would seem to be a clear Trinitarian reference. If they were separate individuals you would expect the plural onomata as in matthew 10:2:

Matthew 10:2 (NASB)

2. Now the names of the twelve apostles (onomata) are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother
; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
"According to Hebrew notions, a name is inseparable from the person to whom it belongs, i.e. it is something of his essence. Therefore, in the case of the God, it is specially sacred" (Souter).

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by psimmond » Sat Apr 01, 2017 1:06 pm

Homer, here is a unitarian response:
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/matthew-28-19

This could be one of those variants Darin referred to.
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by darinhouston » Sat Apr 01, 2017 4:38 pm

psimmond wrote:Homer, here is a unitarian response:
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/matthew-28-19

This could be one of those variants Darin referred to.
Yes, that is one indeed.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by darinhouston » Sat Apr 01, 2017 4:52 pm

mattrose wrote:While I disagree with your appraisal of the Scriptural revelation (I think something akin to 'the Trinity' doctrine is quite clear), it should be noted that when I defend 'the Trinity' and emphasize its importance for a consistent theology, I don't really have in mind people like you who recognize Jesus as Lord and worthy of worship. I am more concerned with unitarian worship than unitarian doctrine. My main issue with your position is that I don't think the story of salvation actually (consistently) works if Jesus isn't the God-man.
I respect that a great deal. However, I don't agree as to the story of salvation, and the fact that even you have to say "something akin to the Trinity" does sort of make the point as to it not being clearly taught (certainly as compared to other clearly essential doctrine and teaching which we find in clearly didactic texts.) I also think it makes much more coherent sense in the Unitarian (or at least Binitarian) view. Your point seems essentially to be a philosophical justification for the Trinity, based on a number of premises/assertions (though you haven't identified your own) which (not having heard them) I'm not sure are entirely reasonable (e.g., those surrounding transactional atonement theories). But, that sort of raises another issue -- you state that your view of the story of salvation only makes sense in light of the Trinity -- but, here you equate God-man with Trinity. That could equally be a Binity. While I often feel like a wavering fool trying to discern the nature of the relationship between the Son and the Father, I have a pretty strong conviction that the Holy Spirit lacks separate personality/personhood. And I haven't seen any meaningful positions other than personal pronoun usage supporting it. It is, in fact, my study of the Holy Spirit that led me to question the credal positions on the Trinity. I dare say (outside practicing professional or amateur theologians) I can't recall having met anyone (preacher or teacher or other) who is a strict and judgmental Trinitarian who by any appearance has thought more than a few moments about the "third person" of the Trinity. So, why can't they make the creeds about the Divinity of Christ and not the Trinity. It just seems like a blind spot and stronghold in the church, though it's certainly not a modern phenomena.

User avatar
21centpilgrim
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:17 pm

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by 21centpilgrim » Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:45 am

psimmond wrote:Hi 21centpilgrim,
You kind of lost me with this last comment. It seems you're driving at some point, but I'm not clear what it is. Are you saying that if God was morally pure prior to creation, i.e. he never did what he determined to be wrong, then he must also have been loving prior to creation? Or are you saying something else?
I was saying that God was holy prior to creation, you limited that to morally pure but not my intent to get sidetracked into the definition of 'holy' at this point. I was using this as an example, not to prove that must have been loving prior to creation but to show that God must have been more than only love prior to creation.

I hope that helps.
Then those who feared the LORD spoke with each other, and the LORD listened to what they said. In his presence, a scroll of remembrance was written to record the names of those who feared him and loved to think about him.

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by psimmond » Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:08 am

Hi 21centpilgrim,
Yeah, I certainly think it would be wrong to describe God as "only love" prior to creation, but I've never heard anyone do that. For example, in addition to being holy, I would also say he was omniscient and omnipotent prior to creation. (I'm not trying to present an exhaustive list of attributes here.)

Like I said earlier, I'm not sure it really makes sense to describe God as loving, merciful, just, etc. prior to creation (simply because these adjectives describe actions between two or more parties), but these are just my thoughts. :)
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by Homer » Sun Apr 02, 2017 5:06 pm

Seems to me we are getting off track discussing God being holy (hagios) prior to creation. I do not know how to make sense of it. If the word mainly references being set apart, being separated from sin and things that defile, how could God be said to be holy, or separated from these things if they did not exist prior to creation? There could be love among the triune God but with no Trinity (or Binity, if you wish) love in the Christian sense of agape would not be possible either.

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by psimmond » Sun Apr 02, 2017 6:15 pm

Homer, I agree that the set apart definition wouldn't come into play prior to creation but it seems the morally pure definition would apply.

I think you could argue (as some have) that love (agape) probably wouldn't apply prior to creation if God is one person, but could apply if God exists as a binity or trinity.
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: God is Love and the Trinity

Post by Homer » Sun Apr 02, 2017 6:34 pm

I think you could argue (as some have) that love (agape) probably wouldn't apply prior to creation if God is one person, but could apply if God exists as a binity or trinity.
Which takes us back to my point in the OP.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”