Is the trinity "extra-biblical"

[Ryan07]

"And God is only a relationship if there are at least 2 'eternal' partners involved."
It seems like the eternal life we have in God and our relationship with him is sufficient qualification.

[darinhouston]

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).

I understand the majority of those at Nicea actually did not believe in the Holy Spirit as a third person but were so much greater motivated by their alignment against Arius that they found unity in their divisive alignment against him. I have seen Eusebius quoted in this regard but haven't been able to find any definitive reference. I have little respect for politics like this (particularly after reading what I have read of Arius' actual surviving writings - as well as servetus), and even Protestants seem to be so clouded by tradition that it colors even those honestly seeking their own answers. It's a powerful thing to overcome but it means little to me (other than giving me serious pause). Given the dynamics as I understand them from Nicea, however, it just doesn't have the authority it seems to have for others.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mattrose]

"And God is only a relationship if there are at least 2 'eternal' partners involved."
It seems like the eternal life we have in God and our relationship with him is sufficient qualification.

Before I critique your statement, I want to know what you mean.

Are you saying that it is enough for God to love creation in order to make him relational?

or

Are you saying that since we were in the mind of God 'eternally,' that qualifies as him being inherently relational?

or

Something else entirely?

[mattrose]

I understand the majority of those at Nicea actually did not believe in the Holy Spirit as a third person but were so much greater motivated by their alignment against Arius that they found unity in their divisive alignment against him. I have seen Eusebius quoted in this regard but haven't been able to find any definitive reference. I have little respect for politics like this (particularly after reading what I have read of Arius' actual surviving writings - as well as servetus), and even Protestants seem to be so clouded by tradition that it colors even those honestly seeking their own answers. It's a powerful thing to overcome but it means little to me (other than giving me serious pause). Given the dynamics as I understand them from Nicea, however, it just doesn't have the authority it seems to have for others.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Of course, I'd be interested in reading anything you find

[Ryan07]

Well what I wrote made sense to me(although I didn't expect it to for anyone else) and this seems the closest correlation: Are you saying that since we were in the mind of God 'eternally,' that qualifies as him being inherently relational?
You said that it requires two eternal beings to create the relationship wherein you refer to God as 'relational' and I simply believe that the eternal life he gives us allows us to qualify and thus does not require a trinity or binity. I do not place any restrictions on whether or not that means we have always in that sense existed eternally with God, nor would I disqualify a codependent relationship. For instance if God extends to me eternal life past this one I do not know whether or not that includes the past eternity of God or the future as it would seem to be all inclusive. This is way more speculation than I intended to do on this point so all I can say is those were good questions thanks.

[mattrose]

Fair enough. Thanks for responding.

Personally, I don't feel like knowing other 'persons' would eventually exist is enough to make one relational. I don't think the fact that we enter into 'eternal' life makes our existence prior to our conception in any sense 'actual.'

I do think that if God is truly a relational being, the best explanation for that fact is that there is relationship built into the very nature of God. This may not be the ONLY explanation, but I do think it is the best one. And I'm not sure why it should be avoided since it has Scriptural warrant, traditional support, is plausible, and is the way God has been revealed in history.

[Ryan07]

I suppose if he wasn't a relational being we would have no way of knowing about him since it is generally agreed that exposure to his total presence would destroy us.

[TheEditor]

Hi Matt,

You wrote:

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.

Of course. But that's what makes it so fun.

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).

True.

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.

I don't have any problem with this point of view per se. But let me give you a bit of where I am coming from.

As a third generation true-beliveing JW, I spent countless hours arguing theology, eschatolgy, soteriology, and any other ology you can think of, with others that "claimed" to be Chrisitian. Of course they weren't (from my JW perspective) because they weren't JWs. And besides, even if true Christians could be found outside of the WT organization, they needed to have those "bullet points" of belief "correct" in order for God to be well pleased with them.

It took me about 3 years to go from believing that academic belief-holding was an absolute must, to thinking it was somewhat relative. For you, and others of like mind, perhaps this doping out of the nature of God in the esoteric sense is of greater importance in Maslow's heirarchy of theology (to co-opt a term) then for others. For me, beliefs regarding what a doctrine says about God's personality always seemed more important. So, believing that God has Satan roast people for eternity, seems a bit more dishonoring than whether He is Triune or not.

Now, I find the discussion interesting, but my passions are only stirred if I run across someone that says that you need to believe (or not believe) the trinity to be a Christian.

You have a far more generous view of how people come by their theology than I do it seems. Most people do exactly what you say you don't; back-engineer the Scriptures to suit their pre-accepted theological paradigm. When I was debating the trinity at the door, I frequently had to remind the householder of how the doctrine actually read, so that I could explain to them why I disagreed to what they believed, since they didn't have it right. When I was leaving the JWs, the same dynamic was there--I had to tell people what they were supposed to affirm, so that I could tell them why I disagreed. It all became and becomes quite crazy-making.

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

But, wait Brenden:
Any form of teaching can become seemingly crazy when you have two diametrically opposed doctrines. For example; it becomes ‘difficult’ when explaining that: we are all sinners - that Jesus is the only way - that the Pope is not the leader of the Church - that Mary is not to be prayed to - that Joseph Smith was not a true Prophet – etc.
I spent hours within and out of my Mormon cult trying to show many things also, but it only strengthened my faith and made the truth all the more obvious and lovable. I never felt there was a moment of wasted time, rather the opposite. The hardness seemed always to be within men’s hearts, not because the bible was ‘difficult’. There always seemed to be an extra-biblical ‘motivation’ that led them to not 'believe' the scriptures plain reasoning.

The Witnesses fought tooth and nail to ‘hold’ to the Witness ‘view’ of the Trinity, it was not ‘reason’ that kept them there. I.e. I never got a reasonable answer to; There is only One true God, and if Jesus is ‘a’ God, and Jehovah is God, then you have two Gods, right?
What was your answer then, and what is your answer now?

I am not trying to corner you, just reason it out, from one bible student to another

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

You said:

I spent hours within and out of my Mormon cult trying to show many things also, but it only strengthened my faith and made the truth all the more obvious and lovable. I never felt there was a moment of wasted time, rather the opposite. The hardness seemed always to be within men’s hearts, not because the bible was ‘difficult’. There always seemed to be an extra-biblical ‘motivation’ that led them to not 'believe' the scriptures plain reasoning.

The Witnesses fought tooth and nail to ‘hold’ to the Witness ‘view’ of the Trinity, it was not ‘reason’ that kept them there. I.e. I never got a reasonable answer to; There is only One true God, and if Jesus is ‘a’ God, and Jehovah is God, then you have two Gods, right?
What was your answer then, and what is your answer now?

I am not trying to corner you, just reason it out, from one bible student to another

I don't feel that I "wasted my time" per se; there are things that I should have done (for example, get an education to earn a better living); I have had my "I shoulda had a V-8" moments to be sure.

Of course, you pose a fair question. The problem is, as you likely are aware since you (by your admission) "fought tooth and nail" with JWs, their are a myriad of similar "conundrum" questions for the trinitarian. Trying to find satisfactory answers to "conundrum" questions, I believe, largely led to the formation of creeds and counter-creeds, and I'm not sure if that was a good thing. Would any purpose be served by dragging out the old "war horse" verses like, "Did I not say 'All ye are Gods'"?? No, not this kid....

But I will answer this; I believe that there is something unique in the relationship between the Father and the Son, that only the Father and Son (and perhaps the heavenly host) can fully comprehend. All human efforts, whether they be closer or further from the truth, are mere vapors of human intelligence. "The Lord knows us, that we are but flesh". I can't see it being a cosmic score card of doctrinal apprehensions.

Sometimes, JR, you just have to shut off the engineers brain. One Bible student to another....

Regards, Brenden.