Trinity

[Hawkins]

Besides the obvious fact that it is one of the main precepts of Christianity, what is the importance of believing in the Trinity? I've been thinking about this a lot lately and would like to hear your opinions.

It's not in the bible...at all. If God intended it to be a "main precept", He would have mentioned it, at least once. The doctrine is man made, 3rd century written, and the apostles never heard of the word trinity, so how central can it be?

Christianity is basically a relationship with God. These days He will inform His sheep about who He is.

It is said "Jesus is God" is directly written in the Bible. It is also said that "immortal soul" is not written in the Bible. Yet they are main precept concepts which second born Christian and God's church on earth will understand.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Hawkins

[Guest shiloh357]

Besides the obvious fact that it is one of the main precepts of Christianity, what is the importance of believing in the Trinity? I've been thinking about this a lot lately and would like to hear your opinions.

Well for one thing, it refutes the teachings of certain cults that teach that the Holy Spirit is not a person. The Bible clearly establishes that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God AND that all three are persons in that they display personable attributes. The Yahwist cult (those who believe you can only be saved by calling on "Yahweh" and not "Jesus") hold to the view that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but an impersonal force, and for that reason, they reject the Trinity.

Other cults reject the Trinity because they reject the Deity of Jesus.

The argument that the Bible does not specifically mention the Trinity is an empty argument. The Bible also does not mention grandfathers. Should we assume that grandfathers are not in the Bible??? The Bible does not mention "legalism" yet we constantly use Scripture to define what legalism is.

Just because something is not mentioned by a particular modern term, does not it does not exist conceptually in the text. The reason "Trinity" does not appear in the Biblical text is that it is a Latin/Anglicized term used by a post biblical community to express what they saw in the Bible. It is not a term that in any way contradicts or violates any biblical teachings.

[Botz]

Just because something is not mentioned by a particular modern term, does not it does not exist conceptually in the text. The reason "Trinity" does not appear in the Biblical text is that it is a Latin/Anglicized term used by a post biblical community to express what they saw in the Bible. It is not a term that in any way contradicts or violates any biblical teachings.

Do you ever feel there has been a tendency to over-promote the term Trinity, so that people who do not immediately grasp the full intent of the term are deemed 'off' or border-line heretics.

I ask because in my experience the revelation of G-d to each of us is ongoing...we are saved and sealed, but can at varying times misunderstand the revelation He has given us of Himself....and that in many ways He is a G-d who hides Himself, and has chosen us to live by faith within a certain limited framework of revelation.

Personally I prefer to circum-navigate doctrines such as the Trinity...even though there does not appear to be anything contrary to Scripture...I just feel uneasy relying on something that can be so mis-understood and although it has helped safe-guard the truth contained in Scripture, has also by its very name, instigated division.

[Guest shiloh357]

Do you ever feel there has been a tendency to over-promote the term Trinity, so that people who do not immediately grasp the full intent of the term are deemed 'off' or border-line heretics.

Yes, but that stems from perhaps from not discerning the difference between those who reject the Trinity for genuinely heretical reasons, vs. those who simply have not been taught what the Bible reveals about the Godhead. I think I have even been guilty of that in the past, unfortunately. But having said that, it does not mean there is a problem with the Trinity teaching itself, but with its communicators.

I ask because in my experience the revelation of G-d to each of us is ongoing...we are saved and sealed, but can at varying times misunderstand the revelation He has given us of Himself....and that in many ways He is a G-d who hides Himself, and has chosen us to live by faith within a certain limited framework of revelation.

Yes, but misunderstanding can be educated by further study. My life is one of constant changing and tweeking. I don't believe exactly like I did 5-10 years ago. I continue to learn and God continues to reveal. God only gives us so much light and we get more light only has we continue down the path. I can imagine that 10 years from now, I will have tweeked my theology to adjust for new things I have learned. What I misunderstand today, I will understand better tomorrow and on from there.

Personally I prefer to circum-navigate doctrines such as the Trinity...even though there does not appear to be anything contrary to Scripture...I just feel uneasy relying on something that can be so mis-understood and although it has helped safe-guard the truth contained in Scripture, has also by its very name, instigated division.

There is nothing in the Bible about which we are not prone to misunderstand. The fact that is misunderstood by others should not cause me to avoid to understand it to the extent it is possible within the faculties I possess to understand and even then I might get some things wrong in the process, hence the need to constantly renew the mind in Scriptures. "The entrance of thy Word bringeth light" as the Bible says.

I would also add that I don't think it is possible to fully understand the relationship of the persons of the Godhead. Believing is one thing. Understanding is another. I don't understand a lot of things about God, but I believe them because the Bible says they are true. The Bible says there is one God, yet the Bible teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are individually and collectively, "God." I don't understand that, but I believe it.

[lekh l'kha]

The argument that the Bible does not specifically mention the Trinity is an empty argument. The Bible also does not mention grandfathers. Should we assume that grandfathers are not in the Bible??? The Bible does not mention "legalism" yet we constantly use Scripture to define what legalism is.

I still think that it has caused many spiritually honest Jews and Muslims (probably tens of thousands over the centuries, if not more) to reject the gospel out of hand before considering the gospel message any further, because they see the words "persons" (plural) and "Trinity" as referring to three Gods, and not one; and it does not matter how much we try to "educate" them about the Trinity - many, many Christians don't understand it (I don't - I simply accept that there are three that bear witness in heaven - the Father, the Word and the Spirit), so how much less will Jewish and Muslim non-Christians understand it?

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (1Ti 3:16)

It just seems to me as though the educated theologians of 2nd, 3rd and 4th century Christendom simply could not accept that God cannot be defined in human language - they just had to work out a "definition" of God. And then there was a lot of squabbling about whether or not the "doctrine of the Trinity" should be canonized before it ever was canonized.

I think a human attempt to thrash out a "definition" of God (the Trinity) is a far more serious business than working out whether or not the Bible speaks about grandfathers.

[B3L13v3R]

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[Guest shiloh357]

I still think that it has caused many spiritually honest Jews and Muslims (probably tens of thousands over the centuries, if not more) to reject the gospel out of hand before considering the gospel message any further, because they see the words "persons" (plural) and "Trinity" as referring to three Gods, and not one; and it does not matter how much we try to "educate" them about the Trinity - many, many Christians don't understand it (I don't - I simply accept that there are three that bear witness in heaven - the Father, the Word and the Spirit), so how much less will Jewish and Muslim non-Christians understand it?

Jewish people have a variety of reasons for why they reject the gospel as do Muslims. The fact is they can take anything from the New Testament and use it as a reason to reject it. The NT's teaching on Orginal Sin is another one they reject. There are others, as well. That has no bearing on the accuracy or veracity of trinitarian teaching. We cannot change the text of Scripture in an attempt to make Bible fit within a framework they are willing to accept (I realize you are not suggesting that we should do that).

It just seems to me as though the educated theologians of 2nd, 3rd and 4th century Christendom simply could not accept that God cannot be defined in human language - they just had to work out a "definition" of God.

The doctrine of theTrinity does not define God, per se. It encapsulates the mystery of the Godhead.

I think a human attempt to thrash out a "definition" of God (the Trinity) is a far more serious business than working out whether or not the Bible speaks about grandfathers.

But that misses the point. The point is that the Trinity IS in the NT and it is worked out for us in the character and operations of the Godhead, even if it is not called "The Trinity." That is why it is not an extrabiblical teaching. The same rule applies for grandfathers and legalism.

[Rick-Parker]

The argument that the Bible does not specifically mention the Trinity is an empty argument. The Bible also does not mention grandfathers. Should we assume that grandfathers are not in the Bible??? The Bible does not mention "legalism" yet we constantly use Scripture to define what legalism is.

I still think that it has caused many spiritually honest Jews and Muslims (probably tens of thousands over the centuries, if not more) to reject the gospel out of hand before considering the gospel message any further, because they see the words "persons" (plural) and "Trinity" as referring to three Gods, and not one; and it does not matter how much we try to "educate" them about the Trinity - many, many Christians don't understand it (I don't - I simply accept that there are three that bear witness in heaven - the Father, the Word and the Spirit), so how much less will Jewish and Muslim non-Christians understand it?

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (1Ti 3:16)

It just seems to me as though the educated theologians of 2nd, 3rd and 4th century Christendom simply could not accept that God cannot be defined in human language - they just had to work out a "definition" of God. And then there was a lot of squabbling about whether or not the "doctrine of the Trinity" should be canonized before it ever was canonized.

I think a human attempt to thrash out a "definition" of God (the Trinity) is a far more serious business than working out whether or not the Bible speaks about grandfathers.

Muslims don't even believe that God has a Son, let alone the Holy Spirit. So don't bring them into this. Theirs is the religion of Satan.

[Botz]

Do you ever feel there has been a tendency to over-promote the term Trinity, so that people who do not immediately grasp the full intent of the term are deemed 'off' or border-line heretics.

Yes, but that stems from perhaps from not discerning the difference between those who reject the Trinity for genuinely heretical reasons, vs. those who simply have not been taught what the Bible reveals about the Godhead. I think I have even been guilty of that in the past, unfortunately. But having said that, it does not mean there is a problem with the Trinity teaching itself, but with its communicators.

I ask because in my experience the revelation of G-d to each of us is ongoing...we are saved and sealed, but can at varying times misunderstand the revelation He has given us of Himself....and that in many ways He is a G-d who hides Himself, and has chosen us to live by faith within a certain limited framework of revelation.

Yes, but misunderstanding can be educated by further study. My life is one of constant changing and tweeking. I don't believe exactly like I did 5-10 years ago. I continue to learn and God continues to reveal. God only gives us so much light and we get more light only has we continue down the path. I can imagine that 10 years from now, I will have tweeked my theology to adjust for new things I have learned. What I misunderstand today, I will understand better tomorrow and on from there.

Personally I prefer to circum-navigate doctrines such as the Trinity...even though there does not appear to be anything contrary to Scripture...I just feel uneasy relying on something that can be so mis-understood and although it has helped safe-guard the truth contained in Scripture, has also by its very name, instigated division.

There is nothing in the Bible about which we are not prone to misunderstand. The fact that is misunderstood by others should not cause me to avoid to understand it to the extent it is possible within the faculties I possess to understand and even then I might get some things wrong in the process, hence the need to constantly renew the mind in Scriptures. "The entrance of thy Word bringeth light" as the Bible says.

I would also add that I don't think it is possible to fully understand the relationship of the persons of the Godhead. Believing is one thing. Understanding is another. I don't understand a lot of things about God, but I believe them because the Bible says they are true. The Bible says there is one God, yet the Bible teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are individually and collectively, "God." I don't understand that, but I believe it.

Again we are in agreement here... and you express the same understanding in your own inimitable way...I just prefer to be less focused on the Trinity and to continue to be awed by the continuous revelation of G-d to me personally in line with Scripture and through the direction of His Spirit...and like you say, to be constantly renewed in our minds concerning our faith and the way we not only perceive Him, but subsequently continue to seek, follow and obey.

I do think there might be a case for the whole 'Trinity' issue to have caused unnecessary division, and hastened the separation between believing Jews and believing Gentiles...and as Yod mentioned in another thread the way the word 'Church' substituted for the more gereralized meaning of 'ekklasia'...it does strike me as odd that the whole Trinity teaching should emerge at this particular time in history, and presumably under the jurisdiction of so-called Church Fathers, some with a decidedly anti-Semitic streak, and a Roman Emperor intent on politicising Christianity for the masses.

The troubling thing, and I must admit I cannot really put my finger on it, is that this doctrine is attempting to safe-guard what is revealed in Scripture, and to make a theological stance against those teachings that try to chip away at foundational teaching on the person and nature of G-d....and yet something still irks me about it.

[Guest shiloh357]

I do think there might be a case for the whole 'Trinity' issue to have caused unnecessary division, and hastened the separation between believing Jews and believing Gentiles...

Yes, but I don't think it was the Trinity issue that caused the division between believing Jews and Gentiles (I am assuming you are referring to the Council of Nicea). It has always been my understanding that it was the rejection of all traditions that were Jewish in flavor such as the Passover, in favor of Gentile holidays that had been repackaged as Christian holidays, such as Easter, Christmas, etc. that was at the heart of the division. Rome, even though it adopted Christianity did not cast off its anti-Semitic feelings, and in the years to come, projected those feelings on to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

and as Yod mentioned in another thread the way the word 'Church' substituted for the more gereralized meaning of 'ekklasia'...it does strike me as odd that the whole Trinity teaching should emerge at this particular time in history, and presumably under the jurisdiction of so-called Church Fathers, some with a decidedly anti-Semitic streak, and a Roman Emperor intent on politicising Christianity for the masses.

Well, to be fair to the Council of Nicea, not everything that was decided there was necessarily bad, as they also established that the Scriptures held to the Deity of Jesus. Yet, in spite of some good things that were decided, there was also a very dark side to this gathering.

I am not in any way justifying Constantine, as I am not really convinced the man was a genuinely saved follower of Christ given his stated hatred of Jews, whom he referred to as "vermin."