The images are not showing up anymore!

Something occurred to me as I was reading mbaker’s statement:

“However, there is certainly a good case for a triune God, who exists in three separate and distinct persons, yet who is also one, something which is well documented in the Bible, by whatever name we choose to call it.”

When we use the word “yet” in the proposition that God exists in 3 separate and distinct persons, YET…

I say get rid of this YET or BUT idea and use AND.

So that you end up with something like: The Godhead has 3 separate and distinct persons, AND these persons comprise one Godhead.

The problem comes when we try to use the terminology of “one God” apart from its complex biblical development. God is ‘one,’ but so was Adam and Eve. If you use the phrase “God is one” be sure to unpack what that means.

To say that “God is one YET three” is to commit a fallacy known as equivocation. You are using the number ‘three’ in a numerical sense, while using ‘one’ in a relational sense (as Adam and Eve were one).

I am finding this whole discussion of the Trinity fascinating. It occurs to me that this ongoing argument is precisely the reason why so many Christians were horribly offended by The Shack, while others said it was an admirable attempt. The thing is, orthodox Christians have a heck of a time describing the Trinity, even though most of them agree that it is an important doctrine. As Michael said (in his earlier post), as soon as you say “I’ve got it!” you’ve probably actually settled on one or the other heresy. Is it any wonder that the author of The Shack was almost immediately excoriated as a heretic?

“O magnum mysterium,” as the old Latin hymn goes. (Actually, that hymn is about the mystery of the Incarnation, but the Incarnation is part and parcel of the mystery of the Trinity, isn’t it?)

Many scholars say there are problems proving the Bible really endorsed a Trinity.

1) Of course, it never used the word.

2) The Trinity note, includes Father, Son, Holy Spirit; but not directly oddly enough, “God.” No doubt we think its implied behind all three. But perhaps the apparent omission was deliberate; as many Christians try to slip by the Old Testament “God,” in favor of the New Testament, Jesus’ “father,” himself as “son,” and the “advocate” or some say, spirit. But if so, then the Trinity is Marcionism, Gnosticism, by the back door.

3) Then too, though at times Jesus and the father are “one,” other times Jesus strongly defers to his father. Suggesting a hierarchy.

4) Jesus asks his father why he abandoned him; suggesting not a perfect unity at all.

5) Etc.. See many other, much better online resources, questioning the validity of the concept of the Trinity.

6) Some think, outside the framework of the Bible, that the “father” might often refer to Jesus’ own actual human father at times, Joseph in heaven; or the father of the Jews, Abraham. Or some other biological father. Since Mary was pregnant when she was betrothed to Joseph.

Jeffrey said:

“Theology’s treatment of reason is like a judge who legitimately backs up his judgments with evidence half the time, and the other half admits openly that the judgment is despite the evidence. This isn’t a partial acceptance of evidence. This is a complete rejection of evidence.”

I believe your own treatment of reason is a little off there, or possibly your math, lol.

Certainly there are many gray areas of theology, to be specific: things which the Bible doesn’t explicitly call by name, or completely explain in detail. However, there is certainly a good case for a triune God, who exists in three separate and distinct persons, yet who is also one, something which is well documented in the Bible, by whatever name we choose to call it.

Because we don’t completely understand it, I hardly think we can dismiss it simply by saying theology, in and of of itself is half right, half wrong, and draw the conclusion that one cancels the other out. Using that premise, we could just as well well make the argument that the evidence presented at a trial would be cancelled out by either the prosecution or the defense being half right or half wrong. Both are probably a little bit of both. Yet, sound theology demands a verdict, and in reaching it, we draw conclusions based on acting upon the best available information we have, not on what we don’t. That is, until we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise.

What always bothered me about the Trinity is it’s implications to thinking through other theological concepts. How should this sentence be completed: “Theological claim X doesn’t make sense not matter how you look at it, therefore …” In the context of the Trinity, it has to be “therefore it’s a mystery.” The Trinity is a A = B, B = C, and yet A does not equal C.

But in other contexts, the idea that something “doesn’t make sense” is seen as proof that it’s false. And in those contexts, it just seems so irrefutably logical. For instance:

“God chose us not based on foreknowledge of our choices. The causal difference between the saved and the unsaved is what God chose and not what we choose to believe. But man is responsible because the causal difference is what people choose because every man is born with the potential to choose either way.”

Whether or not this is an accurate description of Calvinism/Arminianism even with the insertion of the word “causal” is beside the point. (Is it hypercalvinism/semi-Pelaginaism? If so, the point stands.) The two statements contradict so both sides effortlessly see that one or both must be false. Even though it would quite conveniently be consistent with every verse on salvation even when taken at face value. Or at least “consistent” in the sense that verses about how A = B, B = C, and A is not equal to C are consistent.

But once you’ve thrown out “looking like a logical inconsistency even under closer inspection” as a valid means for determining if something is a logical inconsistency, you’ve opened the door to throwing out reason whenever it leads to a position that you either don’t like, or is inconsistent with your theology. All it takes is the word “mystery.”

Theology’s treatment of reason is like a judge who legitimately backs up his judgments with evidence half the time, and the other half admits openly that the judgment is despite the evidence. This isn’t a partial acceptance of evidence. This is a complete rejection of evidence.

I have used the connection of us being created in God’s image, “Let Us Make Man In Our Image”, as the man being Body, Soul & Spirit as God is Spirit, Soul & Body. Is this wrong and if so, in what way. I feel no explaination is totally right. Therefore the mystery of God.

“I am not saying that an understanding of the Trinity is what is important (as no one can understand), but a proper belief about the Trinity is.”

Amen, CMP!

CMP,

Yes I think correct belief on the Trinity is important, just not sure how much.

Again, I don’t see Christ, the apostles or the early church fathers stressing a correct view of the Trinity in their writings. How would you explain this lack of teaching on the subject if it is so important?

I am not sure that talking about “essence” really clears things up, particularly because it is so difficult to define what “essence” is. You say that it is the stuff that God is made up of. I think the point is to say that it is the stuff that makes God God and not anything else, and that Jesus shares in this. But this still doesn’t make them one God. All you are saying is that they are idential, like twins. Two Gods (three including the Spirit), equal in standing and in composition. But this does not make them one being.

I’m not arguing for tritheism. I’m just playing devil’s advocate here. I’m saying that perhaps talking about “essence” isn’t such a salient factor as you suggest.

I’m am curious. Have you read Richard Bauckham’s work on Christology? I’ve found it to be very interesting and helpful, and perhaps a good alternative to some more traditional ways of talking about the trinity.