Is the trinity "extra-biblical"

[Paidion]

For myself, I believe Jesus is God and there is only one God. Yet I believe God manifested Himself as the Son whereas at a time previous Jesus was the Word and was not the Son. And I tend to believe Jesus appeared as the Angel of the Lord in OT times. So what am I?

If you believe that Jesus is the one and only God, Yahweh, who was born on earth as the Son of God, and who, in His humanity could pray to His spirtual Being in heaven, which Being is also the Holy Spirit, then you are a Modalist.

I have no idea why you don't "buy" my statement that when Modalists say, "Jesus is God", they mean that He is the One and Only divine Individual. I occasionally attend a Modalist church and I KNOW exactly what they mean when they say "Jesus is God". They have explained it often enough.

[TheEditor]

Hi Phil,

You asked,

Brenden, how do you understand the command Jesus gave in Matthew 28:19-20?

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Good question. I always like to start by considering what something doesn't mean, and what problems could be present if it means what it doesn't mean. Clear as mud?

First, it does not mean the Personal Pronoun of the Father , Son and Holy Spirit. If it did, then we run into problems. First, Jehovah (or Yahweh if you prefer) appears to be the personal pronoun for God the Father in the OT. Yes, I know some believe this was Jesus. I'm skeptical. So, we have the Father (Jehovah), the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit (name withheld).

I tend, rather, to view this as instructions to baptize "in the name of" in the sense of "by the power of" or "the authoruty of". Similar to the concept of operating as one being granted status as an ambassador or similar. In this case we have disciples that now have God as their Father, the Son as Lord and the Holy Spirit as "Helper" because they are grafted into God's family.

Does this make sense?


Regards, Brenden.

[Homer]

Brenden,

You wrote:

I tend, rather, to view this as instructions to baptize "in the name of" in the sense of "by the power of" or "the authoruty of".

But there is no "in" (en) in the Greek. It is "into" (eis) so it does not seem to me that it can mean what you are saying. But "into" makes sense if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share, in some manner, the same name or personage.

If you have a Greek concordance such as Wigrams you can see how Matthew used the word "eis".

[TheEditor]

Hi Homer,

I don't know. Here's what Strong's says:

eis
ice

"A primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases.: - [abundant-] ly, against, among, as, at, [back-] ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for [intent, purpose], fore, + forth, in (among, at unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-) on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore (-unto), throughout, till, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-) until (-to), . . . ward, [where-] fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literally or figuratively."

It seems the word can be used a variety of ways. Being a former JW, I came from a tradition of making far too much out of Greek prepositions--building entire doctrinal frameworks on them in fact. Can't go there anymore.

Regards, Brenden.

[Singalphile]

And this would be a fair point for consideration, had Phillip said "Show us God". But he didn't, he said "Show us the Father". And, trinitarians believe that the Personhood of the Father is distinct from the Personhood of the Son. In this case, Jesus was actually saying "If you have seen the Person of the Son you have seen the Person of the Father" And then he goes on to mention the "union" between the Father and Son that is also mentioned in the passage you quoted.

Interesting observation.

[mattrose]

It is, of course, easier to critique an attempted explanation of the biblical data pertaining to the nature of God than it is to posit one.

But the fact of the matter is... God is real. And some theory (whether it is one currently being discussed or not) is true about God. There is an actual relationship b/w God the Father and Jesus Christ. And there is an actual relationship b/w God the Father and the Holy Spirit (and, of course, Jesus and the Holy Spirit).

Because we can't know for absolute sure what the REALITY is, some would rather not speculate too much. But others would argue that our calling is to pursue greater and greater knowledge of God. It seems to me that the proper balance, here, is to be passionate about pursuing the right understanding of God while simultaneously acknowledging that our current understandings are potentially flawed.

For my part, I think the theory that comes closest to accounting for all the relevant revelation is a doctrine that sees relationship built into the very nature of God.

[darinhouston]

Matt, why do you think there is a difference between the Father and the Spirit? If the Father is Spirit, then what's the difference? It seems to me, God was with us in the garden, then he had to be with us in things like clouds and fire and then could be with us in the Temple and then was with is in the person of Jesus, and now is with us in the body of Christ working in and through the church and again will be with us as all as he was in the garden. Isn't that mystery lost when we try to reduce God to a formula of distinct persons ala the Trinity?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mattrose]

Isn't that mystery lost when we try to reduce God to a formula of distinct persons ala the Trinity?

I guess that is a key difference b/w how you seem to view the subject of the trinity and how I view it.

It seems you view it as an attempt to dissect God

I view it as a way of understanding what it means to say that God is love. I know that God is love via Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. And, for me, only a God who IS relationship makes much sense of that fact.

I think you think all trinitarians start with the trinity and try to get all the Scriptures to fit in that construct. I think how it happened in history (and I know how it happened for me) is the opposite. The doctrine of the trinity didn't create a new thought about God. Revelation led to the doctrine of the trinity.

As for the 'Spirit' in particular... To be honest, I don't feel the need to strongly argue that point. It is enough for me to argue that God is, by very nature, a relational being.

[darinhouston]

Then you would be comfortable with a binity? I have no problem with the eternal relationship issue. It's the trinity formulation that seems artificial. Why is the HS a separate person? Why is the Word not? Why the eternality of the Son? These are important to consider - not so important to decide. But deciding them and insisting that they are primary, doctrinally, does require argument and defense. (Not that you do so).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mattrose]

Then you would be comfortable with a binity?

Comfortable to fellowship with someone with that view? Sure.
Comfortable to take the view myself? Only if I were persuaded

I have no problem with the eternal relationship issue.

Since you (below) raise the question of the eternality of the Son, I think we may disagree on whether you have a problem with the eternal relationship issue. Unless you are just talking about whether or not He always existed as the Son (a question I consider of little importance). The issue, for me, is whether or not God is, by very nature, a relationship. I consider the YES answer to that question quite important to theology.

It's the trinity formulation that seems artificial.

Well, the 'trinity formulation' certainly is artificial (man-made). But my earlier point was that it either IS or IS NOT true. SOMETHING is true about God's makeup. And it's too easy, I think, for people to criticize the trinitarian formulation without also positing a better argued alternative. I think we're on the same page as to the lack of certainty surrounding it, though.

Why is the HS a separate person?

I don't consider myself to be a person governed by church tradition. But I am a Wesleyan... and we have this thing called 'The Wesleyan Quadrilateral.' We believe that truth is discovered via Scripture and that reason, tradition, and experience are helpful (albeit secondary) sources of information (and that they help us interpret Scripture). To me, I tend to think that the church didn't haphazardly land on three. It's not like they argued intensively for Jesus' deity and then said "well, why not add another?" The Scriptures certainly COULD be interpreted in a trinitarian way and the fact that the fairly early church DID come to interpret it that way should be thoughtfully considered (and I know you have and do thoughtfully consider it).

Why is the Word not?

The Word is.

Why the eternality of the Son?

This goes back to my biggest reason for defending the Trinity (or binity) formulation of God. I believe that the world which exists makes the most sense if the God who made it is a relationship. And God is only a relationship if there are at least 2 'eternal' partners involved.

These are important to consider - not so important to decide.

Agreed.

But deciding them and insisting that they are primary, doctrinally, does require argument and defense. (Not that you do so).

Agreed.